Translational Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 393–404 | Cite as

Researcher readiness for participating in community-engaged dissemination and implementation research: a conceptual framework of core competencies

  • Christopher M. Shea
  • Tiffany L. Young
  • Byron J. Powell
  • Catherine Rohweder
  • Zoe K. Enga
  • Jennifer E. Scott
  • Lori Carter-Edwards
  • Giselle Corbie-Smith
Original Research


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.


Dissemination 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.

Ethical approval

This project did not include human and animal subjects or secondary data sources about human subjects and therefore was not reviewed by an IRB.


  1. 1.
    Chambers, D. A., & Azrin, S. T. (2013). Partnership: a fundamental component of dissemination and implementation research. Psychiatric Services, 64(16), 509–511. doi: 10.1176/ Scholar
  2. 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: 10.1037/0893-3200.21.2.137.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 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. 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. 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
  6. 6.
    Bledsoe-Mansori, S. E., Bellamy, J. L., Wike, T., Grady, M., Grady, M., Dinata, E., et al. (2013). Agency-university partnerships for evidence-based practice: a national survey of schools of social work. Social Work Research, 37(3), 179–193. doi: 10.1093/swr/svt015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 9.
    McCracken, S. G., & Marsh, J. C. (2008). Practitioner expertise in evidence-based practice decision making. Research on Social Work Practice, 18(4), 301–310. doi: 10.1177/1049731507308143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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. 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. 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. 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.
  14. 14.
    Powell, B. J., Beidas, R. S., Lewis, C. C., Aarons, G. A., McMillen, J. C., Proctor, E. K., & Mandell, D. S. (2015). Methods to improve the selection and tailoring of implementation strategies. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research. doi: 10.1007/s11414-015-9475-6.Google Scholar
  15. 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. 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
  17. 17.
    Zerhouni, E. A., & Alving, B. (2006). Clinical and Translational Science Awards: a framework for a national research agenda. Translational Research, 148(1), 4–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Buchanan, D. R. (1996). Building academic-community linkages for health promotion: a case study in Massachusetts. American Journal of Health Promotion, 10(4), 262–269.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Taylor, M. (2007). Community participation in the real world: opportunities and pitfalls in new governance spaces. Urban Studies, 44(2), 297–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wang, C. C. (1999). Photovoice: a participatory action research strategy applied to women’s health. Journal of Women’s Health, 8(2), 185–192.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schulz, A. J., Parker, E. A., Israel, B. A., Becker, A. B., Maciak, B. J., & Hollis, R. (1998). Conducting a participatory community-based survey for a community health intervention on Detroit’s east side. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 4(2), 10–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 23.
    Wallerstein, N. B., & Duran, B. (2006). Using community-based participatory research to address health disparities. Health Promotion Practice, 7(3), 312–323.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 25.
    MacLellan-Wright, M. F., Anderson, D., Barber, S., Smith, N., Cantin, B., Felix, R., & Raine, K. (2007). The development of measures of community capacity for community-based funding programs in Canada. Health Promotion International, 22(4), 299–306.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. 27.
    Schulz, A. J., Israel, B. A., & Lantz, P. (2003). Instrument for evaluating dimensions of group dynamics within community-based participatory research partnerships. Evaluation and Program Planning, 26, 249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 29.
    Mitchell, S. A., Fisher, C. A., Hastings, C. E., Silverman, L. B., & Wallen, G. R. (2010). A thematic analysis of theoretical models for translational science in nursing: mapping the field. Nursing Outlook, 58(6), 287–300. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2010.07.001.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tabak, R. G., Khoong, E. C., Chambers, D. A., & Brownson, R. C. (2012). Bridging research and practice: models for dissemination and implementation research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 43(3), 337–350. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.05.024.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nilsen, P. (2015). Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implementation Science, 10(53), 1–13. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0.Google Scholar
  32. 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. 33.
    Minkler, M., & Wallerstein, N. (2011). Community-based participatory research for health: from process to outcomes. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Israel, B. A. (2013). Methods for community-based participatory research for health (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc..Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Minkler, M. (2003). Community based participatory research for health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc..Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 37.
    Gonzales, R., Handley, M. A., Ackerman, S., & O’Sullivan, P. S. (2012). A framework for training health professionals in implementation and dissemination science. Academic Medicine, 87(3), 271–280. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182449d33.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Palinkas, L. A., & Soydan, H. (2012). Translation and implementation of evidence-based practice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Alinksky, S. (1971). Rules for radicals: a pragmatic primer for realistic radicals. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  40. 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. 41.
    Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wallerstein, N., & Bernstein, E. (1988). Empowerment education: Freire’s ideas adapted to health education. Education Quarterly, 15(4), 379–394.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Goodman, R. M., Speers, M. A., McLeroy, K., Fawcett, S., Kegler, M., Parker, E., et al. (1998). Identifying and defining the dimensions of community capacity to provide a basis for measurement. Health Education & Behavior, 25(3), 258–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Israel, B. A., Schulz, A. J., Parker, E. A., & Becker, A. B. (1998). Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 19, 173–202. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.19.1.173.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1997). Principles of community engagement. Atlanta: Public Health Practice Program Office.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Attree, P., French, B., Milton, B., Povall, S., Whitehead, M., & Popay, J. (2011). The experience of community engagement for individuals: a rapid review of the evidence. Health & Social Care in the Community, 19(3), 250–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Milton, B., Attree, P., French, B., Povall, S., Whitehead, M., & Popay, J. (2012). The impact of community engagement on health and social outcomes: a systematic review. Community Development Journal, 47(3), 316–334. doi: 10.1093/cdj/bsr043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Roman Isler, M., & Corbie-Smith, G. (2012). Practical steps to community engaged research: from inputs to outcomes. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 40, 904–914. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2012.00719.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ahmed, S. M., & Palermo, A. G. S. (2010). Community engagement in research: frameworks for education and peer review. American Journal of Public Health, 100(8), 1380–1387.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 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. 52.
    The North Carolina Translational & Clinical Science Institute: About CARES. (2016). Retrieved July 14, 2016, from
  53. 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
  54. 54.
    Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    O’Neil, M. J., & Jackson, L. (1983). Nominal group technique: a process for initiating curriculum development in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 8(2), 129–138. doi: 10.1080/03075078312331378994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Chapple, M., & Murphy, R. (1996). The nominal group technique: extending the evaluation of students’ teaching and learning experiences. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 21(2), 147–160. doi: 10.1080/0260293960210204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Graham, I. D., Logan, J., Harrison, M. B., Straus, S. E., Tetroe, J., Caswell, W., & Robinson, N. (2006). Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26(1), 13–24. doi: 10.1002/chp.47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 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
  60. 60.
    Leykum, L. K., Pugh, J. A., Lanham, H. J., Harmon, J., & McDaniel, R. R. (2009). Implementation research design: integrating participatory action research into randomized controlled trials. Implementation Science, 4(69), 1–8. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-69.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Rycroft-Malone, J. (2004). The PARIHS framework: a framework for guiding the implementation of evidence-based practice. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 19(4), 297–304.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Jacobson, N., Butterill, D., & Goering, P. (2003). Development of a framework for knowledge translation: understanding user context. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 8(2), 94–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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
  64. 64.
    Axtell, S. A., Avery, M. D., & Westra, B. (2010). Incorporating cultural competence content into graduate nursing curricula through community-university collaboration. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 21(2), 183–191. doi: 10.1177/1043659609357633.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 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. 66.
    Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Shea, C. M., & Belden, C. M. (2016). What is the extent of research on the characteristics, behaviors, and impacts of health information technology champions? A scoping review. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 16(2), 1–17. doi: 10.1186/s12911-016-0240-4.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Straus, S. (2009). The action cycle. In S. Straus, J. Tetroe, & I. Graham (Eds.), Knowledge translation in healthcare (p. 59). Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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
  70. 70.
    Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4(67), 1–9. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-67.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Mohr, J., & Spekman, R. (1994). Characteristics of partnership success: partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic Management Journal, 15(2), 135–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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. 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.
  74. 74.
    Braspenning, J., Hermens, R., Calsbeek, H., Westert, G., & Campbell, S. (2013). Quality and safety of care: the role of indicators. In Improving patient care: the implementation of change in health care (2nd ed., pp. 115–136). Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Manojlovich, M., Squires, J. E., Davies, B., & Graham, I. D. (2015). Hiding in plain sight: communication theory in implementation science. Implementation Science, 10(58), 1–11. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0244-y.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Fraser, S. W. (2002). Accelerating the spread of good practice: a workbook for health care. West Sussex: Kingsham Press.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Norman, N., Cowart, S., Felzien, M., Haynes, C., Hernandez, M., Rodriquez, M. P., et al. (2013). Testing to prevent colon cancer: how rural community members took on a community-based intervention. Annals of Family Medicine, 11(6), 568–570.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  78. 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. 79.
    National Institutes of Health. (2016). Dissemination and implementation research in health (R01). Bethesda: National Institutes of Health Retrieved from Scholar
  80. 80.
    Powell, B. J., & Beidas, R. S. (2016). Advancing implementation research and practice in behavioral health systems: introduction to the special issue. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. doi: 10.1007/s10488-016-0762-1.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Lal, S., Urquhart, R., Cornelissen, E., Newman, K., Van Eerd, D., Powell, B. J., & Chan, V. (2015). Trainees’ self-reported challenges in knowledge translation research and practice. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 12(6), 348–354. doi: 10.1111/wvn.12118.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Shea, C. M., Jacobs, S. R., Esserman, D. A., Bruce, K., & Weiner, B. J. (2014). Organizational readiness for implementing change: a psychosocial assessment of a new measure. Implementation Science, 9(7), 1–15. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-9-7.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Behavioral Medicine 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher M. Shea
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tiffany L. Young
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  • Byron J. Powell
    • 1
    • 2
  • Catherine Rohweder
    • 1
    • 2
  • Zoe K. Enga
    • 1
  • Jennifer E. Scott
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lori Carter-Edwards
    • 1
    • 5
  • Giselle Corbie-Smith
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.North Carolina Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute (NC TraCS)Chapel HillUSA
  2. 2.Department of Health Policy and Management, UNC Gillings School of Global Public HealthUNC-Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  3. 3.UNC Center for Health Equity, Department of Social MedicineUNC-Chapel Hill School of MedicineChapel HillUSA
  4. 4.Department of MedicineUNC-Chapel Hill School of MedicineChapel HillUSA
  5. 5.Public Health Leadership Program, UNC Gillings School of Global Public HealthUNC-Chapel HillChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations