Public Health Rep. 2014 Jul;129(4):361-8.

What predicts dissemination efforts among public health researchers in the United States?

Tabak RG1, Stamatakis KA2, Jacobs JA1, Brownson RC3.

Author information

• 1Washington University in St. Louis, Prevention Research Center in St. Louis, Brown School, St. Louis, MO.
• 2Saint Louis University College for Public Health and Social Justice, Departments of Epidemiology and Behavioral Science and Health Education, St. Louis, MO.
• 3Washington University in St. Louis, Prevention Research Center in St. Louis, Brown School, St. Louis, MO ; Washington University in St. Louis, School of Medicine, Division of Public Health Sciences and Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, St. Louis, MO.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

We identified factors related to dissemination efforts by researchers to non-research audiences to reduce the gap between research generation and uptake in public health practice.

METHODS:

We conducted a cross-sectional study of 266 researchers at universities, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and CDC. We identified scientists using a search of public health journals and lists from government-sponsored research. The scientists completed a 35-item online survey in 2012. Using multivariable logistic regression, we compared self-rated effort to disseminate findings to non-research audiences (excellent/good vs. poor) across predictor variables in three categories: perceptions or reasons to disseminate, perceived expectation by employer/funders, and professional training and experience.

RESULTS:

One-third of researchers rated their dissemination efforts as poor. Many factors were significantly related to whether a researcher rated him/herself as excellent/good, including obligation to disseminate findings (odds ratio [OR] = 2.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1, 6.8), dissemination important for their department (OR=2.3, 95% CI 1.2, 4.5), dissemination expected by employer (OR=2.0, 95% CI 1.2, 3.2) or by funder (OR=2.1, 95% CI 1.3, 3.2), previous work in a practice/policy setting (OR=4.4, 95% CI 2.1, 9.3), and university researchers with Prevention Research Center affiliation vs. NIH researchers (OR=4.7, 95% CI 1.4, 15.7). With all variables in the model, dissemination expected by funder (OR=2.0, 95% CI 1.2, 3.1) and previous work in a practice/policy setting (OR=3.5, OR 1.7, 7.1) remained significant.

CONCLUSIONS:

These findings support the need for structural changes to the system, including funding agency priorities and participation of researchers in practice- and policy-based experiences, which may enhance efforts to disseminate by researchers.