翻译中的迷失:在赞比亚开展传播和实施科学的主要经验教训。

Patricia Maritim, Margarate Nzala Munakampe, Mweete Nglazi, Chris Mweemba, Kombatende Sikombe, Wilson Mbewe, Adam Silumbwe, Choolwe Jacobs, Joseph Mumba Zulu, Michael Herce, Wilbroad Mutale, Hikabasa Halwindi
{"title":"翻译中的迷失:在赞比亚开展传播和实施科学的主要经验教训。","authors":"Patricia Maritim, Margarate Nzala Munakampe, Mweete Nglazi, Chris Mweemba, Kombatende Sikombe, Wilson Mbewe, Adam Silumbwe, Choolwe Jacobs, Joseph Mumba Zulu, Michael Herce, Wilbroad Mutale, Hikabasa Halwindi","doi":"10.1186/s43058-024-00663-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>As the field of implementation science continues to grow, its key concepts are being transferred into new contexts globally, such as Low and Middle Income Countries (LMICs), and its use is constantly being reexamined and expanded. Theoretical and methodological positions commonly used in implementation research and practice have great utility in our work but in many cases are at odds with LMIC contexts. As a team of implementation scientists based in Zambia, we offer this commentary as a critical self-reflection on what has worked and what could limit us from fully utilizing the field's promise for addressing health problems with contextual understanding.</p><p><strong>Main body: </strong>We used a 'premortem,' an approach used to generate potential alternatives from failed assumptions about a particular phenomenon, as a way to reflect on our experiences conducting implementation research and practice. By utilizing prospectively imagined hindsights, we were able to reflect on the past, present and possible future of the field in Zambia. Six key challenges identified were: (i) epistemic injustices; (ii) simplified conceptualizations of evidence-informed interventions; (iii) limited theorization of the complexity of low-resource contexts and it impacts on implementation; (iv) persistent lags in transforming research into practice; (v) limited focus on strategic dissemination of implementation science knowledge and (vi) existing training and capacity building initiatives' failure to engage a broad range of actors including practitioners through diverse learning models.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Implementation science offers great promise in addressing many health problems in Zambia. Through this commentary, we hope to spur discussions on how implementation scientists can reimagine the future of the field by contemplating on lessons from our experiences in LMIC settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":"5 1","pages":"121"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11520656/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lost in translation: key lessons from conducting dissemination and implementation science in Zambia.\",\"authors\":\"Patricia Maritim, Margarate Nzala Munakampe, Mweete Nglazi, Chris Mweemba, Kombatende Sikombe, Wilson Mbewe, Adam Silumbwe, Choolwe Jacobs, Joseph Mumba Zulu, Michael Herce, Wilbroad Mutale, Hikabasa Halwindi\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s43058-024-00663-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>As the field of implementation science continues to grow, its key concepts are being transferred into new contexts globally, such as Low and Middle Income Countries (LMICs), and its use is constantly being reexamined and expanded. Theoretical and methodological positions commonly used in implementation research and practice have great utility in our work but in many cases are at odds with LMIC contexts. As a team of implementation scientists based in Zambia, we offer this commentary as a critical self-reflection on what has worked and what could limit us from fully utilizing the field's promise for addressing health problems with contextual understanding.</p><p><strong>Main body: </strong>We used a 'premortem,' an approach used to generate potential alternatives from failed assumptions about a particular phenomenon, as a way to reflect on our experiences conducting implementation research and practice. By utilizing prospectively imagined hindsights, we were able to reflect on the past, present and possible future of the field in Zambia. Six key challenges identified were: (i) epistemic injustices; (ii) simplified conceptualizations of evidence-informed interventions; (iii) limited theorization of the complexity of low-resource contexts and it impacts on implementation; (iv) persistent lags in transforming research into practice; (v) limited focus on strategic dissemination of implementation science knowledge and (vi) existing training and capacity building initiatives' failure to engage a broad range of actors including practitioners through diverse learning models.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Implementation science offers great promise in addressing many health problems in Zambia. Through this commentary, we hope to spur discussions on how implementation scientists can reimagine the future of the field by contemplating on lessons from our experiences in LMIC settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73355,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Implementation science communications\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"121\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11520656/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Implementation science communications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-024-00663-z\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implementation science communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-024-00663-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:随着实施科学领域的不断发展,其关键概念正在全球范围内被应用到新的环境中,例如中低收入国家(LMICs),其应用也在不断地被重新审视和扩展。实施研究和实践中常用的理论和方法对我们的工作非常有用,但在很多情况下与低收入和中等收入国家的国情不符。作为一个以赞比亚为基地的实施科学家团队,我们在本评论中进行了批判性的自我反思,探讨了哪些方法行之有效,哪些方法可能会限制我们充分利用该领域的优势,通过对具体情况的了解来解决健康问题:我们采用了 "预审"(一种用于从对特定现象的失败假设中产生潜在替代方案的方法)作为反思我们开展实施研究和实践经验的一种方式。通过利用前瞻性的事后想象,我们能够反思赞比亚该领域的过去、现在和可能的未来。确定的六大挑战是(i) 认识上的不公正;(ii) 循证干预的简化概念;(iii) 对低资源环境的复杂性及其对实施的影响的理论化有限;(iv) 将研究转化为实践的持续滞后;(v) 对实施科学知识的战略传播的关注有限;(vi) 现有的培训和能力建设活动未能通过多样化的学习模式吸引包括实践者在内的广泛参与者:实施科学为解决赞比亚的许多健康问题带来了巨大希望。我们希望通过这篇评论,鼓励人们讨论实施科学家如何通过思考我们在低收入与中等收入国家环境中的经验教训,重新构想这一领域的未来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Lost in translation: key lessons from conducting dissemination and implementation science in Zambia.

Background: As the field of implementation science continues to grow, its key concepts are being transferred into new contexts globally, such as Low and Middle Income Countries (LMICs), and its use is constantly being reexamined and expanded. Theoretical and methodological positions commonly used in implementation research and practice have great utility in our work but in many cases are at odds with LMIC contexts. As a team of implementation scientists based in Zambia, we offer this commentary as a critical self-reflection on what has worked and what could limit us from fully utilizing the field's promise for addressing health problems with contextual understanding.

Main body: We used a 'premortem,' an approach used to generate potential alternatives from failed assumptions about a particular phenomenon, as a way to reflect on our experiences conducting implementation research and practice. By utilizing prospectively imagined hindsights, we were able to reflect on the past, present and possible future of the field in Zambia. Six key challenges identified were: (i) epistemic injustices; (ii) simplified conceptualizations of evidence-informed interventions; (iii) limited theorization of the complexity of low-resource contexts and it impacts on implementation; (iv) persistent lags in transforming research into practice; (v) limited focus on strategic dissemination of implementation science knowledge and (vi) existing training and capacity building initiatives' failure to engage a broad range of actors including practitioners through diverse learning models.

Conclusion: Implementation science offers great promise in addressing many health problems in Zambia. Through this commentary, we hope to spur discussions on how implementation scientists can reimagine the future of the field by contemplating on lessons from our experiences in LMIC settings.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信