Designing for dissemination among public health researchers: findings from a national survey in the United States
Open accessAbstract
Objectives. We have described the practice of designing for dissemination among researchers in the United States with the intent of identifying gaps and areas for improvement. Methods. In 2012, we conducted a cross-sectional study of 266 researchers using a search of the top 12 public health journals in PubMed and lists available from government-sponsored research. The sample involved scientists at universities, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States. Results. In the pooled sample, 73% of respondents estimated they spent less than 10% of their time on dissemination. About half of respondents (53%) had a person or team in their unit dedicated to dissemination. Seventeen percent of all respondents used a framework or theory to plan their dissemination activities. One third of respondents (34%) always or usually involved stakeholders in the research process. Conclusions. The current data and the existing literature suggest considerable room for improvement in designing for dissemination.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Some type 1 studies focus more intensely on implementability before the effectiveness trial begins by including dissemination and implementation components in the initial study design process.
“However, some type 1 studies are doing more intense focus on implementability in developing or adapting an intervention before the effectiveness trial begins by including dissemination and implementation components in the initial study design process (Brownson et al., 2013).”
From An introduction to effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs (2019) · cites this paper as Brownson et al., 2013
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 46 · Cited by 316
- Authors
- Brownson, R. C., Jacobs, J. A., Tabak, R. G., Hoehner, C. M., & Stamatakis, K. A.
- Affiliations
- Washington University in St. Louis (US)
- Venue
- American Journal of Public Health
- Publisher
- American Public Health Association
- Published
- 2013-09
- Volume
- 103
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1693-1699
- ISSN
- 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
- 1541-0048
- PMC
- PMC3966680
- OpenAlex
- W2159948545
- Cited by
- 316
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 21.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- American Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (KL2TR000450, UL1TR000448, TL1TR000449)
- National Cancer Institute (U54CA155496, U48/CA155496)
- National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P30DK092950)
- National Center for Research Resources
- National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (U48-DP-001903)
- National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
- Keywords
- research dissemination, public health research, dissemination strategy, stakeholder engagement, research translation
- MeSH terms
- Workforce, Cross-Sectional Studies, Humans, Public Health, Surveys and Questionnaires, Research Personnel, United States, Information Dissemination
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review