■实施科学(IS)领域继续发展,信息系统能力建设项目(ISCPs)的数量和类型都在变化。这些变化推动该领域重新审视公认的IS能力,并指导ISCPs的维持。我们的目标是:(1)比较当前ISCPP的特征;(2)确定支持ISCPP维持的建议;(3)衡量ISCPP解决IS能力的频率;(4)确定该领域新颖而重要的IS能力。
■这项多方法研究包括提供结构化,纵向IS训练,不包括单一课程和简短的研讨会。我们使用了三种互补的方法来实现我们的目标。首先,我们通过互联网搜索和滚雪球抽样方法确定了ISCPs。第二,我们调查了这些ISBC,以确定计划重点领域,学员类型,是否解决了能力,以及维持ISCPs的建议。第三,我们与IS研究人员/领导者进行了修改后的Delphi流程,以就IS能力达成共识,与迄今为止发表的IS能力相比,IS能力既重要又新颖.
■在确定的74个合格的ISCPs中,46个应答(62%的应答率)。受访者的ISCPs代表了不同的重点领域(例如,全球健康,心肺疾病)和培训阶段(例如,研究生,职业生涯中期教师)。虽然大多数受访者ISCPs解决了核心IS方法,以IS为目标的能力不太一致(非研究生/非研究金ISSCBPs为33%;研究生/国家ISSCBPs为>90%).我们修改后的Delphi流程确定了八个新颖而重要的IS能力,这些能力与提高健康公平性或翻译速度有关。维持ISCPs的建议包括获得财务行政支持。
■当前的ISCBPs在不同的重点领域培训不同职业阶段的学习者。为了促进严谨,我们建议ISCPs解决特定的IS能力,考虑到这八个新颖/新兴的能力。我们还建议ISCPs报告他们的IS能力,重点领域(S),和受训者的特点。ISBP计划需要行政财政支持。
■进行实施科学(IS)研究的劳动力能力有限。为了解决这个差距,以IS方法培训研究人员和从业人员为重点的IS能力建设计划(ISCPs)的数量和类型继续增加。我们为研究人员和从业人员全面识别和描述ISCPs的努力强调了ISCPs领导者与计划维持和严格性有关的四个含义。首先,我们确定了ISCPs的一系列背景特征,包括研究主题,方法,能力是否得到解决,以及接受的学员类型。第二,鉴于受训者类型和研究的可变性,严格的ISCPP计划应针对计划中学员类型所需的技能来定制IS能力和方法。第三,IS领域需要定期重新审视所需的能力,并注意该领域所需的技能。我们与ISBP领导人和其他IS专家一起建立共识,以扩大现有的IS能力,并确定了八个重要的,新的IS能力广泛涉及促进健康公平和加快将研究转化为实践。最后,随着越来越多的机构考虑开发ISCPs,我们确定了支持ISCPP维持所需的因素,包括持续的财政支持。除了这些对ISCPP领导人的影响之外,也有政策影响。例如,IS期刊可能会制定政策,要求评估ISCPP绩效的手稿报告某些上下文特征,例如所处理的IS能力和接受的学员类型。该领域还可以考虑建立一个认证机构,以评估ISBP课程的严谨性。
UNASSIGNED: The field of Implementation science (IS) continues to evolve, and the number and type of IS capacity building Programs (ISCBPs) are in flux. These changes push the field to revisit the accepted IS competencies and to guide sustainment of ISCBPs. Our objectives were: (1) compare characteristics of current ISCBPs; (2) identify recommendations to support ISCBP sustainment; (3) measure how often ISCBPs address IS competencies; (4) identify novel and important IS competencies for the field.
UNASSIGNED: This multi-method study included ISCBPs delivering structured, longitudinal IS training, excluding single courses and brief workshops. We used three complementary methods to meet our objectives. First, we identified ISCBPs via an internet search and snowball sampling methods. Second, we surveyed these ISCBPs to identify areas of program focus, types of trainees, IS competencies addressed, and recommendations to sustain ISCBPs. Third, we conducted a modified Delphi process with IS researchers/leaders to reach consensus on the IS competencies that were both important and novel as compared to the IS competencies published to date.
UNASSIGNED: Among 74 eligible ISCBPs identified, 46 responded (62% response rate). Respondent ISCBPs represented diverse areas of focus (e.g., global health, cardiopulmonary disease) and trainee stages (e.g., graduate students, mid-career faculty). While most respondent ISCBPs addressed core IS methods, targeting IS competencies was less consistent (33% for nongraduate/non-fellowship ISCBPs; >90% for graduate/national ISCBPs). Our modified Delphi process identified eight novel and important IS competencies related to increasing health equity or the speed of translation. Recommendations to sustain ISCBPs included securing financial administrative support.
UNASSIGNED: Current ISCBPs train learners across varying career stages in diverse focus areas. To promote rigor, we recommend ISCBPs address specific IS competencies, with consideration of these eight novel/emerging competencies. We also recommend ISCBPs report on their IS competencies, focus area(s), and trainee characteristics. ISCBP programs need administrative financial support.
UNASSIGNED: There is a limited workforce capacity to conduct implementation science (IS) research. To address this gap, the number and type of IS capacity building Programs (ISCBPs) focusing on training researchers and practitioners in IS methods continue to increase. Our efforts to comprehensively identify and describe ISCBPs for researchers and practitioners highlighted four implications for leaders of ISCBPs related to program sustainment and rigor. First, we identified a range of contextual characteristics of ISCBPs, including the research topics, methods, and IS competencies addressed, and the types of trainees accepted. Second, given the variability of trainee types and research, rigorous ISCBP programs should tailor the IS competencies and methods addressed to the skills needed by the types of trainees in their program. Third, the field of IS needs to periodically revisit the competencies needed with attention to the skills needed in the field. We used a consensus-building process with ISCBP leaders and other IS experts to expand existing IS competencies and identified eight important, novel IS competencies that broadly relate to promoting health equity and speeding the translation of research to practice. Finally, as more institutions consider developing ISCBPs, we identified factors needed to support ISCBP sustainment, including ongoing financial support. In addition to these implications for ISCBP leaders, there are also policy implications. For example, IS journals may enact policies to require manuscripts evaluating ISCBP performance to report on certain contextual characteristics, such as the IS competencies addressed and types of trainees accepted. The field may also consider developing an accreditation body to evaluate the rigor of ISCBP curricula.