Search

Abstract Background: Although there is growing attention to research translation, dissemination practices remain underdeveloped. This study aimed to gain insights into the dissemination approaches, barriers for dissemination, and needs for dissemination support of public health researchers of the Amsterdam Public Health (APH) research institute. Methods: A concurrent mixed-methods design was used, collecting quantitative and qualitative data through a survey and qualitative data from interviews. Researchers of the Health Behaviors and Chronic Diseases (HBCD) research line of APH were approached via email with a link to an online survey. For the interviews, we aimed to balance researchers in terms of career phase and position. Data were analyzed through descriptive statistics and thematic content analysis. Results: HBCD researchers primarily rely on traditional approaches for dissemination, e.g. academic journals (93%), conferences (93%), and reports to funders (71%). Social media (67%) was also frequently mentioned. Dissemination is often prioritized late due to time constraints and competing priorities. Researchers mentioned a lack of time, money, knowledge, and skills but also limited awareness of available support as barriers. A need for more resources, education, and a shift in mindset was expressed, suggesting a comprehensive inspiring platform and stronger in-house connections as solutions. Conclusion: HBCD researchers emphasized the importance of dedicated time and budget for dissemination, as well as other forms of institutional support. Overall, there is a need for a shift in mindset, more educational initiatives, greater integration of dissemination into researchers’ roles, the establishment of a comprehensive inspiring platform, and stronger in-house connections to support dissemination efforts.

AbstractIntroduction:Research participants want to receive results from studies in which they participate. However, health researchers rarely share the results of their studies beyond scientific publication. Little is known about the barriers researchers face in returning study results to participants.Methods:Using a mixed-methods design, health researchers (N = 414) from more than 40 US universities were asked about barriers to providing results to participants. Respondents were recruited from universities with Clinical and Translational Science Award programs and Prevention Research Centers.Results:Respondents reported the percent of their research where they experienced each of the four barriers to disseminating results to participants: logistical/methodological, financial, systems, and regulatory. A fifth barrier, investigator capacity, emerged from data analysis. Training for research faculty and staff, promotion and tenure incentives, and funding agencies supporting dissemination of results to participants were solutions offered to overcoming barriers.Conclusions:Study findings add to literature on research dissemination by documenting health researchers’ perceived barriers to sharing study results with participants. Implications for policy and practice suggest that additional resources and training could help reduce dissemination barriers and increase the return of results to participants.

Background: Although there is growing attention to research translation, dissemination practices remain underdeveloped. This study aimed to gain insights into the dissemination approaches, barriers for dissemination, and needs for dissemination support of public health researchers of the Amsterdam Public Health (APH) research institute., Methods: A concurrent mixed-methods design was used, collecting quantitative and qualitative data through a survey and qualitative data from interviews. Researchers of the Health Behaviors and Chronic Diseases (HBCD) research line of APH were approached via email with a link to an online survey. For the interviews, we aimed to balance researchers in terms of career phase and position. Data were analyzed through descriptive statistics and thematic content analysis., Results: HBCD researchers primarily rely on traditional approaches for dissemination, e.g. academic journals (93%), conferences (93%), and reports to funders (71%). Social media (67%) was also frequently mentioned. Dissemination is often prioritized late due to time constraints and competing priorities. Researchers mentioned a lack of time, money, knowledge, and skills but also limited awareness of available support as barriers. A need for more resources, education, and a shift in mindset was expressed, suggesting a comprehensive inspiring platform and stronger in-house connections as solutions., Conclusion: HBCD researchers emphasized the importance of dedicated time and budget for dissemination, as well as other forms of institutional support. Overall, there is a need for a shift in mindset, more educational initiatives, greater integration of dissemination into researchers' roles, the establishment of a comprehensive inspiring platform, and stronger in-house connections to support dissemination efforts., Competing Interests: None., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

Healthcare institutions may often prohibit “cold-calling” or direct contact with a potential research participant when the person initiating contact is unknown to the patient. This policy aims to maintain patient privacy, but may have unintended consequences as a result of physician gatekeeping. In this review, we discuss recruitment policies at the top academic institutions. We propose an ethical framework for evaluating cold-call policies based on three principles of research ethics. In order to maximize engagement of potential research participants, while maintaining patient privacy and autonomy, we then propose several alternative solutions to restrictive cold-call policies, including opt-in or opt-out platforms, a team-based approach, electronic solutions, and best practices for recruitment. As healthcare has evolved with more collaborative, patient-centered, data-driven care, the engagement of potential research participants should similarly evolve.

Introduction: Research participants want to receive results from studies in which they participate. However, health researchers rarely share the results of their studies beyond scientific publication. Little is known about the barriers researchers face in returning study results to participants., Methods: Using a mixed-methods design, health researchers ( N = 414) from more than 40 US universities were asked about barriers to providing results to participants. Respondents were recruited from universities with Clinical and Translational Science Award programs and Prevention Research Centers., Results: Respondents reported the percent of their research where they experienced each of the four barriers to disseminating results to participants: logistical/methodological, financial, systems, and regulatory. A fifth barrier, investigator capacity, emerged from data analysis. Training for research faculty and staff, promotion and tenure incentives, and funding agencies supporting dissemination of results to participants were solutions offered to overcoming barriers., Conclusions: Study findings add to literature on research dissemination by documenting health researchers' perceived barriers to sharing study results with participants. Implications for policy and practice suggest that additional resources and training could help reduce dissemination barriers and increase the return of results to participants., (© The Association for Clinical and Translational Science 2019.)

Healthcare institutions may often prohibit "cold-calling" or direct contact with a potential research participant when the person initiating contact is unknown to the patient. This policy aims to maintain patient privacy, but may have unintended consequences as a result of physician gatekeeping. In this review, we discuss recruitment policies at the top academic institutions. We propose an ethical framework for evaluating cold-call policies based on three principles of research ethics. In order to maximize engagement of potential research participants, while maintaining patient privacy and autonomy, we then propose several alternative solutions to restrictive cold-call policies, including opt-in or opt-out platforms, a team-based approach, electronic solutions, and best practices for recruitment. As healthcare has evolved with more collaborative, patient-centered, data-driven care, the engagement of potential research participants should similarly evolve.