Huebschmann Amy G, Johnston Shelly, Davis Rachel, Kwan Bethany M, Geng Elvin, Haire-Joshu Debra, Sandler Brittney, McNeal Demetria M, Brownson Ross C, Rabin Borsika A
Adult and Child Center for Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus (CU-Anschutz), Aurora, CO, USA.
Division of General Internal Medicine, CU-Anschutz, Aurora, CO, USA.
Implement Res Pract. 2022 Dec 25;3:26334895221146261. doi: 10.1177/26334895221146261. eCollection 2022 Jan-Dec.
The field of Implementation science (IS) continues to evolve, and the number and type of IS capacity building Programs (ISCBPs) are in flux. These changes push the field to revisit the accepted IS competencies and to guide sustainment of ISCBPs. Our objectives were: (1) compare characteristics of current ISCBPs; (2) identify recommendations to support ISCBP sustainment; (3) measure how often ISCBPs address IS competencies; (4) identify novel and important IS competencies for the field.
This multi-method study included ISCBPs delivering structured, longitudinal IS training, excluding single courses and brief workshops. We used three complementary methods to meet our objectives. First, we identified ISCBPs via an internet search and snowball sampling methods. Second, we surveyed these ISCBPs to identify areas of program focus, types of trainees, IS competencies addressed, and recommendations to sustain ISCBPs. Third, we conducted a modified Delphi process with IS researchers/leaders to reach consensus on the IS competencies that were both important and novel as compared to the IS competencies published to date.
Among 74 eligible ISCBPs identified, 46 responded (62% response rate). Respondent ISCBPs represented diverse areas of focus (e.g., global health, cardiopulmonary disease) and trainee stages (e.g., graduate students, mid-career faculty). While most respondent ISCBPs addressed core IS methods, targeting IS competencies was less consistent (33% for nongraduate/non-fellowship ISCBPs; >90% for graduate/national ISCBPs). Our modified Delphi process identified eight novel and important IS competencies related to increasing health equity or the speed of translation. Recommendations to sustain ISCBPs included securing financial administrative support.
Current ISCBPs train learners across varying career stages in diverse focus areas. To promote rigor, we recommend ISCBPs address specific IS competencies, with consideration of these eight novel/emerging competencies. We also recommend ISCBPs report on their IS competencies, focus area(s), and trainee characteristics. ISCBP programs need administrative financial support.
There is a limited workforce capacity to conduct implementation science (IS) research. To address this gap, the number and type of IS capacity building Programs (ISCBPs) focusing on training researchers and practitioners in IS methods continue to increase. Our efforts to comprehensively identify and describe ISCBPs for researchers and practitioners highlighted four implications for leaders of ISCBPs related to program sustainment and rigor. First, we identified a range of contextual characteristics of ISCBPs, including the research topics, methods, and IS competencies addressed, and the types of trainees accepted. Second, given the variability of trainee types and research, rigorous ISCBP programs should tailor the IS competencies and methods addressed to the skills needed by the types of trainees in their program. Third, the field of IS needs to periodically revisit the competencies needed with attention to the skills needed in the field. We used a consensus-building process with ISCBP leaders and other IS experts to expand existing IS competencies and identified eight important, novel IS competencies that broadly relate to promoting health equity and speeding the translation of research to practice. Finally, as more institutions consider developing ISCBPs, we identified factors needed to support ISCBP sustainment, including ongoing financial support. In addition to these implications for ISCBP leaders, there are also policy implications. For example, IS journals may enact policies to require manuscripts evaluating ISCBP performance to report on certain contextual characteristics, such as the IS competencies addressed and types of trainees accepted. The field may also consider developing an accreditation body to evaluate the rigor of ISCBP curricula.
实施科学(IS)领域不断发展,IS能力建设项目(ISCBPs)的数量和类型也在不断变化。这些变化促使该领域重新审视公认的IS能力,并指导ISCBPs的持续发展。我们的目标是:(1)比较当前ISCBPs的特征;(2)确定支持ISCBPs持续发展的建议;(3)衡量ISCBPs涉及IS能力的频率;(4)确定该领域新的重要IS能力。
这项多方法研究包括提供结构化、纵向IS培训的ISCBPs,不包括单一课程和简短研讨会。我们使用三种互补方法来实现目标。首先,我们通过互联网搜索和滚雪球抽样方法确定ISCBPs。其次,我们对这些ISCBPs进行调查,以确定项目重点领域、学员类型、涉及的IS能力以及支持ISCBPs持续发展的建议。第三,我们与IS研究人员/领导者进行了改进的德尔菲过程,以就与迄今已发表的IS能力相比既重要又新颖的IS能力达成共识。
在确定的74个符合条件的ISCBPs中,46个做出了回应(回应率62%)。回应的ISCBPs代表了不同的重点领域(如全球卫生、心肺疾病)和学员阶段(如研究生、职业生涯中期教师)。虽然大多数回应的ISCBPs涉及核心IS方法,但针对IS能力的情况不太一致(非研究生/非奖学金ISCBPs为33%;研究生/国家级ISCBPs>90%)。我们改进的德尔菲过程确定了八项与提高健康公平性或转化速度相关的新的重要IS能力。支持ISCBPs持续发展的建议包括获得财务行政支持。
当前的ISCBPs在不同的重点领域对不同职业阶段的学习者进行培训。为了提高严谨性,我们建议ISCBPs针对特定的IS能力,同时考虑这八项新出现的能力。我们还建议ISCBPs报告其IS能力、重点领域和学员特征。ISCBPs项目需要行政财务支持。
开展实施科学(IS)研究的劳动力能力有限。为了弥补这一差距,专注于培训研究人员和从业者IS方法的IS能力建设项目(ISCBPs)的数量和类型不断增加。我们为研究人员和从业者全面识别和描述ISCBPs的努力突出了对ISCBPs领导者在项目持续发展和严谨性方面的四点启示。首先,我们确定了ISCBPs的一系列背景特征,包括研究主题、方法、涉及的IS能力以及接受的学员类型。其次,鉴于学员类型和研究的多样性,严谨的ISCBPs项目应根据其项目中学员类型所需的技能来调整所涉及的IS能力和方法。第三,IS领域需要定期重新审视所需的能力,关注该领域所需的技能。我们与ISCBPs领导者和其他IS专家进行了共识构建过程,以扩展现有的IS能力,并确定了八项重要的新的IS能力,这些能力大致与促进健康公平和加快研究转化为实践相关。最后,随着越来越多的机构考虑开展ISCBPs,我们确定了支持ISCBPs持续发展所需的因素,包括持续的财务支持。除了对ISCBPs领导者的这些启示外,还有政策方面的启示。例如,IS期刊可能制定政策,要求评估ISCBPs绩效的稿件报告某些背景特征,如涉及的IS能力和接受的学员类型。该领域还可以考虑设立一个认证机构来评估ISCBPs课程的严谨性。