Dissemination and implementation of comparative effectiveness evidence: key informant interviews with Clinical and Translational Science Award institutions

Application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour to inform development of a Dissemination and Implementation science training for nutrition practitioners

OBJECTIVE

To determine nutrition practitioners' attitudes, behavioural control and normative beliefs to best inform the development and formulation of a nutrition-specific Dissemination and Implementation (D&I) science training.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional survey aimed to assess Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) constructs and intention to use D&I science. A validated TPB questionnaire assessed constructs including perceived behavioural control, subjective, injunctive and descriptive normative beliefs, attitudes and intention to use D&I science. For analysis, Spearman's ρ, Kruskal-Wallis and Steel-Dwass tests were conducted for quantitative variables.

SETTING

Online, 26-item Qualtrics survey.

PARTICIPANTS

Cross-sectional sample of members (n 70) affiliated with the Society for Nutrition Education and Behaviour listserv.

RESULTS

The major finding from this study was a significant positive correlation between perceived behavioural control score and intention (r = 0·315, P = 0·0119).

CONCLUSIONS

D&I training interventions could formulate learning and teaching strategies to target perceived behavioural control (self-efficacy, knowledge and ability) to enhance intention. For example, application and experience-based learning techniques trainings could be strategies to increase knowledge and abilities.

Innovative, rapid, high-throughput method for drug repurposing in a pandemic-A case study of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19

Several efforts to repurpose drugs for COVID-19 treatment have largely either failed to identify a suitable agent or agents identified did not translate to clinical use. Reasons that have been suggested to explain the failures include use of inappropriate doses, that are not clinically achievable, in the screening experiments, and the use of inappropriate pre-clinical laboratory surrogates to predict efficacy. In this study, we used an innovative algorithm, that incorporates dissemination and implementation considerations, to identify potential drugs for COVID-19 using iterative computational and wet laboratory methods. The drugs were screened at doses that are known to be achievable in humans. Furthermore, inhibition of viral induced cytopathic effect (CPE) was used as the laboratory surrogate to predict efficacy. Erythromycin, pyridoxine, folic acid and retapamulin were found to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 induced CPE in Vero cells at concentrations that are clinically achievable. Additional studies may be required to further characterize the inhibitions of CPE and the possible mechanisms.

Integrating community engagement with implementation science to advance the measurement of translational science

This special communication provides an approach for applying implementation science frameworks to a Clinical and Translational Science Institutes (CTSIs) community engagement (CE) program that measures the use of implementation strategies and outcomes that promote the uptake of CE in research. Using an iterative multi-disciplinary group process, we executed a four-phased approach to developing an evaluation plan: 1) creating an evaluation model adapted from Proctor's conceptual model of implementation research; 2) mapping implementation strategies to CTSI CE program interventions that support change in research practice; 3) identifying and operationalizing measures for each strategy; and 4) conducting an evaluation. Phase 2 employed 73 implementation strategies across 9 domains generated by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change project. The nine domains were used to classify each CE program implementation strategy. In Phase 3, the group used the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to define measures for each individual strategy. Phase 4 demonstrates the application of this framework and measures Year 1 outcomes for the strategy providing interactive assistance, which we implemented using a centralized consultation model. This approach can support the CTSA program in operationalizing CE program measurement to demonstrate which activities and strategies may lead to benefits derived by the program, institution, and community.

Dissemination and implementation science resources, training, and scientific activities provided through CTSA programs nationally: Opportunities to advance D&I research and training capacity

Introduction

Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program hubs are well-positioned to advance dissemination and implementation (D&I) research and training capacity nationally, though little is known about what D&I research support and services CTSAs provide. To address this gap, the CTSA Dissemination, Implementation, and Knowledge Transfer Working Group conducted an environmental scan of CTSAs (2017-2018).

Methods

Of 67 CTSA institutions, we contacted 43 that previously reported delivering D&I research services. D&I experts from these institutions were emailed a survey assessing D&I resources, services, training, and scientific projects. Responses were categorized and double-coded by study authors using a content analysis approach.

Results

Thirty-five of the 43 D&I experts (81.4%) responded. Challenges to CTSAs in developing and supporting D&I science activities were related to inadequate D&I science workforce (45.7%) and lack of understanding of D&I science (25.7%). Services provided included consultation/mentoring programs (68%), pilot funding/grants (50%), and workshops/seminars/conferences (46%). Training and workforce development in D&I were frequently identified as future priorities. Recommendations included increase training to meet demand (68.6%), accessible D&I tools/resources (34.3%), greater visibility/awareness of D&I methods (34.3%), consultation services (22.9%), and expand D&I science workforce (22.9%).

Conclusions

CTSAs have tremendous potential to support the advancement and impact of D&I science across the translational continuum. Despite the growing presence of D&I science in CTSAs, continued commitment and prioritization are needed from CTSA and institutional leadership to raise awareness of D&I science and its value, meet training demands, and develop necessary infrastructure for conducting D&I science.

An integrative review and practical guide to team development interventions for translational science teams: One size does not fit all

As the need to tackle complex clinical and societal problems rises, researchers are increasingly taking on a translational approach. This approach, which seeks to integrate theories, methodologies, and frameworks from various disciplines across a team of researchers, places emphasis on translation of findings in order to offer practical solutions to real-world problems. While translational research leads to a number of positive outcomes, there are also a multitude of barriers to conducting effective team science, such as effective coordination and communication across the organizational, disciplinary, and even geographic boundaries of science teams. Given these barriers to success, there is a significant need to establish team interventions that increase science team effectiveness as translational research becomes the new face of science. This review is intended to provide translational scientists with an understanding of barriers to effective team science and equip them with the necessary tools to overcome such barriers. We provide an overview of translational science teams, discuss barriers to science team effectiveness, demonstrate the lacking state of current interventions, and present recommendations for improving interventions in science teams by applying best practices from the teams and groups literature across the four phases of transdisciplinary research.

Building capacity in dissemination and implementation science: a systematic review of the academic literature on teaching and training initiatives

BACKGROUND

The field of dissemination and implementation (D&I) science has grown significantly over recent years. Alongside this, an increased demand for training in D&I from researchers and implementers has been seen. Research describing and evaluating D&I training opportunities, referred to here as 'capacity building initiatives' (CBIs), can help provide an understanding of different methods of training as well as training successes and challenges. However, to gain a more detailed understanding of the evidence-base and how D&I CBIs are being reported in publications, a field-wide examination of the academic literature is required.

METHODS

Systematic review to identify the type and range of D&I CBIs discussed and/or appraised in the academic literature. EMBASE, Medline and PsycINFO were searched between January 2006 and November 2019. Articles were included if they reported on a D&I CBI that was developed by the authors (of each of the included articles) or the author's host institution. Two reviewers independently screened the articles and extracted data using a standardised form.

RESULTS

Thirty-one articles (from a total of 4181) were included. From these, 41 distinct D&I CBIs were identified which focussed on different contexts and professions, from 8 countries across the world. CBIs ranged from short courses to training institutes to being part of academic programmes. Nearly half were delivered face-face with the remainder delivered remotely or using a blended format. CBIs often stipulated specific eligibility criteria, strict application processes and/or were oversubscribed. Variabilities in the way in which the D&I CBIs were reported and/or evaluated were evident.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing the number of training opportunities, as well as broadening their reach (to a wider range of learners), would help address the recognised deficit in D&I training. Standardisation in the reporting of D&I CBIs would enable the D&I community to better understand the findings across different contexts and scientific professions so that training gaps can be identified and overcome. More detailed examination of publications on D&I CBIs as well as the wider literature on capacity building would be of significant merit to the field.

Advancing health equity through CTSA programs: Opportunities for interaction between health equity, dissemination and implementation, and translational science

Dissemination and implementation (D&I) science is dedicated to studying how to effectively translate and apply research in real-world contexts. There has been increasing interest in health equity within the D&I field to ensure the equitable implementation of evidence-based programs/practices across a range of diverse populations and settings. At the same time, health equity researchers recognize the potential of D&I science to promote the more widespread dissemination, implementation, and sustainment of evidence-based interventions to address health inequities. The National Center for Accelerating Clinical and Translational Science Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program has been a champion for community engagement and translational scholarship in its mission to improve individual and population health. The overall CTSA infrastructure and resources within and among CTSA hubs are well-equipped to facilitate a health equity focus to D&I across the phases of translational research. This paper proposes a framework that demonstrates the interaction and opportunities between health equity and D&I science and highlights how CTSAs can support and facilitate wider efforts in translational research with a focus on equitable D&I.

Communicating and disseminating research findings to study participants: Formative assessment of participant and researcher expectations and preferences

Introduction

Translating research findings into practice requires understanding how to meet communication and dissemination needs and preferences of intended audiences including past research participants (PSPs) who want, but seldom receive, information on research findings during or after participating in research studies. Most researchers want to let others, including PSP, know about their findings but lack knowledge about how to effectively communicate findings to a lay audience.

Methods

We designed a two-phase, mixed methods pilot study to understand experiences, expectations, concerns, preferences, and capacities of researchers and PSP in two age groups (adolescents/young adults (AYA) or older adults) and to test communication prototypes for sharing, receiving, and using information on research study findings.

Principal Results

PSP and researchers agreed that sharing study findings should happen and that doing so could improve participant recruitment and enrollment, use of research findings to improve health and health-care delivery, and build community support for research. Some differences and similarities in communication preferences and message format were identified between PSP groups, reinforcing the best practice of customizing communication channel and messaging. Researchers wanted specific training and/or time and resources to help them prepare messages in formats to meet PSP needs and preferences but were unaware of resources to help them do so.

Conclusions

Our findings offer insight into how to engage both PSP and researchers in the design and use of strategies to share research findings and highlight the need to develop services and support for researchers as they aim to bridge this translational barrier.

Does evidence matter? Comparative effectiveness research and prescribing of Type 2 diabetes mellitus drugs

Aim: Comparative effectiveness research (CER) can help ascertain value of new drugs; however, limited research assesses the translation of CER into clinical practice. The objective of this study was to analyze the association between CER evidence and prescribing trends within two markets of Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods: A retrospective analysis to determine the prescribing trends from 2006 to 2016 and an electronic literature search to identify CER comparing different drugs was conducted. Results: In glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists market, CER showed superiority of Liraglutide. Prescribing of Exenatide twice daily dropped by 50% points as Liraglutide entered the market. In dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors market, CER did not suggest conclusive superiority. Nevertheless, Sitagliptin, the first entrant, continued to dominate throughout. Conclusion: CER evidence appeared to be associated with prescribing trends in GLP-1 agonists market; however, no associations were found in DPP4 inhibitors market. The translation of evidence into practice can be limited by the availability of superiority trials and timing of their availability.

Dissemination and implementation science activities across the Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium: Report from a survey of CTSA leaders

INTRODUCTION

Dissemination and implementation (D&I) science is not a formal element of the Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program, and D&I science activities across the CTSA Consortium are largely unknown.

METHODS

The CTSA Dissemination, Implementation, and Knowledge Translation Working Group surveyed CTSA leaders to explore D&I science-related activities, barriers, and needed supports, then conducted univariate and qualitative analyses of the data.

RESULTS

Out of 67 CTSA leaders, 55.2% responded. CTSAs reported directly funding D&I programs (54.1%), training (51.4%), and projects (59.5%). Indirect support (e.g., promoted by CTSA without direct funding) for D&I activities was higher - programs (70.3%), training (64.9%), and projects (54.1%). Top barriers included funding (39.4%), limited D&I science faculty (30.3%), and lack of D&I science understanding (27.3%). Respondents (63.4%) noted the importance of D&I training and recommended coordination of D&I activities across CTSAs hubs (33.3%).

CONCLUSION

These findings should guide CTSA leadership in efforts to raise awareness and advance the role of D&I science in improving population health.

A Comparison of In-Person and Online Training in a Statewide Clinical Education Program for Dissemination of HIV, HCV and STD Clinical Evidence

We compared in-person and online training in a statewide education program to disseminate HIV, HCV, and STD clinical evidence. In a study period of three months, 250 clinicians completed four training courses delivered in dual formats. Course evaluation was positive regarding useful information, easy comprehension, knowledgeable trainer, appropriate format, knowledge increase, intention to use knowledge, and plan to change practice. Online training became a preferred format by clinicians when compared to in-person training (p=0.01).

Health Care Providers' Profiles and Evaluations of a Statewide Online Education Program for Dissemination of Clinical Evidence on HIV, Hepatitis C Virus, and Sexually Transmitted Disease: Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Timely and effective dissemination of the latest clinical evidence to health care providers is essential for translating biomedical research into routine patient care. Online platforms offer unique opportunities for dissemination of medical knowledge.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we report the profiles of health care providers participating in the New York State HIV-HCV-STD Clinical Education Initiative online program and their evaluations of the online continuing professional development courses.

METHODS

We compiled professional and personal background information of the clinicians who completed at least one online course. We collected their self-reported program evaluation data with regard to the course content, format, knowledge increase, and impact on clinical practice.

RESULTS

We recorded a total of 4363 completions of 88 online courses by 1976 unique clinicians during a 12-month study period. The clinicians' background was diverse in terms of demographics, education levels, professional disciplines, practice years, employment settings, caseloads, and clinical services. The evaluation of online courses was very positive (usefulness/relevance, 91.08%; easy comprehension, 89.09%; knowledgeable trainer, 92.00%; appropriate format, 84.35%; knowledge increase, 48.52%; intention to use knowledge, 85.26%; and plan to change practice, 21.98%). Comparison with the reference data indicated that the online program successfully reached out to the primary care communities. Both the younger generation and the senior health care providers were attracted to the online program. High-quality multimedia resources, flexibility of access, ease of use, and provision of continuing professional development credits contributed to the initial success of this online clinical education program.

CONCLUSIONS

We have successfully characterized a diverse group of clinicians participating in a statewide online continuing professional development program. The evaluation has shown effective use of online resources to disseminate clinical evidence on HIV, hepatitis C virus, and sexually transmitted disease to primary care clinicians.

Online Resources for Dissemination and Implementation Science: Meeting Demand and Lessons Learned

A dramatically increased interest in dissemination and implementation (D&I) science, with relatively few training programs for D&I scientists, highlights the need for innovative ways to deliver educational materials, training, and resources. We described nine interactive, web-based D&I science resources appropriate for trainees and Clinical and Translational Science Awards. We used audience feedback and design thinking to develop resources iteratively. Primary target users are T3–T4 researchers, although T2 researchers can benefit from “designing for dissemination” resources. Workforce development resources were used in D&I science workshops, as stand-alone, self-directed resources, and for consultations and trainings. We assessed resource design (purpose, functionality), usage, user experience and engagement. Educational resources addressed included: D&I science basics, pragmatic trials, getting proposals funded, designing for dissemination, and D&I science theory selection. We reviewed the purpose, functionality, status, and usage of these interactive resources. All resources engaged users; provided interactive feedback for learners; and linked users to additional learning resources. Online resources can be valuable for preparing clinical and translational mentees for research consultations, as follow-up training activities, and as D&I workforce development resources. The resources described are publicly available and we encourage their use, further development, and evaluation by Clinical and Translational Science Awards and other programs.

Toolkits for dissemination and implementation research: Preliminary development

The Dissemination and Implementation Research Core, a research methods core from the Clinical and Translation Science Award at Washington University in St. Louis Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences, developed toolkits about dissemination and implementation (D&I) concepts (e.g., D&I outcomes, strategies). This paper reports on the development of the toolkits. These toolkits respond to 3 identified needs for capacity building in D&I research: resources for investigators new to the D&I field, consolidation of tools, and limitations in local contexts.

Comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research: enhancing uptake and use by patients, clinicians and payers

Evidence from comparative effectiveness research (CER) and patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) studies are increasingly available in the literature. However, there remain opportunities to better integrate that evidence into decision-making. An invitation-only conference held in January 2017, titled "Comparative Effectiveness and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research: Enhancing Uptake and Use by Patients, Clinicians and Payers", sought to identify and discuss both gaps in the uptake and use of CER/PCOR, and approaches to enhance the uptake and use of CER/PCOR evidence by patients, clinicians and payers. In this article, we summarize the conference proceedings, and highlight the themes and recommendations that resulted from the sessions. This paper also introduces other articles in this issue of CER from that conference.

Leading by Success: Impact of a Clinical and Translational Research Infrastructure Program to Address Health Inequities

Building research infrastructure capacity to address clinical and translational gaps has been a focus of funding agencies and foundations. Clinical and Translational Sciences Awards, Research Centers in Minority Institutions Infrastructure for Clinical and Translational Research (RCTR), and the Institutional Development Award Infrastructure for Clinical and Translational Research funded by the US government to fund clinical translational research programs have existed for over a decade to address racial and ethnic health disparities across the USA. While the impact on the nation's health cannot be made in a short period, assessment of a program's impact could be a litmus test to gauge its effectiveness at the institution and communities. We report the success of a Pilot Project Program in the University of Hawaii RCTR Award in advancing careers of emerging investigators and community collaborators. Our findings demonstrated that the investment has a far-reaching impact on engagement with community-based research collaborators, career advancement of health disparity investigators, and favorable impacts on health policy.

Implementation of integration strategies between primary care units and a regional general hospital in Brazil to update and connect health care professionals: a quasi-experimental study protocol

Background

Better communication among field health care teams and points of care, together with investments focused on improving teamwork, individual management, and clinical skills, are strategies for achieving better outcomes in patient-oriented care. This research aims to implement and evaluate interventions focused on improving communication and knowledge among health teams based on points of care in a regional public health outreach network, assessing the following hypotheses: 1) A better-working communication process between hospitals and primary health care providers can improve the sharing of information on patients as well as patients’ outcomes. 2) A skill-upgrading education tool offered to health providers at their work sites can improve patients’ care and outcomes.

Methods/Design

A quasi-experimental study protocol with a mixed-methods approach (quantitative and qualitative) was developed to evaluate communication tools for health care professionals based in primary care units and in a general hospital in the southern region of São Paulo City, Brazil. The usefulness and implementation processes of the integration strategies will be evaluated, considering: 1) An Internet-based communication platform that facilitates continuity and integrality of care to patients, and 2) A tailored updating distance-learning course on ambulatory care sensitive conditions for clinical skills improvements.

The observational study will evaluate a non-randomized cohort of adult patients, with historical controls. Hospitalized patients diagnosed with an ambulatory care sensitive condition will be selected and followed for 1 year after hospital discharge. Data will be collected using validated questionnaires and from patients’ medical records. Health care professionals will be evaluated related to their use of education and communication tools and their demographic and psychological profiles. The primary outcome measured will be the patients’ 30-day hospital readmission rates. A sample size of 560 patients was calculated to fit a valid logistic model. In addition, qualitative approaches will be used to identify subjective perceptions of providers about the implementation process and of patients about health system use.

Discussion

This research project will gather relevant information about implementation processes for education and communication tools and their impact on human resources training, rates of readmission, and patient-related outcomes.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1626-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Shared Decision Making for Antidepressants in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Trial

IMPORTANCE

For antidepressants, the translation of evidence of comparative effectiveness into practice is suboptimal. This deficit directly affects outcomes and quality of care for patients with depression. To overcome this problem, we developed the Depression Medication Choice (DMC) encounter decision aid, designed to help patients and clinicians consider the available antidepressants and the extent to which they improved depression and other issues important to patients.

OBJECTIVE

Estimate the effect of DMC on quality of the decision-making process and depression outcomes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We conducted a cluster randomized trial of adults with moderate to severe depression considering treatment with an antidepressant. Primary care practices in 10 rural, suburban, and urban primary care practices across Minnesota and Wisconsin were randomly allocated to treatment of depression with or without use of the DMC decision aid.

INTERVENTION

Depression Medication Choice, a series of cards, each highlighting the effect of the available options on an issue of importance to patients for use during face-to-face consultations.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Decision-making quality as judged by patient knowledge and involvement in decision making, patient and clinician decisional comfort (Decisional Conflict Scale) and satisfaction, encounter duration, medication adherence, depression symptoms, and the Patient Health Questionnaire for depression (PHQ-9).

RESULTS

We enrolled 117 clinicians and 301 patients (67% women; mean [SD] age, 44 [15] years; mean [SD] PHQ-9 score, 15 [4]) into the trial. Compared with usual care (UC), use of DMC significantly improved patients' decisional comfort (DMC, 80% vs UC, 75%; P = .02), knowledge (DMC, 65% vs UC, 56%; P = .03), satisfaction (risk ratio [RR], from 1.25 [P = .81] to RR, 2.4 [P = .002] depending on satisfaction domain), and involvement (DMC, 47% vs UC, 33%; P<.001). It also improved clinicians' decisional comfort (DMC, 80% vs UC, 68%; P < .001) and satisfaction (RR, 1.64; P = .02). There were no differences in encounter duration, medication adherence, or improvement of depression control between arms.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The DMC decision aid helped primary care clinicians and patients with moderate to severe depression select antidepressants together, improving the decision-making process without extending the visit. On the other hand, DMC had no discernible effect on medication adherence or depression outcomes. By translating comparative effectiveness into patient-centered care, use of DMC improved the quality of primary care for patients with depression.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01502891.

Bringing it home: expanding the local reach of dissemination and implementation training via a university-based workshop

BACKGROUND

Currently, national training programs do not have the capacity to meet the growing demand for dissemination and implementation (D&I) workforce education and development. The Colorado Research in Implementation Science Program (CRISP) developed and delivered an introductory D&I workshop adapted from national programs to extend training reach and foster a local learning community for D&I.

METHODS

To gauge interest and assess learning needs, a pre-registration survey was administered. Based on feedback, a 1.5-day workshop was designed. Day 1 introduced D&I frameworks, strategies, and evaluation principles. Local and national D&I experts provided ignite-style talks on key lessons followed by panel discussion. Breakout sessions discussed community engagement and applying for D&I grants. A workbook was developed to enhance the training and provided exercises for application to an individual's projects. Day 2 offered expert-led mentoring sessions with selected participants who desired advanced instruction. Two follow-up surveys (immediate post-workshop, 6 months) assessed knowledge gained from participation and utilization of workshop content.

RESULTS

Ninety-three workshop registrants completed an assessment survey to inform workshop objectives and curriculum design; 43 % were new and 54 % reported a basic understanding of the D&I field. Pre-registrants intended to use the training to "apply for a D&I grant" (73 %); "incorporate D&I into existing projects" (76 %), and for quality improvement (51 %). Sixty-eight individuals attended Day 1; 11 also attended Day 2 mentoring sessions. In the 1-week post-workshop survey (n = 34), 100 % strongly agreed they were satisfied with the training; 97 % strongly agreed the workshop workbook was a valuable resource. All Day 2 participants strongly agreed that working closely with faculty and experts increased their overall confidence. In the 6-month follow-up evaluation (n = 23), evidence of new D&I-related manuscripts and grant proposals was found. Training materials were published online ( www.ucdenver.edu/implementation/workshops ) and disseminated via the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical and Translational Science Awards Consortium. To sustain reach, CRISP adapted the materials into an interactive e-book ( www.CRISPebooks.org ) and launched a new graduate course.

CONCLUSIONS

Local D&I training workshops can extend the reach of national training programs.

A systematic review of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a review of the peer-reviewed literature since 2003 to catalogue reported methods of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness research and patient-centered outcomes research.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We worked with stakeholders before, during and after the review was conducted to: define the primary and key research questions; conduct the literature search; screen titles, abstracts and articles; abstract data from the articles; and analyze the data. The literature search yielded 2,062 abstracts. The review was conducted on 70 articles that reported on stakeholder engagement in individual research projects or programs.

FINDINGS

Reports of stakeholder engagement are highly variable in content and quality. We found frequent engagement with patients, modestly frequent engagement with clinicians, and infrequent engagement with stakeholders in other key decision-making groups across the healthcare system. Stakeholder engagement was more common in earlier (prioritization) than in later (implementation and dissemination) stages of research. The roles and activities of stakeholders were highly variable across research and program reports.

RECOMMENDATIONS

To improve on the quality and content of reporting, we developed a 7-Item Stakeholder Engagement Reporting Questionnaire. We recommend three directions for future research: 1) descriptive research on stakeholder-engagement in research; 2) evaluative research on the impact of stakeholder engagement on the relevance, transparency and adoption of research; and 3) development and validation of tools that can be used to support stakeholder engagement in future work.