4.1 Article

Dissemination and implementation of comparative effectiveness evidence: key informant interviews with Clinical and Translational Science Award institutions

Journal

JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH
Volume 2, Issue 2, Pages 185-194

Publisher

Becaris Publishing
DOI: 10.2217/CER.13.10

Keywords

comparative effectiveness research; dissemination; implementation; NIH

Funding

  1. NIH/NCATS Colorado CTSI [UL1 TR000154]
  2. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [K12HS019464, R18 HS018339]
  3. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) [UL1 TR000135]
  4. NIH
  5. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
  6. NCATS, NIH
  7. NCATS

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: To identify ongoing practices and opportunities for improving national comparative effectiveness research (CER) translation through dissemination and implementation (D&I) via NIH-funded Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) institutions. Materials & methods: Key informant interviews were conducted with 18 CTSA grantees sampled to represent a range of D&I efforts. Results & conclusions: The institutional representatives endorsed fostering CER translation nationally via the CTSA Consortium. However, five themes emerged from the interviews as barriers to CER D&I: lack of institutional awareness, insufficient capacity, lack of established D&I methods, confusion among stakeholders about what CER actually is and limited funding opportunities. Interviewees offered two key recommendations to improve CER translation: development of a centralized clearing house to facilitate the diffusion of CER D&I resources and methods across CTSA institutions; and formalization of the national CTSA network to leverage existing community engagement relationships and resources for the purpose of adapting and disseminating robust CER evidence locally with providers, patients and healthcare systems.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available