Organizing the dissemination and implementation field: who are we, what are we doing, and how should we do it?

Two decades into its tenure as a field, dissemination and implementation (D&I) scientists have begun a process of self-reflection, illuminating a missed opportunity to bridge the gap between research and practice-one of the field's foundational objectives. In this paper, we, the authors, assert the research-to-practice gap has persisted, in part due to an inadequate characterization of roles, functions, and processes within D&I. We aim to address this issue, and the rising tension between D&I researchers and practitioners, by proposing a community-centered path forward that is grounded in equity.We identify key players within the field and characterize their unique roles using the translational science spectrum, a model originally developed in the biomedical sciences to help streamline the research-to-practice process, as a guide. We argue that the full translational science spectrum, from basic science research, or "T0," to translation to community, or "T4," readily applies within D&I and that in using this framework to clarify roles, functions, and processes within the field, we can facilitate greater collaboration and respect across the entire D&I research-to-practice continuum. We also highlight distinct opportunities (e.g., changes to D&I scientific conference structures) to increase regular communication and engagement between individuals whose work sits at different points along the D&I translational science spectrum that can accelerate our efforts to close the research-to-practice gap and achieve the field's foundational objectives.

Emergence of universal antiretroviral therapy coverage in South Africa: applying the advocacy coalition framework to refine the narratives and inform epidemic responses

South Africa possesses the largest anti-retroviral therapy (ART) program in the world, but the path to this record was dramatic. There is scarce literature employing a comprehensive framework to explain this achievement and inform epidemic responses. This paper applies the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) to analyse the interactions among diverse actors, institutions and networks that were associated with the AIDS policy change in South Africa. Post-apartheid, HIV/AIDS and AIDS-related mortality were serious public health problems. At the time, the discernible coalitions in the HIV/AIDS policy subsystem were the pro-science coalition and AIDS dissidents. In view of the availability of compelling scientific evidence on the pathogenesis of HIV/AIDS, the clinical usefulness of ART, the availability of funding for national ART roll-out, strong global advocacy to reduce the cost of ART, all of these in an era when access to adequate HIV treatment/care was increasingly considered a human right, the environment to establish an appropriate HIV/AIDS policy for the country was conducive. However, AIDS dissidents dominated the policy agenda via their control over key institutions, the use of various dimensions of power, biasing evidence to inform policy, and promoting the activities of strong interest groups that were not in support of ART. National ART roll-out finally emerged as a political priority because of external shocks (on the AIDS policy subsystem) which disfavoured the dominant coalition. As in this important experience in the history of HIV treatment, stakeholders involved in epidemic response tend to engage in intense ideological conflicts. An adequate appraisal of the outcomes of these conflicts in terms of population health gains and adopted public health and social measures to control epidemics would require the supplementation of complex system thinking with relevant public policy concepts, notably power dimensions, governance, emergence of global health networks and evidence use in policy.