1. Read“When Should We Change Our Clinical Practice Based on the Results of a Clinical Study? Study Endpoints” from this week’s Electronic Reserve Readings.

• Summary of the article

In this article, Costantino et al. (2015) argue that it is essential for health professionals to look at the declared endpoints or results of a clinical study before changing their practice. Since clinical studies address several questions, their results can be divided into primary (main objective) and secondary outcomes. The success and design of clinical studies depend on the identification of the primary endpoints. However, results based on secondary outcomes, regardless of their statistical significance, are not solid or adequate to support a change in clinical practice, as they might be statistically significant because of the effect of chance. Secondary and primary results can also be classified based on the aim of the study and their relevance for the patients. Health professionals should not change their practice unless supported by robust primary endpoints of clinical studies.

2. Importance of Dissemination

• Why is it important to disseminate research?

Disseminating research is an essential practice mainly because it is an academic responsibility. Researchers have the responsibility of communicating the findings of their studies to the general public so that the recommendations stated may be implemented (Ahmed & Palermo, 2010). Research should provide deeper insights, which can be used to make a positive impact on the current state of affairs. Without proper dissemination, research fails to change the status quo. Dissemination also contributes to the democratization of societies because of the aspect of public opinion embedded inside the concept. The society invests a lot of money in research and therefore deserves to know the results.

• What are some of the benefits of research dissemination?

Dissemination has various benefits to both researchers and the general public. First, it enables researchers to publicize research outcomes so that the members of the public can share in the findings (Derman& Jaeger, 2018). Secondly, the findings can be used to advocate for collaborative measures that would address various issues that have been pinpointed. Dissemination also identifies the flaws of government in multiple dockets for instance in health agendas, and this provides room for the development of new and better health objectives. Also, dissemination advertises outcomes in such a way that a sense of urgency is created and this draws both national and international attention for intervention (Bernhardt, Mays, &Kreuter, 2011). Lastly, dissemination pinpoints gaps in workers’ safety thereby creating pressure for change.

• What pitfalls are associated with research that is not adequately disseminated

All the pitfalls related to research dissemination may attract low confidence in research and may actually lead to rejection so that the research fails to be published. One of the common pitfalls is lack of originality. Research ought to add something to what is already known. Secondly, there might be flaws in the study design (Gelling, 2017). The methodology needs to be rigorous and without flaws. Thirdly, the paper might have been written and organized poorly. Lastly, various visual elements such as tables and graphs could have been poorly presented.

3. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Dissemination Planning Tool

The purpose of the AHRQ dissemination tool is to help patient safety investigator create a plan for dissemination of their research products and findings to possible users in the health care industry (Ahrq.gov, 2019). The instruction of using this tool start with the selection of one research product or finding that the researcher thinks it is vital in enhancing patients’ safety and is ready for dissemination. The next step involves answering questions for each component of the plan about the product or finding. These questions involve specification of research products and findings: what one intends to disseminate, identification of end users, work with dissemination associates, communication, and evaluation of success. One is then expected to develop a summary that outlines the basic plan by completing a few statements. In the end, the researcher integrates the responses into an overall strategy and work plan (Ahrq.gov, 2019).

4. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Dissemination and Implementation Framework and Toolkit

Most of the research is intended for the scientific audience, which makes it very technical and difficult to understand for those outside the research community. Therefore, it is vital that research is presented well visually as this will make it easy for public reporting. This is because public reporting requires research that is clear, understandable and highlights the key findings, which can be achieved through an analysis that is presented well visually. This will also make it easy for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute during the translation and public reporting process of the research by requiring minimal or no translation before sharing to the world (Siegel & Gayer, 2017).

5. Systematic reviews on child welfare services: identifying and disseminating the evidence

Kornør et al., 2015. Systematic reviews on child welfare services: identifying and disseminating the evidence

The rationale of this review was to enable well-informed decisions through the dissemination of findings from systematic reviews to stakeholders of local child welfare in Norway though plain language summary (PLS) on a website. The dissemination strategy was created and adopted using seven stages: systematic literature searching, selecting relevant systematic reviews, gathering an advisory board, choosing child welfare systematic reviews applicable to Norway, prioritizing included systematic reviews, developing a PLS after advisory board feedback, and implementing a website. The study located 9266 potential articles, and 120 were incorporated after screening. The advisory board reviewed the 120 systematic reviews and ranked 20 that were scripted into the PLS. The board members tested and agreed on the PLS format. A website was created, and PLSs published. The authors believe that the PLSs will offer knowledge that will advise research practice and priorities in Norway.

References

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.

Ahrq.gov. (2019).Dissemination Planning Tool: Exhibit A from Volume 4.| Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality. Retrieved from https://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/quality-patient-safety/patient-safety-resources/resources/advances-in-patient-safety/vol4/planningtool.html

Bernhardt, J. M., Mays, D., &Kreuter, M. W. (2011).Dissemination 2.0: closing the gap between knowledge and practice with new media and marketing.Journal of health communication, 16(sup1), 32-44.

Derman, R. J., & Jaeger, F. J. (2018). Overcoming challenges to dissemination and implementation of research findings in under-resourced countries. Reproductive health, 15(1), 86.

Gelling, L. (2017). Writing for publication: avoiding the common pitfalls. Obzornikzdravstvenenege, 51(1), 4-8.

Kornør, H., Bergman, H., Maayan, N., Soares‐Weiser, K., &Bjørndal, A. (2015). Systematic reviews on child welfare services: identifying and disseminating the evidence. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 21(5), 855-860.

Siegel, J., & Gayer, C. (2017).Assessing Research Quality, Getting the Word Out Widely. Retrieved from https://www.pcori.org/blog/assessing-research-quality-getting-word-out-widely

Do you need high quality Custom Essay Writing Services?