Cargando…
Disseminating research findings: what should researchers do? A systematic scoping review of conceptual frameworks
BACKGROUND: Addressing deficiencies in the dissemination and transfer of research-based knowledge into routine clinical practice is high on the policy agenda both in the UK and internationally. However, there is lack of clarity between funding agencies as to what represents dissemination. Moreover,...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2010
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2994786/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21092164 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-91 |
_version_ | 1782192997636505600 |
---|---|
author | Wilson, Paul M Petticrew, Mark Calnan, Mike W Nazareth, Irwin |
author_facet | Wilson, Paul M Petticrew, Mark Calnan, Mike W Nazareth, Irwin |
author_sort | Wilson, Paul M |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Addressing deficiencies in the dissemination and transfer of research-based knowledge into routine clinical practice is high on the policy agenda both in the UK and internationally. However, there is lack of clarity between funding agencies as to what represents dissemination. Moreover, the expectations and guidance provided to researchers vary from one agency to another. Against this background, we performed a systematic scoping to identify and describe any conceptual/organising frameworks that could be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activity. METHODS: We searched twelve electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO), the reference lists of included studies and of individual funding agency websites to identify potential studies for inclusion. To be included, papers had to present an explicit framework or plan either designed for use by researchers or that could be used to guide dissemination activity. Papers which mentioned dissemination (but did not provide any detail) in the context of a wider knowledge translation framework, were excluded. References were screened independently by at least two reviewers; disagreements were resolved by discussion. For each included paper, the source, the date of publication, a description of the main elements of the framework, and whether there was any implicit/explicit reference to theory were extracted. A narrative synthesis was undertaken. RESULTS: Thirty-three frameworks met our inclusion criteria, 20 of which were designed to be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activities. Twenty-eight included frameworks were underpinned at least in part by one or more of three different theoretical approaches, namely persuasive communication, diffusion of innovations theory, and social marketing. CONCLUSIONS: There are currently a number of theoretically-informed frameworks available to researchers that can be used to help guide their dissemination planning and activity. Given the current emphasis on enhancing the uptake of knowledge about the effects of interventions into routine practice, funders could consider encouraging researchers to adopt a theoretically-informed approach to their research dissemination. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2994786 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2010 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-29947862010-12-01 Disseminating research findings: what should researchers do? A systematic scoping review of conceptual frameworks Wilson, Paul M Petticrew, Mark Calnan, Mike W Nazareth, Irwin Implement Sci Systematic Review BACKGROUND: Addressing deficiencies in the dissemination and transfer of research-based knowledge into routine clinical practice is high on the policy agenda both in the UK and internationally. However, there is lack of clarity between funding agencies as to what represents dissemination. Moreover, the expectations and guidance provided to researchers vary from one agency to another. Against this background, we performed a systematic scoping to identify and describe any conceptual/organising frameworks that could be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activity. METHODS: We searched twelve electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO), the reference lists of included studies and of individual funding agency websites to identify potential studies for inclusion. To be included, papers had to present an explicit framework or plan either designed for use by researchers or that could be used to guide dissemination activity. Papers which mentioned dissemination (but did not provide any detail) in the context of a wider knowledge translation framework, were excluded. References were screened independently by at least two reviewers; disagreements were resolved by discussion. For each included paper, the source, the date of publication, a description of the main elements of the framework, and whether there was any implicit/explicit reference to theory were extracted. A narrative synthesis was undertaken. RESULTS: Thirty-three frameworks met our inclusion criteria, 20 of which were designed to be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activities. Twenty-eight included frameworks were underpinned at least in part by one or more of three different theoretical approaches, namely persuasive communication, diffusion of innovations theory, and social marketing. CONCLUSIONS: There are currently a number of theoretically-informed frameworks available to researchers that can be used to help guide their dissemination planning and activity. Given the current emphasis on enhancing the uptake of knowledge about the effects of interventions into routine practice, funders could consider encouraging researchers to adopt a theoretically-informed approach to their research dissemination. BioMed Central 2010-11-22 /pmc/articles/PMC2994786/ /pubmed/21092164 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-91 Text en Copyright ©2010 Wilson et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Systematic Review Wilson, Paul M Petticrew, Mark Calnan, Mike W Nazareth, Irwin Disseminating research findings: what should researchers do? A systematic scoping review of conceptual frameworks |
title | Disseminating research findings: what should researchers do? A systematic scoping review of conceptual frameworks |
title_full | Disseminating research findings: what should researchers do? A systematic scoping review of conceptual frameworks |
title_fullStr | Disseminating research findings: what should researchers do? A systematic scoping review of conceptual frameworks |
title_full_unstemmed | Disseminating research findings: what should researchers do? A systematic scoping review of conceptual frameworks |
title_short | Disseminating research findings: what should researchers do? A systematic scoping review of conceptual frameworks |
title_sort | disseminating research findings: what should researchers do? a systematic scoping review of conceptual frameworks |
topic | Systematic Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2994786/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21092164 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-91 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wilsonpaulm disseminatingresearchfindingswhatshouldresearchersdoasystematicscopingreviewofconceptualframeworks AT petticrewmark disseminatingresearchfindingswhatshouldresearchersdoasystematicscopingreviewofconceptualframeworks AT calnanmikew disseminatingresearchfindingswhatshouldresearchersdoasystematicscopingreviewofconceptualframeworks AT nazarethirwin disseminatingresearchfindingswhatshouldresearchersdoasystematicscopingreviewofconceptualframeworks |