Communication and Dissemination Strategies to Facilitate the Use of Health-Related Evidence

McCormack, Lauren; Sheridan, Stacey; Lewis, Megan; Boudewyns, Vanessa; Melvin, Cathy L.; Kistler, Christine E.; Lux, Linda J; Cullen, Katherine; Lohr, Kathleen N

doi:10.23970/ahrqepcerta213

Cited by 113 publications

(130 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

124

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A 2013 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality report reviewing existing research on health research communication and dissemination strategies noted significant gaps in knowledge, some of which were related to the homogeneity of research methodologies often employed in this domain. 38 To address these gaps, the report recommends reliance upon “proven data collection methods that can include, but might go beyond, self-reported attitudes, levels of knowledge, and behaviors.” 38(p 120) For the specific domain of disseminating results to participants, we echo this recommendation. We advocate shifting the focus away from studies that document preferences and toward approaches that investigate (a) origins of participants’ expressed preferences, (b) how participants’ preferences are informed by knowledge about particular studies and about the research process in general, (c) whether and how participants intend to use—and then how they actually use—results from studies in which they participate, and (d) variations in satisfaction and impact of different dissemination approaches.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health research participants’ preferences for receiving research results

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Participants in health research studies typically express interest in receiving results from the studies in which they participate. However, participants’ preferences and experiences related to receiving results are not well understood. In general, existing studies have had relatively small sample sizes and typically address specific and often sensitive issues within targeted populations. Methods The present study used an online survey to explore attitudes and experiences of registrants in ResearchMatch, a large database of past, present, and potential health research participants. Survey respondents provided information related to whether or not they received research results from studies in which they participated, the methods used to communicate results, their satisfaction with results, and when and how they would like to receive research results from future studies. 70,699 ResearchMatch registrants were notified of the study’s topic. Of the 5,207 registrants who requested full information about the study, 3,381 respondents completed the survey. Results Approximately 33% of respondents with previous health research participation reported receiving results. Approximately half of respondents with previous research participation reported no opportunity to request results. However, almost all respondents said researchers should always or sometimes offer results to participants. Respondents expressed particular interest in results related to their (or a loved one's) health, as well as information about studies’ purposes and any medical advances based on the results. In general, respondents’ most preferred dissemination methods for results were email and website postings. The least desirable dissemination methods for results included Twitter, conference calls, and text messages. Across all results, we compare the responses of respondents with and without previous research participation experience, and those who have worked in research organizations vs. those who have not. Compared to respondents who have previous participation experience, a greater proportion of respondents with no participation experience indicated that results should always be shared with participants. Likewise, respondents with no participation experience placed higher importance on the receipt of each type of results information included in the survey. Conclusions We present findings from a survey assessing attitudes and experiences of a broad sample of respondents that addresses gaps in knowledge related to participants’ preferences for receiving results. The study’s findings highlight the potential for inconsistency between respondents’ expressed preferences to receive specific types of results via specific methods and researchers’ unwillingness or inability to provide them. We present specific recommendations to shift the approach of new studies to investigate participants’ preferences for receiving research results.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health research participants’ preferences for receiving research results

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…10 La falta de apego a las GPC se ha reportado 33 pero se señalan como factores críticos la comunicación, diseminación e implementación, incluida la investigación sobre opciones más efectivas para utilizar las recomendaciones de las GPC. 34 También se concluye que múltiples estrategias son más efectivas que aplicar sólo una para lograr la adherencia a las GPC. 10,35 Los resultados acumulados de los cinco CS en el cumplimiento de los indicadores de DMT2 mostraron que no se aplican las recomendaciones de las GPC, ya sea por desconocimiento del personal de salud o porque existen importantes barreras para su aplicación en consulta.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Calidad y cumplimiento de guías de práctica clínica de enfermedades crónicas no transmisibles en el primer nivel

Poblano-Verástegui¹,

Vieyra-Romero²,

Galván-García³

et al. 2017

Salud Publica Mex

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objetivo. Evaluar la calidad y cumplimiento de guías de práctica clínica (GPC) aplicables a las enfermedades crónicas no transmisibles (ECNT) en Centros de Salud (CS), y opinión del personal sobre las barreras, facilitadores y su utilización. Material y métodos. De 18 GPC valoradas con Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREEII), se seleccionan tres para elaborar indicadores y evaluar cumplimiento usando Lot Quality Assurance Sampling (LQAS) estándar 75/95%, umbral 40/75%, respectivamente, α:0.05, β:0.10) en cinco CS. 70 profesionales fueron encuestados sobre conocimiento y utilización de GPC. Resultados. La calidad formal promedio de las GPC fue 57.2%; baja calificación en dominios:“Aplicabilidad” (<25%), “Participación de los implicados”(43.5%) y “Rigor en la elaboración” (55.0%). Su cumplimiento en CS oscila entre 39 y 53.4%. Los profesionales muestran conocimiento desigual de GPC; de 44 a 45% (según GPC)declaran que no se utilizan e identifican como principales barreras la ausencia de capacitación y su difícil accesibilidad y anejo. Conclusiones. La calidad e implantación de GPC evaluadas es deficiente, lo que constituye una oportunidad de mejora en los servicios de salud.

show abstract

“…There is a lack of knowledge about the comparative effectiveness of different dissemination strategies to facilitate the use of health-related evidence (108). This is driven largely by a lack of tools to accurately measure knowledge and beliefs about neurodegenerative diseases.…”

Section: Apc Specific Research Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Alzheimer’s Prevention Clinic at Weill Cornell Medical College / New York - Presbyterian Hospital: Risk Stratification and Personalized Early Intervention

Seifan¹,

Isaacson²

2015

J Prev Alz Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In July 2013, Weill Cornell Medical College founded the first Alzheimer’s Prevention Clinic (APC) in the United States, providing direct clinical care to family members of patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) as part of the Weill Cornell Memory Disorders Program. At the APC, patients seeking to lower their AD risk undergo a comprehensive assessment, receive a personalized plan based on rapidly evolving scientific evidence, and are followed over time using validated as well as emerging clinical and research technologies. The APC approach applies the principles of pharmacogenomics, nutrigenomics and clinical precision medicine, to tailor individualized therapies for patients. Longitudinal measures currently assessed in the clinic include anthropometrics, cognition, blood biomarkers (i.e., lipid, inflammatory, metabolic, nutritional) and genetics, as well as validated, self-reported measures that enable patients to track several aspects of health-related quality of life. Patients are educated on the fundamental concepts of AD prevention via an interactive online course hosted on Alzheimer’s Universe (www.AlzU.org), which also contains several activities including validated computer-based cognitive testing. The primary goal of the APC is to employ preventative measures that lower modifiable AD risk, possibly leading to a delay in onset of future symptoms. Our secondary goal is to establish a cohort of at-risk individuals who will be primed to participate in future AD prevention trials as disease-modifying agents emerge for testing at earlier stages of the AD process. The clinical services are intended to lower concern for future disease by giving patients a greater sense of control over their brain health.

show abstract

Communication and Dissemination Strategies to Facilitate the Use of Health-Related Evidence

Cited by 113 publications

References 0 publications

Health research participants’ preferences for receiving research results

Health research participants’ preferences for receiving research results

Calidad y cumplimiento de guías de práctica clínica de enfermedades crónicas no transmisibles en el primer nivel

The Alzheimer’s Prevention Clinic at Weill Cornell Medical College / New York - Presbyterian Hospital: Risk Stratification and Personalized Early Intervention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About