We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
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.
Research on complex behavior change interventions has largely focused on intervention development and testing their effects in feasibility trials, pilot studies, and randomized controlled trials. However, a significant gap exists in translating behavior interventions informed by theory into real-world practice. This chapter describes how engaging stakeholders can improve the likelihood that effective behavior change interventions are put into practice. The chapter begins with an overview of implementation science and normalization process theory – which outlines how effective interventions are routinely implemented. The roles of stakeholders as research partners and research participants are differentiated using research in health contexts. For example, the process of stakeholder involvement is illustrated using digital health interventions for people with long-term physical health conditions with reference to UK Medical Research Council guidelines on complex interventions. The examples illustrate (1) how stakeholder support in the co-design of complex interventions can improve their utility, usability, accessibility, and acceptability and (2) how stakeholder perspectives elicited using mixed methods during the feasibility and pilot phases of intervention development can help inform subsequent stages of intervention development. Finally, the evaluation and implementation phase is explored, using a case study to illustrate the need to engage with additional stakeholders to translate effective interventions into routine practice.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.