Implementation science : IS · 2026
Clarifying dissemination outcomes: a taxonomy to advance dissemination science.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gamarel Kristi E, Merrill Katherine G, Hosek Sybil, Hightow-Weidman Lisa B
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Dissemination science lacks shared language for specifying what dissemination strategies are designed to achieve. Without clearly defined outcomes, researchers cannot design studies that explain why dissemination strategies succeed or fail, compare findings, or build cumulative evidence about how dissemination works.
METHODS: We drew on dissemination scholarship, communication and behavior theory, innovation diffusion, public policy, and organizational readiness frameworks, and two decades of applied experience within a national HIV research network, to identify and iteratively refine a set of dissemination outcomes.
RESULTS: We propose a taxonomy of eight dissemination outcomes: Exposure, Comprehension, Credibility, Salience, Perceived Fit, Leadership Endorsement, Action Readiness, and Decision to Implement. We distinguish these from dissemination mechanisms and from implementation outcomes, locating the boundary between dissemination and implementation at the decision to implement.
CONCLUSIONS: We illustrate the taxonomy using three studies from the Adolescent Medicine Trials Network for HIV Interventions and offer it not as a prescriptive framework but as a conceptual starting point. We hope this shared language supports clearer study design and helps build cumulative evidence about how dissemination works.
METHODS: We drew on dissemination scholarship, communication and behavior theory, innovation diffusion, public policy, and organizational readiness frameworks, and two decades of applied experience within a national HIV research network, to identify and iteratively refine a set of dissemination outcomes.
RESULTS: We propose a taxonomy of eight dissemination outcomes: Exposure, Comprehension, Credibility, Salience, Perceived Fit, Leadership Endorsement, Action Readiness, and Decision to Implement. We distinguish these from dissemination mechanisms and from implementation outcomes, locating the boundary between dissemination and implementation at the decision to implement.
CONCLUSIONS: We illustrate the taxonomy using three studies from the Adolescent Medicine Trials Network for HIV Interventions and offer it not as a prescriptive framework but as a conceptual starting point. We hope this shared language supports clearer study design and helps build cumulative evidence about how dissemination works.