Implementation beyond the clinic: Community‐driven utilization of research evidence from PC CARES, a suicide prevention program

Abstract

While implementation and dissemination of research is a rapidly growing area, critical questions remain about how, why, and under what conditions everyday people integrate and utilize research evidence. This mixed‐methods study investigates how participants of Promoting Community Conversations About Research to End Suicide (PC CARES) make sense of and use research evidence about suicide prevention in their own lives. PC CARES is a health intervention addressing the need for culturally responsive suicide prevention practices in rural Alaska through a series of community Learning Circles. We analyzed PC CARES transcripts and surveys for 376 participants aged 15+ across 10 Northwest Alaska Native villages. Quantitative analysis showed significant correlations between five utilization of research evidence (URE) factors and participants' intent to use research evidence from PC CARES Learning Circles. Key qualitative themes from Learning Circle transcripts expanded upon these URE constructs and included navigating discordant information, centering relationships, and Indigenous worldviews as key to interpreting research evidence. We integrate and organize our findings to inform two domains from the Consolidated Framework for Research Implementation: (1) intervention characteristics and (2) characteristics of individuals, with emphasis on findings most relevant for community settings where self‐determined, evidence‐informed action is especially important for addressing health inequities.

Mixed methods in community psychology: A values‐forward synthesis

“…White and colleagues (2022) mixed methods to understand the relevance and utility of research evidence on suicide prevention with an Alaska Native community. Quantitative surveys interrogated diffusion of innovation and intentions to act in relation to suicide prevention, and qualitative assessments, conducted within learning circles, unpacked how indigenous participants made meaning of and interpreted these evidence‐based topics in terms of the relevance and efficacy in their own lives and communities.…”