Centre for Implementation Science, Health Service and Population Research Department, King's College London, London, UK.
Centre for Behaviour Change, Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.
Implement Sci. 2020 Oct 30;15(1):97. doi: 10.1186/s13012-020-01051-6.
The field of dissemination and implementation (D&I) science has grown significantly over recent years. Alongside this, an increased demand for training in D&I from researchers and implementers has been seen. Research describing and evaluating D&I training opportunities, referred to here as 'capacity building initiatives' (CBIs), can help provide an understanding of different methods of training as well as training successes and challenges. However, to gain a more detailed understanding of the evidence-base and how D&I CBIs are being reported in publications, a field-wide examination of the academic literature is required.
Systematic review to identify the type and range of D&I CBIs discussed and/or appraised in the academic literature. EMBASE, Medline and PsycINFO were searched between January 2006 and November 2019. Articles were included if they reported on a D&I CBI that was developed by the authors (of each of the included articles) or the author's host institution. Two reviewers independently screened the articles and extracted data using a standardised form.
Thirty-one articles (from a total of 4181) were included. From these, 41 distinct D&I CBIs were identified which focussed on different contexts and professions, from 8 countries across the world. CBIs ranged from short courses to training institutes to being part of academic programmes. Nearly half were delivered face-face with the remainder delivered remotely or using a blended format. CBIs often stipulated specific eligibility criteria, strict application processes and/or were oversubscribed. Variabilities in the way in which the D&I CBIs were reported and/or evaluated were evident.
Increasing the number of training opportunities, as well as broadening their reach (to a wider range of learners), would help address the recognised deficit in D&I training. Standardisation in the reporting of D&I CBIs would enable the D&I community to better understand the findings across different contexts and scientific professions so that training gaps can be identified and overcome. More detailed examination of publications on D&I CBIs as well as the wider literature on capacity building would be of significant merit to the field.
传播和实施（D&I）科学领域近年来有了显著的发展。与此同时，研究人员和实施者对 D&I 培训的需求也有所增加。描述和评估 D&I 培训机会的研究，在这里被称为“能力建设举措”（CBIs），可以帮助人们了解不同的培训方法，以及培训的成功和挑战。然而，为了更详细地了解证据基础以及出版物中 D&I CBIs 的报告方式，需要对整个领域的学术文献进行检查。
系统综述，以确定在学术文献中讨论和/或评估的 D&I CBIs 的类型和范围。在 2006 年 1 月至 2019 年 11 月期间，检索了 EMBASE、Medline 和 PsycINFO。如果文章报告了由作者（每篇文章的作者）或作者所在机构开发的 D&I CBI，则将其纳入。两名审查员独立使用标准化表格筛选文章并提取数据。
从总共 4181 篇文章中，有 31 篇文章（共 31 篇）被纳入。从这些文章中，确定了 41 种不同的 D&I CBIs，这些 CBI 专注于来自世界 8 个国家的不同背景和专业。CBIs 范围从短期课程到培训学院，再到成为学术计划的一部分。近一半是面对面进行的，其余的则是远程进行的，或采用混合格式。CBIs 通常规定了具体的资格标准、严格的申请流程和/或超额申请。在报告和/或评估 D&I CBIs 的方式方面存在明显的差异。
增加培训机会的数量，并扩大其覆盖范围（面向更广泛的学习者），将有助于解决 D&I 培训中公认的不足。D&I CBIs 报告的标准化将使 D&I 社区能够更好地了解不同背景和科学专业的研究结果，从而发现并克服培训差距。对 D&I CBIs 的出版物以及更广泛的能力建设文献进行更详细的研究，将对该领域具有重要意义。
