Researcher readiness for participating in community-engaged dissemination and implementation research: a conceptual framework of core competencies
Participating in community-engaged dissemination and implementation (CEDI) research is challenging for a variety of reasons. Currently, there is not specific guidance or a tool available for researchers to assess their readiness to conduct CEDI research. We propose a conceptual framework that identifies detailed competencies for researchers participating in CEDI and maps these competencies to domains. The framework is a necessary step toward developing a CEDI research readiness survey that measures a researcher’s attitudes, willingness, and self-reported ability for acquiring the knowledge and performing the behaviors necessary for effective community engagement. The conceptual framework for CEDI competencies was developed by a team of eight faculty and staff affiliated with a university’s Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA). The authors developed CEDI competencies by identifying the attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors necessary for carrying out commonly accepted CE principles. After collectively developing an initial list of competencies, team members individually mapped each competency to a single domain that provided the best fit. Following the individual mapping, the group held two sessions in which the sorting preferences were shared and discrepancies were discussed until consensus was reached. During this discussion, modifications to wording of competencies and domains were made as needed. The team then engaged five community stakeholders to review and modify the competencies and domains. The CEDI framework consists of 40 competencies organized into nine domains: perceived value of CE in D&I research, introspection and openness, knowledge of community characteristics, appreciation for stakeholder’s experience with and attitudes toward research, preparing the partnership for collaborative decision-making, collaborative planning for the research design and goals, communication effectiveness, equitable distribution of resources and credit, and sustaining the partnership. Delineation of CEDI competencies advances the broader CE principles and D&I research goals found in the literature and facilitates development of readiness assessments tied to specific training resources for researchers interested in conducting CEDI research.
KeywordsDissemination and implementation Implementation science Community engagement Stakeholder engagement Education and training
The authors would like to thank William (Bill) Kearney; Ginny Lewis, MSW; Lisa Quarles; Ronnie Rubin, PhD; and Shawna Weaver, LCSW for their insightful and comprehensive feedback on the CEDI competencies and domains. The authors also thank Kea Turner for her assistance with literature searches for this project. The authors are all supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) through the UNC Clinical Translation Science Award (1UL1TR001111). BJP also was supported in part by NIH through R25 MH080916; L30 MH108060; P30 AI50410; R01 MH106510 and The Duke Endowment (1945-SP). GCS also was supported by NIH through Grant Award Number K24 HL105493. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
This project did not include human and animal subjects or secondary data sources about human subjects and therefore was not reviewed by an IRB.
- 2.Spoth, R., Clair, S., Greenberg, M., Redmond, C., & Shin, C. (2007). Toward dissemination of evidence-based family interventions: maintenance of community-based partnership recruitment results and associated factors. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(2), 137–146. doi: 10.1037/0893-3184.108.40.206.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 3.Research, N. A. M. H. C. S., & Workgroup, C. E. (2006). The road ahead: research partnerships to transform services. Bethesda: National Institute of Mental Health.Google Scholar
- 4.Palinkas, L. A., Short, C., & Wong, M. (2015). Research-practice-policy partnerships for implementation of evidence-based practices in child welfare and child mental health. New York: William T. Grant Foundation.Google Scholar
- 5.Inkelas, M., Brown, A. F., Vassar, S. D., Sankaré, I. C., Martinez, A. B., Kubicek, K., et al. (2015). Enhancing dissemination, implementation, and improvement science in CTSAs through regional partnerships. Clinical and Translational Science, 8(6), 800–806. doi: 10.1111/cts.12348.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 7.Esposito, D., Heeringa, J., Bradley, K., Croake, S., & Kimmey, L. (2015). PCORI dissemination & implementation framework. Washington, D.C.: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Retrieved from http://www.pcori.org/sites/default/files/PCORI-Dissemination-Implementation-Framework.pdf.Google Scholar
- 8.Powell, B. J., Bosk, E. A., Wilen, J. S., Danko, C. M., Van Scoyoc, A., & Banman, A. (2015). Evidence-based programs in “real world” settings: Finding the best fit. In D. Daro, A. Cohn Donnelly, & L. Huang (Eds.), Advances in child abuse prevention knoweldge: the perspective of new leadership (pp. 145–177). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Walker SC, Lyon AR, Trupin EW. The consistencies and vagaries of the Washington State Inventory of Evidence-Based Practice: the definition of “evidence-based” in a policy context. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res. 2015; 1–13. doi: 10.1007/s10488-015-0652-y.
- 11.Flottorp, S. A., Oxman, A. D., Krause, J., Musila, N. R., Wensing, M., Godycki-Cwirko, M., et al. (2013). A checklist for identifying determinants of practice: a systematic review and synthesis of frameworks and taxonomies of factors that prevent or enable improvements in healthcare professional practice. Implementation Science, 8(35), 1–11. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-35.Google Scholar
- 12.Powell, B. J., Waltz, T. J., Chinman, M. J., Damschroder, L. J., Smith, J. L., Matthieu, M. M., et al. (2015). A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implementation Science, 10(21), 1–14. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1.Google Scholar
- 13.Baker R, Cammosso-Stefinovic J, Gillies C, Shaw E J, Cheater F, Flottorp S, Robertson N. Tailored interventions to overcome identified barriers to change: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2010; 3 Art. No.: CD005470: 1–77. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005470.pub2.
- 15.Minkler, M., Salvatore, A. L., Brownson, R. C., Colditz, G. A., & Proctor, E. K. (2012). Participatory approaches for study design and analysis in dissemination and implementation research. In Dissemination and implementation research in (pp. 192–212). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 16.Fleurence, R., Selby, J. V., Odom-Walker, K., Hunt, G., Meltzer, D., Slutsky, J. R., & Yancy, C. (2013). How the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute is engaging patients and others in shaping its research agenda. Health Affairs, 32(2), 393–400. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1176.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Alegria, M., Wong, Y., Mulvaney-Day, N., Nillni, A., Proctor, E. K., Nickel, M., et al. (2012). Community-based partnered research: new directions in mental health services research. Ethnicity & Disease, 21, S1–8–S1–16.Google Scholar
- 24.Black, K. Z., Hardy, C. Y., De Marco, M., Ammerman, A. S., Corbie-Smith, G., Council, B, et al. (2013). Beyond incentives for involvement to compensation for consultants: increasing equity in CBPR approaches. Progress in Community Health Partnerships, 7(3), 263–270. doi: 10.1353/cpr.2013.0040.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 26.Andrews, J. O., Newman, S. D., Cox, M. J., & Meadows, O. (2011). Are we ready? A toolkit for academic-community partnerships in preparation for community-based participatory research. Charleston: Medical University of South Carolina.Google Scholar
- 28.Israel, B. A., Lantz, P. M., McGranaghan, R. J., Kerr, D. L., & Guzman, J. R. (2005). Documentation and evaluation of CBPR partnerships: in-depth interviews and closed-ended questionnaires. In Methods in community-based participatory research for health (pp. 255–277). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc..Google Scholar
- 32.Clinical and Translational Science Awards Consortium, Community Engagement Key Function Committee, Task Force on the Principles of Community Engagement. (2011). Principles of community engagement (no. 11-7782). Washington, D. C: Department of Health and Human Services, National Institues of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Google Scholar
- 33.Minkler, M., & Wallerstein, N. (2011). Community-based participatory research for health: from process to outcomes. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- 34.Israel, B. A. (2013). Methods for community-based participatory research for health (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc..Google Scholar
- 35.Minkler, M. (2003). Community based participatory research for health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc..Google Scholar
- 36.Padek, M., Colditz, G., Dobbins, M., Koscielniak, N., Proctor, E. K., Sales, A. E., & Brownson, R. C. (2015). Developing educational competencies for dissemination and implementation research training programs: an exploratory analysis using card sorts. Implementation Science, 10(114), 1–9. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0304-3.Google Scholar
- 38.Palinkas, L. A., & Soydan, H. (2012). Translation and implementation of evidence-based practice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 39.Alinksky, S. (1971). Rules for radicals: a pragmatic primer for realistic radicals. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
- 40.Wallerstein, N., Minkler, M., Carter-Edwards, L., Avila, M., & Sánchez, V. (2015). Improving health through community engagement, community organization, and community building. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Health behavior: theory, research, and practice (5th ed., pp. 277–300). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
- 41.Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
- 42.Wallerstein, N., & Bernstein, E. (1988). Empowerment education: Freire’s ideas adapted to health education. Education Quarterly, 15(4), 379–394.Google Scholar
- 44.Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.Google Scholar
- 46.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1997). Principles of community engagement. Atlanta: Public Health Practice Program Office.Google Scholar
- 51.Viswanathan, M., Ammerman, A., Eng, E., Gartlehner, G., Lohr, K. N., Griffith, D., et al. (2004). Community-based participatory research: assessing the evidence (evidence report/technology assessment no. 99 no. 04-E022–2). Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.Google Scholar
- 52.The North Carolina Translational & Clinical Science Institute: About CARES. (2016). Retrieved July 14, 2016, from https://tracs.unc.edu/index.php/services/cares.
- 53.Israel, B. A., Eng, E., Schulz, A. J., & Parker, E. A. (2013). Methods for community-based participatory research for health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc..Google Scholar
- 55.Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- 59.Wandersman, A., Duffy, J., Flaspohler, P., Noonan, R., Lubell, K., Stillman, L., et al. (2008). Bridging the gap between prevention research and practice: the interactive systems framework for dissemination and implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 171–181. doi: 10.1007/s10464-008-9174-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 63.Grol, R., Wensing, M., Eccles, M., & Davis, D. (Eds.). (2013). Improving patient care: the implementation of change in health care (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
- 65.Aarons, G. A., Glisson, C., Green, P. D., Hoagwood, K., Kelleher, K. J., Landsverk, J. A., & The Research Network on Youth Mental Health. (2012). The organizational social context of mental health services and clinician attitudes toward evidence-based practice: a United States national study. Implementation Science, 7(56), 1–15. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-56.Google Scholar
- 66.Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
- 69.Damschroder, L. J., Aron, D. C., Keith, R. E., Kirsh, S. R., Alexander, J. A., & Lowery, J. C. (2009). Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science, 4(50), 1–15.Google Scholar
- 72.Deverka, P. A., Lavallee, D. C., Desai, P. J., Esmail, L. C., Ramsey, S. D., Veenstra, D. L., & Tunis, S. R. (2012). Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: defining a framework for effective engagement. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, 1(2), 181–194.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 73.Holt, C. L., Tagai, E. K., Scheirer, M. A., Santos, S. L. Z., Bowie, J., Haider, M., et al. Translating evidence-based interventions for implementation: experiences from Project HEAL in African American churches. Implementation Science, 9(66). doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-9-66.
- 76.Fraser, S. W. (2002). Accelerating the spread of good practice: a workbook for health care. West Sussex: Kingsham Press.Google Scholar
- 78.Straus, S. E., Brouwers, M., Johnson, D., Lavis, J. N., Légaré, F., Majumdar, S. R., et al. (2011). Core competencies in the science and practice of knowledge translation: description of a Canadian strategic training initiative. Implementation Science, 6(127), 1–7. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-127.Google Scholar
- 79.National Institutes of Health. (2016). Dissemination and implementation research in health (R01). Bethesda: National Institutes of Health Retrieved from http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-16-238.html.Google Scholar