Article

Moving From Research to Large-Scale Change in Child Health Care

Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California , USA.
Academic pediatrics (Impact Factor: 2.23). 07/2011; 11(5):360-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.acap.2011.06.004
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT There is a large and persistent failure to achieve widespread dissemination of evidence-based practices in child health care. Too often studies demonstrating evidence for effective child health care practices are not brought to scale and across different settings and populations. This failure is not due to a lack of knowledge, but rather a failure to bring to bear proven methods in dissemination, diffusion, and implementation (DD&I) science that target the translation of evidence-based medicine to everyday practice. DD&I science offers a framework and a set of tools to identify innovations that are likely to be implemented, and provides methods to better understand the capabilities and preferences of individuals and organizations and the social networks within these organizations that help facilitate widespread adoption. Successful DD&I is dependent on making the intervention context sensitive without losing fidelity to the core components of the intervention. The achievement of these goals calls for new research methods such as pragmatic research trials that combine hypothesis testing with quality improvement, participatory research that engages the target community at the beginning of research design, and other quasi-experimental designs. With the advent of health care reform, it will be extremely important to ensure that the ensuing large demonstration projects that are designed to increase integrated care and better control costs can be rapidly brought to scale across different practices settings, and health plans and will be able to achieve effectiveness in diverse populations.

0 Followers
 · 
81 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: With increased attention to the importance of translating research to clinical practice and policy, recent years have seen a proliferation of particular types of research, including pragmatic trials and dissemination and implementation research. Such research seeks to understand how and why interventions function in real-world settings, as opposed to highly controlled settings involving conditions not likely to be repeated outside the research study. Because understanding the context in which interventions are implemented is imperative for effective pragmatic trials and dissemination and implementation research, the use of mixed methods is critical to understanding trial results and the success or failure of implementation efforts. This article discusses a number of dimensions of mixed methods research, utilizing at least one qualitative method and at least one quantitative method, that may be helpful when designing projects or preparing grant proposals. Although the strengths and emphases of qualitative and quantitative approaches differ substantially, methods may be combined in a variety of ways to achieve a deeper level of understanding than can be achieved by one method alone. However, researchers must understand when and how to integrate the data as well as the appropriate order, priority, and purpose of each method. The ability to demonstrate an understanding of the rationale for and benefits of mixed methods research is increasingly important in today's competitive funding environment, and many funding agencies now expect applicants to include mixed methods in proposals. The increasing demand for mixed methods research necessitates broader methodological training and deepened collaboration between medical, clinical, and social scientists. Although a number of challenges to conducting and disseminating mixed methods research remain, the potential for insight generated by such work is substantial.
    Academic pediatrics 09/2013; 13(5):400-7. DOI:10.1016/j.acap.2013.06.010 · 2.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Professional networks are used increasingly in health care to bring together members from different sites and professions to work collaboratively. Key players within these networks are known to affect network function through their central or brokerage position and are therefore of interest to those who seek to optimise network efficiency. However, their identity may not be apparent. This study using social network analysis to ask: (1) Who are the key players of a new translational research network (TRN)? (2) Do they have characteristics in common? (3) Are they recognisable as powerful, influential or well connected individuals? TRN members were asked to complete an on-line, whole network survey which collected demographic information expected to be associated with key player roles, and social network questions about collaboration in current TRN projects. Three questions asked who they perceived as powerful, influential and well connected. Indegree and betweenness centrality values were used to determine key player status in the actual and perceived networks and tested for association with demographic and descriptive variables using chi square analyses. Response rate for the online survey was 76.4% (52/68). The TRN director and manager were identified as key players along with six other members. Only two of nine variables were associated with actual key player status; none with perceived. The main finding was the mismatch between actual and perceived brokers. Members correctly identified two of the three central actors (the two mandated key roles director and manager) but there were only three correctly identified actual brokers among the 19 perceived brokers. Possible reasons for the mismatch include overlapping structures and weak knowledge of members. The importance of correctly identifying these key players is discussed in terms of network interventions to improve efficiency.
    BMC Health Services Research 08/2013; 13(1):338. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-13-338 · 1.66 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: From the perspective of academic medical centers (AMCs), community engagement is a collaborative process of working toward mutually defined goals to improve the community's health, and involves partnerships between AMCs, individuals, and entities representing the surrounding community. AMCs increasingly recognize the importance of community engagement, and recent programs such as Prevention Research Centers and Clinical and Translational Science Awards have highlighted community engagement activities. However, there is no standard or accepted metric for evaluating AMCs' performance and impact of community engagement activities.In this article, the authors present a framework for evaluating AMCs' community engagement activities. The framework includes broad goals and specific activities within each goal, wherein goals and activities are evaluated using a health services research framework consisting of structure, process, and outcome criteria. To illustrate how to use this community engagement evaluation framework, the authors present specific community engagement goals and activities of the University of Rochester Medical Center to (1) improve the health of the community served by the AMC; (2) increase the AMC's capacity for community engagement; and (3) increase generalizable knowledge and practices in community engagement and public health.Using a structure-process-outcomes framework, a multidisciplinary team should regularly evaluate an AMC's community engagement program with the purpose of measurably improving the performance of the AMC and the health of its surrounding community.
    Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 02/2014; 89(4). DOI:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000190 · 3.47 Impact Factor