Diffusion and dissemination of evidence-based dietary srategies for the prevention of cancer

Abstract

Objective: The purpose was to determine what strategies have been evaluated to disseminate cancer control interventions that promote the uptake of adult healthy diet?Methods: A systematic review was conducted. Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, PREMEDLINE, Cancer LIT, EMBASE/Excerpta Medica, PsycINFO, CINAHL, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and reference lists and by contacting technical experts. Englishlanguage primary studies were selected if they evaluated the dissemination of healthy diet interventions in individuals, healthcare providers, or institutions. Studies of children or adolescents only were excluded. Results:One hundred one articles were retrieved for full text screening. Nine reports of seven distinct studies were included; four were randomized trials, one was a cohort design and three were descriptive studies. Six studies were rated as methodologically weak, and one was rated as moderate. Studies were not meta-analyzed because of heterogeneity, low methodological quality, and incomplete data reporting. No beneficial dissemination strategies were found except one that looks promising, the use of peer educators in the worksite, which led to a short-term increase in fruit and vegetable intake. Conclusions and Implications:Overall, the quality of the evidence is not strong and is primarily descriptive rather than evaluative. No clear conclusions can be drawn from these data. Controlled studies are needed to evaluate dissemination strategies, and to compare dissemination and diffusion strategies with different messages and different target audiences.

Unrecognized implementation science engagement among health researchers in the USA: a national survey

“…Over the past two decades, considerable progress has been made conceptualizing what constitutes IS [ 1 ] and many resources to define and explain IS have been developed [ 2 , 19 ]. Our study results, however, confirm previous observations that considerable confusion persists about the terminology and scope of IS [ 18 , 21 , 22 ]. The discordance between researchers using elements of IS and those acknowledging the use of IS methods may be partly explained by a confusion regarding what separates IS from other research methodologies.…”

Toward optimal implementation of cancer prevention and control programs in public health: a study protocol on mis-implementation

“…Many important contributions to implementation science originate from non-health sectors (e.g., agriculture, marketing, communications, management), increasing the breadth of literature and terminology. To bridge these sectors, a common lexicon will assist in accelerating progress by facilitating comparisons of methods and findings, supporting methods’ development and communication across disciplinary areas, and identifying gaps in knowledge [ 102 , 103 ].…”

Republished research: Implementation research: what it is and how to do it

“…Although progress has been made in conceptualising implementation research over the past decade, 1 considerable confusion persists about its terminology and scope. [2][3][4] The word "implement" comes from the Latin "implere," meaning to fulfil or to carry into effect. 5 This provides a basis for a broad definition of implementation research that can be used across research traditions and has meaning for practitioners, policy makers, and the interested public: "Implementation research is the scientific inquiry into questions concerning implementation-the act of carrying an intention into effect, which in health research can be policies, programmes, or individual practices (collectively called interventions)."…”