ABSTRACT
The UC San Diego Altman Clinical and Translational Research Institute Dissemination and Implementation Science Center (DISC) launched in 2020 to provide dissemination and implementation science (DIS) training, technical assistance, community engagement, and research advancement. DISC developed a program-wide logic model to inform a process evaluation of member engagement and impact related to DISC services. The DISC Logic Model (DLM) served as the framework for a process evaluation capturing quantitative and qualitative information about scientific activities, outputs, and outcomes. The evaluation involved a multimethod approach with surveys, attendance tracking, feedback forms, documentation of grant outcomes, and promotions metrics (e.g., Twitter engagement). There were 540 DISC Members at the end of year 2 of the DISC. Engagement in the DISC was high with nearly all members endorsing at least one scientific activity. Technical assistance offerings such as DISC Journal Club and consultation were most frequently used. The most common scientific outputs were grant submission (65, 39%), formal mentoring for career award (40, 24%), and paper submission (34, 21%). The DLM facilitated a comprehensive process evaluation of our center. Actionable steps include prioritizing technical assistance, strengthening networking opportunities, identifying streamlined approaches to facilitate DIS grant writing through writing workshops, as well as "office hours" or organized writing leagues.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Research centers and programs focused on dissemination and implementation science (DIS) training, mentorship, and capacity building have proliferated in recent years. There has yet to be a comprehensive inventory of DIS capacity building program (CBP) cataloging information about activities, infrastructure, and priorities as well as opportunities for shared resources, collaboration, and growth. The purpose of this systematic review is to provide the first inventory of DIS CBPs and describe their key features and offerings. METHODS: We defined DIS CBPs as organizations or groups with an explicit focus on building practical knowledge and skills to conduct DIS for health promotion. CBPs were included if they had at least one capacity building activity other than educational coursework or training alone. A multi-method strategy was used to identify DIS CBPs. Data about the characteristics of DIS CBPs were abstracted from each program's website. In addition, a survey instrument was developed and fielded to gather in-depth information about the structure, activities, and resources of each CBP. RESULTS: In total, 165 DIS CBPs met our inclusion criteria and were included in the final CBP inventory. Of these, 68% are affiliated with a United States (US) institution and 32% are internationally based. There was one CBP identified in a low- and middle-income country (LMIC). Of the US-affiliated CBPs, 55% are embedded within a Clinical and Translational Science Award program. Eighty-seven CBPs (53%) responded to a follow-up survey. Of those who completed a survey, the majority used multiple DIS capacity building activities with the most popular being Training and Education (n=69, 79%) followed by Mentorship (n=58, 67%), provision of DIS Resources and Tools (n=57, 66%), Consultation (n=58, 67%), Professional Networking (n=54, 62%), Technical Assistance (n=46, 52%), and Grant Development Support (n=45, 52%). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study to catalog DIS programs and synthesize learnings into a set of priorities and sustainment strategies to support DIS capacity building efforts. There is a need for formal certification, accessible options for learners in LMICs, opportunities for practitioners, and opportunities for mid/later stage researchers. Similarly, harmonized measures of reporting and evaluation would facilitate targeted cross-program comparison and collaboration.
