ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Understanding barriers and facilitators to engaging with implementation science (IS) research can provide insight into how to improve efforts to encourage more researchers to participate in IS research. STUDY DESIGN: The study design used is a grounded theory qualitative study. METHODS: We conducted semistructured telephone interviews with 20 health researchers familiar with IS that both report engaging in IS research and those that do not. We explored perceptions of barriers and facilitators to engaging in IS research. Themes surrounding difficulties defining IS, lack of training availability, and obstacles to forming research partnerships were discussed as barriers to engaging IS research. Interview topics were informed by the result of an online survey of health researchers in the US. RESULTS: Themes surrounding difficulties defining IS, lack of training availability, and obstacles to forming research partnerships were discussed as barriers to engaging IS research. While accessible mentorship, exposure to formative experiences that develop interest in IS research and an increasing IS visibility were described as motivators for engaging in IS research. CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight the importance of mentorship and exposure to IS ideas in motivating engagement in IS research and the presence of training and methodological barriers to engagement. Future research should expand this line of inquiry to include the perspectives of more junior researchers and students to better reflect the current IS environment.
Subject(s)
Implementation Science , Research Personnel/psychology , Biomedical Research , Female , Grounded Theory , Humans , Interviews as Topic , Male , Public Health , Qualitative Research , Research Design , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
Applicators applying diazinon to yards were monitored to determine potential exposures received while using this commonly available pesticide around the home. Diazinon was applied to lawns and shrubs using compressed air or hose-end sprayers. Even with minimal clothing, the largest mean exposure received during any of the applications was estimated to be less than 0.2% of a lethal dose per hour. Exposure to the hands accounted for 85% or more of the total exposure, so simply protecting the hands would have essentially eliminated exposure.
