Variation in Research Designs Used to Test the Effectiveness of Dissemination and Implementation Strategies: A Review
BackgroundThe need for optimal study designs in dissemination and implementation (D&I) research is increasingly recognized. Despite the wide range of study designs available for D&I research, we lack understanding of the types of designs and methodologies that are routinely used in t...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2018-02-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Public Health |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00032/full |
| _version_ | 1811195551004229632 |
|---|---|
| author | Stephanie Mazzucca Rachel G. Tabak Meagan Pilar Alex T. Ramsey Ana A. Baumann Emily Kryzer Ericka M. Lewis Margaret Padek Byron J. Powell Ross C. Brownson Ross C. Brownson |
| author_facet | Stephanie Mazzucca Rachel G. Tabak Meagan Pilar Alex T. Ramsey Ana A. Baumann Emily Kryzer Ericka M. Lewis Margaret Padek Byron J. Powell Ross C. Brownson Ross C. Brownson |
| author_sort | Stephanie Mazzucca |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | BackgroundThe need for optimal study designs in dissemination and implementation (D&I) research is increasingly recognized. Despite the wide range of study designs available for D&I research, we lack understanding of the types of designs and methodologies that are routinely used in the field. This review assesses the designs and methodologies in recently proposed D&I studies and provides resources to guide design decisions.MethodsWe reviewed 404 study protocols published in the journal Implementation Science from 2/2006 to 9/2017. Eligible studies tested the efficacy or effectiveness of D&I strategies (i.e., not effectiveness of the underlying clinical or public health intervention); had a comparison by group and/or time; and used ≥1 quantitative measure. Several design elements were extracted: design category (e.g., randomized); design type [e.g., cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT)]; data type (e.g., quantitative); D&I theoretical framework; levels of treatment assignment, intervention, and measurement; and country in which the research was conducted. Each protocol was double-coded, and discrepancies were resolved through discussion.ResultsOf the 404 protocols reviewed, 212 (52%) studies tested one or more implementation strategy across 208 manuscripts, therefore meeting inclusion criteria. Of the included studies, 77% utilized randomized designs, primarily cluster RCTs. The use of alternative designs (e.g., stepped wedge) increased over time. Fewer studies were quasi-experimental (17%) or observational (6%). Many study design categories (e.g., controlled pre–post, matched pair cluster design) were represented by only one or two studies. Most articles proposed quantitative and qualitative methods (61%), with the remaining 39% proposing only quantitative. Half of protocols (52%) reported using a theoretical framework to guide the study. The four most frequently reported frameworks were Consolidated Framework for Implementing Research and RE-AIM (n = 16 each), followed by Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services and Theoretical Domains Framework (n = 12 each).ConclusionWhile several novel designs for D&I research have been proposed (e.g., stepped wedge, adaptive designs), the majority of the studies in our sample employed RCT designs. Alternative study designs are increasing in use but may be underutilized for a variety of reasons, including preference of funders or lack of awareness of these designs. Promisingly, the prevalent use of quantitative and qualitative methods together reflects methodological innovation in newer D&I research. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-12T00:45:00Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-7f667af5f79c431cbcb125f544a34be5 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2296-2565 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-12T00:45:00Z |
| publishDate | 2018-02-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Public Health |
| spelling | doaj.art-7f667af5f79c431cbcb125f544a34be52022-12-22T03:54:53ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Public Health2296-25652018-02-01610.3389/fpubh.2018.00032330284Variation in Research Designs Used to Test the Effectiveness of Dissemination and Implementation Strategies: A ReviewStephanie Mazzucca0Rachel G. Tabak1Meagan Pilar2Alex T. Ramsey3Ana A. Baumann4Emily Kryzer5Ericka M. Lewis6Margaret Padek7Byron J. Powell8Ross C. Brownson9Ross C. Brownson10Prevention Research Center in St. Louis, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United StatesPrevention Research Center in St. Louis, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United StatesPrevention Research Center in St. Louis, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United StatesDepartment of Psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United StatesBrown School of Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United StatesBrown School of Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United StatesSchool of Social Work, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, United StatesPrevention Research Center in St. Louis, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United StatesDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United StatesPrevention Research Center in St. Louis, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United StatesDepartment of Surgery, Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United StatesBackgroundThe need for optimal study designs in dissemination and implementation (D&I) research is increasingly recognized. Despite the wide range of study designs available for D&I research, we lack understanding of the types of designs and methodologies that are routinely used in the field. This review assesses the designs and methodologies in recently proposed D&I studies and provides resources to guide design decisions.MethodsWe reviewed 404 study protocols published in the journal Implementation Science from 2/2006 to 9/2017. Eligible studies tested the efficacy or effectiveness of D&I strategies (i.e., not effectiveness of the underlying clinical or public health intervention); had a comparison by group and/or time; and used ≥1 quantitative measure. Several design elements were extracted: design category (e.g., randomized); design type [e.g., cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT)]; data type (e.g., quantitative); D&I theoretical framework; levels of treatment assignment, intervention, and measurement; and country in which the research was conducted. Each protocol was double-coded, and discrepancies were resolved through discussion.ResultsOf the 404 protocols reviewed, 212 (52%) studies tested one or more implementation strategy across 208 manuscripts, therefore meeting inclusion criteria. Of the included studies, 77% utilized randomized designs, primarily cluster RCTs. The use of alternative designs (e.g., stepped wedge) increased over time. Fewer studies were quasi-experimental (17%) or observational (6%). Many study design categories (e.g., controlled pre–post, matched pair cluster design) were represented by only one or two studies. Most articles proposed quantitative and qualitative methods (61%), with the remaining 39% proposing only quantitative. Half of protocols (52%) reported using a theoretical framework to guide the study. The four most frequently reported frameworks were Consolidated Framework for Implementing Research and RE-AIM (n = 16 each), followed by Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services and Theoretical Domains Framework (n = 12 each).ConclusionWhile several novel designs for D&I research have been proposed (e.g., stepped wedge, adaptive designs), the majority of the studies in our sample employed RCT designs. Alternative study designs are increasing in use but may be underutilized for a variety of reasons, including preference of funders or lack of awareness of these designs. Promisingly, the prevalent use of quantitative and qualitative methods together reflects methodological innovation in newer D&I research.http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00032/fullresearch study designresearch methodsreviewimplementation researchdissemination research |
| spellingShingle | Stephanie Mazzucca Rachel G. Tabak Meagan Pilar Alex T. Ramsey Ana A. Baumann Emily Kryzer Ericka M. Lewis Margaret Padek Byron J. Powell Ross C. Brownson Ross C. Brownson Variation in Research Designs Used to Test the Effectiveness of Dissemination and Implementation Strategies: A Review Frontiers in Public Health research study design research methods review implementation research dissemination research |
| title | Variation in Research Designs Used to Test the Effectiveness of Dissemination and Implementation Strategies: A Review |
| title_full | Variation in Research Designs Used to Test the Effectiveness of Dissemination and Implementation Strategies: A Review |
| title_fullStr | Variation in Research Designs Used to Test the Effectiveness of Dissemination and Implementation Strategies: A Review |
| title_full_unstemmed | Variation in Research Designs Used to Test the Effectiveness of Dissemination and Implementation Strategies: A Review |
| title_short | Variation in Research Designs Used to Test the Effectiveness of Dissemination and Implementation Strategies: A Review |
| title_sort | variation in research designs used to test the effectiveness of dissemination and implementation strategies a review |
| topic | research study design research methods review implementation research dissemination research |
| url | http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00032/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT stephaniemazzucca variationinresearchdesignsusedtotesttheeffectivenessofdisseminationandimplementationstrategiesareview AT rachelgtabak variationinresearchdesignsusedtotesttheeffectivenessofdisseminationandimplementationstrategiesareview AT meaganpilar variationinresearchdesignsusedtotesttheeffectivenessofdisseminationandimplementationstrategiesareview AT alextramsey variationinresearchdesignsusedtotesttheeffectivenessofdisseminationandimplementationstrategiesareview AT anaabaumann variationinresearchdesignsusedtotesttheeffectivenessofdisseminationandimplementationstrategiesareview AT emilykryzer variationinresearchdesignsusedtotesttheeffectivenessofdisseminationandimplementationstrategiesareview AT erickamlewis variationinresearchdesignsusedtotesttheeffectivenessofdisseminationandimplementationstrategiesareview AT margaretpadek variationinresearchdesignsusedtotesttheeffectivenessofdisseminationandimplementationstrategiesareview AT byronjpowell variationinresearchdesignsusedtotesttheeffectivenessofdisseminationandimplementationstrategiesareview AT rosscbrownson variationinresearchdesignsusedtotesttheeffectivenessofdisseminationandimplementationstrategiesareview AT rosscbrownson variationinresearchdesignsusedtotesttheeffectivenessofdisseminationandimplementationstrategiesareview |