Stevens Elizabeth R, Shelley Donna, Boden-Albala Bernadette
Department of Population Health, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY USA.
College of Global Public Health, NYU, New York, NY USA.
Implement Sci Commun. 2020 Mar 30;1:39. doi: 10.1186/s43058-020-00027-3. eCollection 2020.
Implementation science (IS) has the potential to serve an important role in encouraging the successful uptake of evidence-based interventions. The current state of IS awareness and engagement among health researchers, however, is relatively unknown.
To determine IS awareness and engagement among health researchers, we performed an online survey of health researchers in the USA in 2018. Basic science researchers were excluded from the sample. Engagement in and awareness of IS were measured with multiple questionnaire items that both directly and indirectly ask about IS methods used. Unrecognized IS engagement was defined as participating in research using IS elements and not indicating IS as a research method used. We performed simple logistic regressions and tested multivariable logistic regression models of researcher characteristics as predictors of IS engagement.
Of the 1767 health researchers who completed the survey, 68% stated they would be able to describe IS. Only 12.7% of the population self-identified as using IS methods. Of the researchers not self-identifying as using IS methods, 86.4% reported using the IS elements "at least some of the time." Nearly half (47.9%) reported using process/implementation evaluation, 89.2% use IS measures, 27.3% use IS frameworks, and 75.6% investigate or examine ways to integrate interventions into routine health settings. IS awareness significantly reduced the likelihood of all measures of unrecognized IS engagement (aOR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.27, < 0.001).
Overall, awareness of IS is high among health researchers, yet there is also a high prevalence of unrecognized IS engagement. Efforts are needed to further disseminate what constitutes IS research and increase IS awareness among health researchers.
实施科学（IS）在鼓励成功采用循证干预措施方面可能发挥重要作用。然而，健康研究人员对实施科学的认知和参与现状相对不明。
为确定健康研究人员对实施科学的认知和参与情况，我们于2018年对美国的健康研究人员进行了一项在线调查。样本中排除了基础科学研究人员。通过多个问卷项目来衡量对实施科学的参与和认知，这些项目直接或间接询问所使用的实施科学方法。未被认可的实施科学参与被定义为参与使用了实施科学要素的研究，但未表明实施科学是所使用的研究方法。我们进行了简单逻辑回归，并测试了研究人员特征作为实施科学参与预测因素的多变量逻辑回归模型。
在完成调查的1767名健康研究人员中，68%表示他们能够描述实施科学。只有12.7%的人自称使用实施科学方法。在未自称使用实施科学方法的研究人员中，86.4%报告“至少有时”使用实施科学要素。近一半（47.9%）报告使用过程/实施评估，89.2%使用实施科学测量，27.3%使用实施科学框架，75.6%研究或考察将干预措施纳入常规健康环境的方法。实施科学认知显著降低了所有未被认可的实施科学参与指标的可能性（调整后比值比0.13，95%置信区间0.07至0.27，P<0.001）。
总体而言，健康研究人员对实施科学的认知较高，但未被认可的实施科学参与也很普遍。需要努力进一步传播什么是实施科学研究，并提高健康研究人员对实施科学的认知。
