Determinants of designing for dissemination in public health practice in the United States: A mixed methods study
1
Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Temple University, Philadelphia, United States
2
Department of Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, United States
3
Prevention Research Center, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, United States
4
Department of Family Medicine and ACCORDS Research Center, University of Colorado, Aurora, United States
5
Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, United States
Popul. Med. 2026;8(Supplement Supplement 1):
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION:
A persistent challenge in public health is putting research into practice; designing for dissemination (D4D) is a process of developing research products to match with intended audiences and settings to bridge this gap. However, little is known about how public health practitioners integrate evidence. Our study objective was to examine determinants of research utilization among public health practitioners and gain insights into potential dissemination strategies to support D4D planning and activities for researchers.
METHODS:
We conducted a convergent parallel mixed-methods study. We engaged public health practitioners across the United States (N=261), in state (n=211, 81.2%) and local health departments (n=43, 16.5%). Research utilization, correlates, and determinants were assessed through a survey that contained quantitative and qualitative questions.
RESULTS:
High users of research reported more favorable support for their role and enabling research use, although the only statistically significant association was tracking and monitoring research findings (OR = 2.66, 95% CI: 1.44–4.91). The most prevalent challenge was limited time to find and use research, cited by 80% of respondents. Statistically significant differences were found between local and state practitioners, with time cited as a top barrier more often among state practitioners (81.1%) than local practitioners (70.3%; p=.009). Limited access to research and the perceived irrelevance of research to their specific work needs, including the populations they serve, were frequently mentioned in qualitative data. Potential dissemination strategies included leveraging professional networks, webinars, and email newsletters, as well as developing centralized repositories for curated research. Respondents also suggested community-engaged approaches, emphasizing the need to tailor research communication to underserved populations and to build trust through local partnerships.
CONCLUSIONS:
Differences in research utilization exist among public health practitioners and are potentially driven by contextual and interpersonal factors. The development and testing of tailored dissemination strategies could address barriers to research utilization.
A persistent challenge in public health is putting research into practice; designing for dissemination (D4D) is a process of developing research products to match with intended audiences and settings to bridge this gap. However, little is known about how public health practitioners integrate evidence. Our study objective was to examine determinants of research utilization among public health practitioners and gain insights into potential dissemination strategies to support D4D planning and activities for researchers.
METHODS:
We conducted a convergent parallel mixed-methods study. We engaged public health practitioners across the United States (N=261), in state (n=211, 81.2%) and local health departments (n=43, 16.5%). Research utilization, correlates, and determinants were assessed through a survey that contained quantitative and qualitative questions.
RESULTS:
High users of research reported more favorable support for their role and enabling research use, although the only statistically significant association was tracking and monitoring research findings (OR = 2.66, 95% CI: 1.44–4.91). The most prevalent challenge was limited time to find and use research, cited by 80% of respondents. Statistically significant differences were found between local and state practitioners, with time cited as a top barrier more often among state practitioners (81.1%) than local practitioners (70.3%; p=.009). Limited access to research and the perceived irrelevance of research to their specific work needs, including the populations they serve, were frequently mentioned in qualitative data. Potential dissemination strategies included leveraging professional networks, webinars, and email newsletters, as well as developing centralized repositories for curated research. Respondents also suggested community-engaged approaches, emphasizing the need to tailor research communication to underserved populations and to build trust through local partnerships.
CONCLUSIONS:
Differences in research utilization exist among public health practitioners and are potentially driven by contextual and interpersonal factors. The development and testing of tailored dissemination strategies could address barriers to research utilization.
| eISSN: | 2654-1459 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
