Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, USA.
School of Social Work, Brigham Young University, Provo, USA.
Implement Sci. 2022 Aug 9;17(1):53. doi: 10.1186/s13012-022-01225-4.
The field of dissemination and implementation (D&I) research has grown immensely in recent years. However, the field of dissemination research has not coalesced to the same degree as the field of implementation research. To advance the field of dissemination research, this review aimed to (1) identify the extent to which dissemination frameworks are used in dissemination empirical studies, (2) examine how scholars define dissemination, and (3) identify key constructs from dissemination frameworks.
To achieve aims 1 and 2, we conducted a scoping review of dissemination studies published in D&I science journals. The search strategy included manuscripts published from 1985 to 2020. Articles were included if they were empirical quantitative or mixed methods studies about the dissemination of information to a professional audience. Studies were excluded if they were systematic reviews, commentaries or conceptual papers, scale-up or scale-out studies, qualitative or case studies, or descriptions of programs. To achieve aim 1, we compiled the frameworks identified in the empirical studies. To achieve aim 2, we compiled the definitions from dissemination from frameworks identified in aim 1 and from dissemination frameworks identified in a 2021 review (Tabak RG, Am J Prev Med 43:337-350, 2012). To achieve aim 3, we compile the constructs and their definitions from the frameworks.
Out of 6017 studies, 89 studies were included for full-text extraction. Of these, 45 (51%) used a framework to guide the study. Across the 45 studies, 34 distinct frameworks were identified, out of which 13 (38%) defined dissemination. There is a lack of consensus on the definition of dissemination. Altogether, we identified 48 constructs, divided into 4 categories: process, determinants, strategies, and outcomes. Constructs in the frameworks are not well defined.
IMPLICATION FOR D&I RESEARCH: This study provides a critical step in the dissemination research literature by offering suggestions on how to define dissemination research and by cataloging and defining dissemination constructs. Strengthening these definitions and distinctions between D&I research could enhance scientific reproducibility and advance the field of dissemination research.
传播和实施（D&I）研究领域近年来发展迅速。然而，传播研究领域并没有像实施研究领域那样紧密结合。为了推进传播研究领域的发展，本综述旨在：（1）确定传播框架在传播实证研究中的应用程度；（2）检查学者如何定义传播；（3）确定传播框架中的关键结构。
为了实现目标 1 和 2，我们对发表在 D&I 科学期刊上的传播研究进行了范围界定综述。搜索策略包括 1985 年至 2020 年期间发表的手稿。如果研究是关于向专业受众传播信息的实证定量或混合方法研究，则将其纳入研究范围。如果研究是系统综述、评论或概念论文、扩大规模或扩大规模研究、定性或案例研究或计划描述，则将其排除在外。为了实现目标 1，我们汇编了实证研究中确定的框架。为了实现目标 2，我们从目标 1 中确定的框架和 2021 年综述（Tabak RG，Am J Prev Med 43：337-350，2012）中确定的传播框架中汇编了传播定义。为了实现目标 3，我们从框架中汇编了结构及其定义。
在 6017 项研究中，有 89 项研究被纳入全文提取。其中，45 项（51%）使用框架指导研究。在这 45 项研究中，确定了 34 个不同的框架，其中 13 个（38%）定义了传播。在传播的定义上缺乏共识。总的来说，我们确定了 48 个结构，分为 4 类：过程、决定因素、策略和结果。框架中的结构没有得到很好的定义。
对 D&I 研究的启示：本研究通过提出如何定义传播研究的建议，并对传播结构进行分类和定义，为传播研究文献提供了一个重要步骤。加强这些定义和 D&I 研究之间的区别，可以提高科学的可重复性，推进传播研究领域的发展。
