15–24.99
years) ( = 15)
Age mean (SD) = 49.7 (18.6).
Focus group and researcher interview data were recorded (either via audio recording and/or notes taken by research staff) and analyzed via a general inductive qualitative approach, a method appropriate for program evaluation studies and aimed at condensing large amounts of textual data into frameworks that describe the underlying process and experiences under study [ 12 ]. Data were analyzed by our team’s qualitative expert who read the textual data multiple times, developed a coding scheme to identify themes in the textual data, and used group consensus methods with other team members to identify unique, key themes.
Sixty-one of sixty-five PSP who volunteered to participate in the PSP survey were screened eligible, fifty were consented, and forty-eight completed the survey questionnaire. Of the 48 PSP completing the survey, 15 (32%) were AYA and 33 (68%) older adults. The mean age of survey respondents was 49.7 years, 23.5 for AYA, and 61.6 for older adults. Survey respondents were predominantly White, non-Hispanic/Latino, female, and with some college or a college degree (Table (Table1). 1 ). The percentage of participants in each group never or rarely needing any help with reading/interpreting written materials was above 93% in both groups.
Over 90% of PSP responded that they would participate in another research study, and more than 75% of PSP indicated that study participants should know about study results. Most (68.8%) respondents indicated that they did not receive any communications from study staff after they finished a study .
PSP preferences for communication channel are summarized in Table Table2 2 and based on responses to the question “How do you want to receive information?.” Both AYA and older adults agree or completely agree that they prefer email to other communication channels and that billboards did not apply to them. Older adult preferences for communication channels as indicated by agreeing or completely agreeing were in ranked order of highest to lowest: use of mailed letters/postcards, newsletter, and phone. A majority (over 50%) of older adults completely disagreed or disagreed on texting and social media as options and had only slight preference for mass media, public forum, and wellness fairs or expos.
Communication preference by group: AYA * , older adult ** , and ALL ( n = 48)
Communication format | Completely disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Completely agree | Don’t know | Not applicable |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Phone | |||||||
AYA | 4 (26.7) | 3 (20) | 6 (40.0) | 1 (6.7) | 1 (6.7) | - | - |
Older adult | 10 (30.3) | 1 (3) | 6 (18.2) | 2 (6.1) | 14 (42.4) | - | - |
ALL | 14 (29.2) | 4 (8.3) | 12 (25.0) | 3 (9.1) | 15 (31.3) | - | - |
Mailed letters, postcards | |||||||
AYA | 5 (33.3) | 4 (26.7) | 2 (13.3) | 2 (13.3) | 2 (13.3) | - | - |
Older adult | 3 (9.1) | 2 (6.1) | 5 (15.2) | 7 (21.2) | 16 (48.5) | - | - |
ALL | 8 (16.7) | 6 (12.5) | 7 (14.6) | 9 (18.8) | 18 (37.5) | - | - |
AYA | - | - | - | 3 (20) | 12 (80) | - | - |
Older adult | 5 (15.2) | 1 (3.0) | 2 (6.1) | 2 (6.1) | 21 (63.6) | - | - |
ALL | 5 (10.4) | 1 (2.1) | 2 (4.2) | 5 (10.4) | 33 (68.8) | - | - |
Texting | |||||||
AYA | 5 (33.3) | 2 (13.3) | 2 (13.3) | 4 (26.7) | 2 (13.3) | - | - |
Older adult | 17 (51.5) | 1 (3.0) | 4 (12.1) | 3 (9.1) | 4 (12.1) | - | - |
ALL | 22 (45.8) | 3 (6.3) | 6 (12.5) | 7 (14.6) | 6 (12.5) | - | - |
Newsletter | |||||||
AYA | 5 (33.3) | 3 (20.0) | 4 (26.7) | 1 (6.7) | 2 (13.3) | - | - |
Older adult | 4 (12.1) | 2 (6.1) | 8 (24.2) | 6 (18.2) | 13 (39.4) | - | - |
ALL | 9 (18.8) | 5 (10.4) | 12(25) | 7 (14.6) | 15 (31.3) | - | - |
Social media | |||||||
AYA | 5 (33.3) | 5 (33.3) | 4 (26.7) | - | 1 (6.7) | - | - |
Older adult | 20 (60.6) | - | 4 (12.1) | 1 (3.0) | 6 (21.2) | - | - |
ALL | 25 (52.1) | 5 (10.4) | 8 (16.7) | 1 (2.1) | 7 (14.6) | - | - |
Mass media | |||||||
AYA | 3 (20.0) | 6 (40.0) | 6 (40.0) | - | - | - | |
Older adult | 14 (42.4) | 2 (6.1) | 7 (21.2) | 4 (12.1) | 6 (18.2) | - | |
ALL | 17 (35.4) | 8 (16.7) | 13 (27.1) | 4 (8.3) | 6 (12.5) | - | |
Public forum | |||||||
AYA | 5 (33.3) | 2 (13.3) | 6 (40.0) | 1 (6.7) | 1 (6.7) | ||
Older adult | 12 (36.4) | 4 (12.1) | 5 (15.2) | 6 (18.2) | 6 (18.2) | ||
ALL | 17 (35.4) | 6 (12.5) | 11 (22.9) | 7 (14.6) | 7 (14.6) | ||
Wellness fair/expo | |||||||
AYA | 4 (26.7) | 1 (6.7) | 5 (33.3) | 5 (33.3) | - | - | - |
Older adult | 12 (36.4) | 3 (9.1) | 9 (27.3) | 2 (6.1) | 7 (21.2) | ||
ALL | 16 (33.3) | 4 (8.3) | 14 (29.4) | 7 (14.6) | 7 (14.6) | - | - |
Other (billboard) | |||||||
AYA | - | - | - | - | 1 (1.67) | 3 (20.0) | 11 (73.3) |
Older adult | 2 (6.1) | - | 1(3.0) | - | 1 (3.0) | 8 (3) | - |
ALL | 2 (14.2) | - | - | 1 (2.1) | 1 (2.1) | 4 (8.3) | 39 (81.3) |
ALL, total per column.
While AYA preferred email over all other options, they completely disagreed/disagreed with mailed letters/postcards, social media, and mass media options.
When communication formats were ranked overall by each group and by both groups combined, the ranking from most to least preferred was written materials, opportunities to interact with study teams and ask questions, visual charts, graphs, pictures, and videos, audios, and podcasts.
PSP want to receive and share information on study findings for studies in which he/she participated. Furthermore, participants stated their desire to share study results across social networks and highlighted opportunities to share communicated study results with their health-care providers, family members, friends, and other acquaintances with similar medical conditions.
Because of the things I was in a study for, it’s a condition I knew three other people who had the same condition, so as soon as it worked for me, I put the word out, this is great stuff. I would forward the email with the link, this is where you can go to also get in on this study, or I’d also tell them, you know, for me, like the medication. Here’s the medication. Here’s the name of it. Tell your doctor. I would definitely share. I’d just tell everyone without a doubt. Right when I get home, as soon as I walk in the door, and say Renee-that’s my daughter-I’ve got to tell you this.
Communication of study information could happen through several channels including social media, verbal communication, sharing of written documents, and forwarding emails containing a range of content in a range of formats (e.g., reports and pamphlets).
Word of mouth and I have no shame in saying I had head to toe psoriasis, and I used the drug being studied, and so I would just go to people, hey, look. So, if you had it in paper form, like a pamphlet or something, yeah I’d pass it on to them.
PSP prefer clear, simple messaging and highlighted multiple, preferred communication modalities for receiving information on study findings including emails, letters, newsletters, social media, and websites.
The wording is really simple, which I like. It’s to the point and clear. I really like the bullet points, because it’s quick and to the point. I think the [long] paragraphs-you get lost, especially when you are reading on your phone.
They indicated a clear preference for colorful, simple, easy to read communication. PSP also expressed some concern about difficulty opening emails with pictures and dislike lengthy written text. “I don’t read long emails. I tend to delete them”
PSP indicated some confusion about common research language. For example, one participant indicated that using the word “estimate” indicates the research findings were an approximation, “When I hear those words, I just think you’re guessing, estimate, you know? It sounds like an estimate, not a definite answer.”
Twenty-three of thirty-two researchers volunteered to participate in the researcher survey, were screened eligible, and two declined to participate, resulting in 19 who provided consent to participate and completed the survey. The mean age of survey respondents was 51.8 years. Respondents were predominantly White, non-Hispanic/Latino, and female, and all were holders of either a professional school degree or a doctoral degree. When asked if it is important to inform study participants of study results, 94.8% of responding researchers agreed that it was extremely important or important. Most researchers have disseminated findings to study participants or plan to disseminate findings.
Researchers listed a variety of reasons for their rating of the importance of informing study participants of study results including “to promote feelings of inclusion by participants and other community members”, “maintaining participant interest and engagement in the subject study and in research generally”, “allowing participants to benefit somewhat from their participation in research and especially if personal health data are collected”, “increasing transparency and opportunities for learning”, and “helping in understanding the impact of the research on the health issue under study”.
Some researchers view sharing study findings as an “ethical responsibility and/or a tenet of volunteerism for a research study”. For example, “if we (researchers) are obligated to inform participants about anything that comes up during the conduct of the study, we should feel compelled to equally give the results at the end of the study”.
One researcher “thought it a good idea to ask participants if they would like an overview of findings at the end of the study that they could share with others who would like to see the information”.
Two researchers said that sharing research results “depends on the study” and that providing “general findings to the participants” might be “sufficient for a treatment outcome study”.
Researchers indicated that despite their willingness to share study results, they face resource challenges such as a lack of funding and/or staff to support communication and dissemination activities and need assistance in developing these materials. One researcher remarked “I would really like to learn what are (sic) the best ways to share research findings. I am truly ignorant about this other than what I have casually observed. I would enjoy attending a workshop on the topic with suggested templates and communication strategies that work best” and that this survey “reminds me how important this is and it is promising that our CTSA seems to plan to take this on and help researchers with this important study element.”
Another researcher commented on a list of potential types of assistance that could be made available to assist with communicating and disseminating results, that “Training on developing lay friendly messaging is especially critically important and would translate across so many different aspects of what we do, not just dissemination of findings. But I’ve noticed that it is a skill that very few people have, and some people never can seem to develop. For that reason, I find as a principal investigator that I am spending a lot of my time working on these types of materials when I’d really prefer research assistant level folks having the ability to get me 99% of the way there.”
Most researchers indicated that they provide participants with personal tests or assessments taken from the study (60% n = 6) and final study results (72.7%, n = 8) but no other information such as recruitment and retention updates, interim updates or results, information on the impact of the study on either the health topic of the study or the community, information on other studies or provide tips and resources related to the health topic and self-help. Sixty percent ( n = 6) of researcher respondents indicated sharing planned next steps for the study team and information on how the study results would be used.
When asked about how they communicated results, phone calls were mentioned most frequently followed by newsletters, email, webpages, public forums, journal article, mailed letter or postcard, mass media, wellness fairs/expos, texting, or social media.
Researchers used a variety of communication formats to communicate with study participants. Written descriptions of study findings were most frequently reported followed by visual depictions, opportunities to interact with study staff and ask questions or provide feedback, and videos/audio/podcasts.
Seventy-three percent of researchers reported that they made efforts to make study findings information available to those with low levels of literacy, health literacy, or other possible limitations such as non-English-speaking populations.
In open-ended responses, most researchers reported wanting to increase their awareness and use of on-campus training and other resources to support communication and dissemination of study results, including how to get resources and budgets to support their use.
One-on-one interviews with researchers identified two themes.
Some researchers indicated hesitancy in communicating preliminary findings, findings from small studies, or highly summarized information. In addition, in comparison to research participants, researchers seemed to place a higher value on specific details of the study.
“I probably wouldn’t put it up [on social media] until the actual manuscript was out with the graphs and the figures, because I think that’s what people ultimately would be interested in.”
Researchers expressed interest in communicating research results to study participants. However, they highlighted several challenges including difficulties in tracking current email and physical addresses for participants; compliance with literacy and visual impairment regulations; and the number of products already required in research that consume a considerable amount of a research team’s time. Researchers expressed a desire to have additional resources and templates to facilitate sharing study findings. According to one respondent, “For every grant there is (sic) 4-10 papers and 3-5 presentations, already doing 10-20 products.” Researchers do not want to “reinvent the wheel” and would like to pull from existing papers and presentations on how to share with participants and have boilerplate, writing templates, and other logistical information available for their use.
Researchers would also like training in the form of lunch-n-learns, podcasts, or easily accessible online tools on how to develop materials and approaches. Researchers are interested in understanding the “do’s and don’ts” of communicating and disseminating study findings and any regulatory requirements that should be considered when communicating with research participants following a completed study. For example, one researcher asked, “From beginning to end – the do’s and don’ts – are stamps allowed as a direct cost? or can indirect costs include paper for printing newsletters, how about designing a website, a checklist for pulling together a newsletter?”
The purpose of this pilot study was to explore the current experiences, expectations, concerns, preferences, and capacities of PSP including youth/young adult and older adult populations and researchers for sharing, receiving, and using information on research study findings. PSP and researchers agreed, as shown in earlier work [ 3 , 5 ], that sharing information upon study completion with participants was something that should be done and that had value for both PSP and researchers. As in prior studies [ 3 , 5 ], both groups also agreed that sharing study findings could improve ancillary outcomes such as participant recruitment and enrollment, use of research findings to improve health and health-care delivery, and build overall community support for research. In addition, communicating results acknowledges study participants’ contributions to research, a principle firmly rooted in respect for treating participants as not merely a means to further scientific investigation [ 5 ].
The majority of PSP indicated that they did not receive research findings from studies they participated in, that they would like to receive such information, and that they preferred specific communication methods for receipt of this information such as email and phone calls. While our sample was small, we did identify preferences for communication channels and for message format. Some differences and similarities in preferences for communication channels and message format were identified between AYA and older adults, thus reinforcing the best practice of customizing communication channel and messaging to each specific group. However, the preference for email and the similar rank ordering of messaging formats suggest that there are some overall communication preferences that may apply to most populations of PSP. It remains unclear whether participants prefer individual or aggregate results of study findings and depends on the type of study, for example, individual results of genotypes versus aggregate results of epidemiological studies [ 13 ]. A study by Miller et al suggests that the impact of receiving aggregate results, whether clinically relevant or not, may equal that of receiving individual results [ 14 ]. Further investigation warrants evaluation of whether, when, and how researchers should communicate types of results to study participants, considering multiple demographics of the populations such as age and ethnicity on preferences.
While researchers acknowledged that PSP would like to hear from them regarding research results and that they wanted to meet this expectation, they indicated needing specific training and/or time and resources to provide this information to PSP in a way that meets PSP needs and preferences. Costs associated with producing reports of findings were a concern of researchers in our study, similar to findings from a study conducted by Di Blasi and colleagues in which 15% (8 of 53 investigators) indicated that they wanted to avoid extra costs associated with the conduct of their studies and extra administrative work [ 15 ]. In this same study, the major reason for not informing participants about study results was that forty percent of investigators never considered this option. Researchers were unaware of resources available on existing platforms at their home institution or elsewhere to help them with communication and dissemination efforts [ 10 ].
Information from academic and other organizations on how to best communicate research findings in plain language is available and could be shared with researchers and their teams. The Cochrane Collaborative [ 16 ], the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [ 17 ], and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute [ 18 ] have resources to help researchers develop plain language summaries using proven approaches to overcome literacy and other issues that limit participant access to study findings. Some academic institutions have electronic systems in place to confidentially share templated laboratory and other personal study information with participants and, if appropriate, with their health-care providers.
Findings from the study are limited by several study and respondent characteristics. The sample was drawn from research records at one university engaging in research in a relatively defined geographic area and among two special populations: AYA and older adults. As such, participants were not representative of either the general population in the area, the population of PSP or researchers available in the area, or the racial and ethnic diversity of potential and/or actual participants in the geographic area. The small number of researcher participants did not represent the pool of researchers at the university, and the research studies from which participants were drawn were not representative of the broad range of clinical and translational research undertaken by our institution or within the geographic community it serves. The number of survey and focus group participants was insufficient to allow robust analysis of findings specific to participants’ race, ethnicity, gender, or membership in the target age groups of AYA or older adult. However, these data will inform a future trial with adequate representations from underrepresented and special population groups.
Since all PSP had participated in research, they may have been biased in favor of wanting to know more about study results and/or supportive/nonsupportive of the method of communication/dissemination they were exposed to through their participation in these studies.
Our findings provide information from PSP and researchers on their expectations about sharing study findings, preferences for how to communicate and disseminate study findings, and need for greater assistance in removing roadblocks to using proven communication and dissemination approaches. This information illustrates the potential to engage both PSP and researchers in the design and use of communication and dissemination strategies and materials to share research findings, engage in efforts to more broadly disseminate research findings, and inform our understanding of how to interpret and communicate research findings for members of special population groups. While several initial prototypes were developed in response to this feedback and shared for review by participants in this study, future research will focus on finalizing and testing specific communication and dissemination prototypes aimed at these special population groups.
Findings from our study support a major goal of the National Center for Advancing Translational Science Recruitment Innovation Center to engage and collaborate with patients and their communities to advance translation science. In response to the increased awareness of the importance of sharing results with study participants or the general public, a template for dissemination of research results is available in the Recruitment and Retention Toolbox through the CTSA Trial Innovation Network (TIN: trialinnovationnetwork.org ). We believe that our findings will inform resources for use in special populations through collaborations within the TIN.
This pilot project was supported, in part, by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the NIH under Grant Number UL1 TR001450. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
This study was reviewed, approved, and continuously overseen by the IRB at the Medical University of South Carolina (ID: Pro00067659). All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Implementation Science volume 19 , Article number: 66 ( 2024 ) Cite this article
3 Altmetric
Metrics details
Communication is considered an inherent element of nearly every implementation strategy. Often it is seen as a means for imparting new information between stakeholders, representing a Transaction orientation to communication. From a Process orientation, communication is more than information-exchange and is acknowledged as being shaped by (and shaping) the individuals involved and their relationships with one another. As the field of Implementation Science (IS) works to strengthen theoretical integration, we encourage an interdisciplinary approach that engages communication theory to develop richer understanding of strategies and determinants of practice.
We interviewed 28 evaluators, 12 implementors, and 12 administrators from 21 Enterprise-Wide Initiatives funded by the Department of Veteran Affairs Office of Rural Health. Semi-structured interviews focused on experiences with implementation and evaluation strategies. We analyzed the interviews using thematic analysis identifying a range of IS constructs. Then we deductively classified those segments based on a Transaction or Process orientation to communication.
We organized findings using the two IS constructs most commonly discussed in interviews: Collaboration and Leadership Buy-in. The majority of segments coded as Collaboration ( n = 34, 74%) and Leadership Buy-in ( n = 31, 70%) discussed communication from a Transaction orientation and referred to communication as synonymous with information exchange, which emphasizes the task over the relationships between the individuals performing the tasks. Conversely, when participants discussed Collaboration and Leadership Buy-in from a Process orientation, they acknowledged both constructs as the result of long-term efforts to develop positive relationships based on trust and respect, and emphasized the time costliness of such strategies. Our findings demonstrate that participants who discussed communication from a Process orientation recognized the nuance and complexity of interpersonal interactions, particularly in the context of IS.
Efficient, reliable information exchange is a critical but often overemphasized element of implementation. Practitioners and researchers must recognize and incorporate the larger role of communication in IS. Two suggestions for engaging a Process orientation to communication are to: (a) use interview probes to learn how communication is enacted, and (b) use process-oriented communication theories to develop interventions and evaluation tools.
Peer Review reports
Communication is a vital part of implementation. Yet, predominant discussions about implementation strategies are limited to a Transactional orientation. Conversely, the Process orientation to communication acknowledges the multiple moving elements in an implementation context that influences collaboration and leadership buy-in.
Exemplars of interview segments about communication engaging a Process orientation were identified to demonstrate ways interviewers can probe to gain a deeper understanding of communication as a process.
We provide examples and suggestions for qualitatively examining communication processes to better understand the impact of implementation strategies.
Several theories with a Process orientation are identified for consideration in future research and implementation planning and evaluation.
Most implementation strategies include a communication component, particularly when evidence-based interventions are introduced and promoted throughout an organization. When implementing new programming, it is common to consider communication as simply a means through which information is imparted [ 1 , 2 ]. Implementation Science (IS) researchers have an imperative to understand the role of communication as more than a means for information exchange [ 3 ]. Yet, even as a means for information exchange, Manojlovich and colleagues recognized the lack of attention on communication in implementation research [ 1 ].
Broadly, the study of communication focuses on how messages are used to generate meanings [ 4 ], and provides perspective for moving beyond an emphasis on information exchange, thus moving beyond the task dimension and recognizing the value of the relational dimension. Despite its relatively young development both academically and professionally, the communication discipline offers valuable insight to IS research [ 5 ]. There are two predominant ways to characterize communication: (1) communication as Transaction, and (2) communication as Process. When communication is viewed as a Transaction, it is discussed as a linear one-way flow of information [ 3 ]. The materiality – the element of substantive value – of communication is found in accurate, efficient information transfer, thus putting emphasis on the task dimension and channel (e.g., phone, handout) through which information is exchanged. When practitioners focus their efforts on preparing thoughtful and detailed educational sessions intended to increase program adoption, but do not allow time for interactive questions or develop opportunities for building relationships between key personnel responsible for successful adoption, then we see a reliance on the Transaction orientation to communication. When communication is conceptualized as a Process, we emphasize its constitutive nature wherein our environments – social, organizational, political, etc. – shape and are shaped through communication [ 3 ]. From a Process orientation, the transformative properties of communication emphasize its relational dimension and bring about a materiality from the intangible elements of the process (e.g., tone of voice, relational history, contextual exigency), and concepts such as psychological safety, mutual respect, and trust foreground the mechanics of information exchange. For example, someone may schedule multiple options for the same information session to ensure real-time interactivity for questions and build in opportunities for small group breakouts and post-presentation networking for relationship-building. When understanding of communication shifts to encompass more than information exchange, we begin to recognize the role of communication in building relationships and influencing long term cultural shifts, which is often the goal for implementation scientists [ 3 ]. If the Process orientation is overlooked in favor of a Transaction orientation, we may miss opportunities for identifying evidence-based communication strategies to support implementation.
The majority of subsequent work engaging Manojlovich et al.’s assertions agree on the imperative to engage a Process orientation to communication, but they make no strides in designing approaches for exploring the characteristics of communication surrounding effective implementation strategies (e.g., [ 6 , 7 , 8 ]). As the conversation initiated by Manojlovich and colleagues about the role of communication in implementation science has progressed, recognition of communication has grown, but emphasis continues to focus on formal contexts (e.g., trainings and webinars) [ 1 ]. Further, quantitative measures that assess information accuracy like the one used in Zhao and colleagues’ work overlook the importance of informal communication (e.g., rapport-building before meetings, impromptu connections) and the nuanced influence of the relational dimension that contributes to effective implementation. Bustos et al.’s (2021) analysis acknowledges both the formal and informal strategies through which communication might occur, but the communication they refer to is discussed from a Transaction orientation (i.e., “how information… was communicated to program staff” (p. 10)) [ 9 ].
For this study, we draw on interviews with employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) who evaluated, implemented, and administered interventions focused on improving the health and well-being of rural Veterans or the clinical staff who serve them. These interviews were exploratory and wide-ranging; for the purposes of this manuscript, we treat the interviews as akin to direct observations of intervention stakeholders discussing their real-world experiences operationalizing implementation strategies. Instead of focusing on what we could learn from the communication described in the interviews, we directed our attention to what lessons could be missing because of the way participants discussed communication. In this manuscript, we provide examples of how Transaction and Process orientations to communication appear in the data when individuals described their experiences, as well as their relationships that supported IS strategies and facilitated intervention goals. We also suggest interview strategies to elicit detail about communication from a Process orientation to support ongoing learning of these informal communication processes. Though these interviews were not focused on communication, we use data from the interviews to argue that noticing communication helps us discover how to do implementation science better. Specifically, a Process orientation emphasizes the space between IS strategies and outcomes, and advances understanding of implementation challenges and solutions.
The VA’s Office of Rural Health (ORH) supports the creation of Enterprise-Wide Initiatives (EWIs) to address issues facing rural Veterans from mental health and primary care access to training and education of VA staff who serve rural Veterans. As a part of the funding cycle, EWI teams must conduct annual evaluations. The Center for the Evaluation of Enterprise-Wide Initiatives (CEEWI) was created through a 2019 partnership between ORH and the VA’s Quality Enhancement Research Initiative to support EWI evaluation and disseminate best practices. The CEEWI team, consisting of implementation science experts and qualitative data analysts, reviews the annual reports and provides feedback to EWI teams on reporting standards.
As part of the initial CEEWI project, EWI evaluators, implementors, and administrators were interviewed about effectiveness of IS strategies they used and why, in part, to assist the CEEWI team in understanding key aspects of EWI implementation and evaluation. The interview guide included questions about the participant’s role on the EWI, the core components of the EWI, implementation strategies and their impact on desired outcomes, outcome measures used for evaluation, and the evaluation process. CEEWI team members and EWI leadership identified the evaluators, implementors, and administrators to recruit for the study. While recruitment sought a purposive sample of roles from each EWI, ultimately the sample was a convenience sample based on availability and willingness to participate during the first nine months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Additional details about recruitment and data collection can be found in an earlier manuscript from this larger project [ 10 ]. We conducted 43 semi-structured interviews, which averaged 51 min (range 20–77 min), from April – December 2020 with evaluators, implementors, and administrators from 21 EWIs. While most interviews were conducted one-on-one, 8 were group interviews ranging from 2 to 4 participants [ 10 ]. This study uses these interviews as an example on how communication is described when discussing implementation strategies.
Audio-recordings were transcribed, reviewed for accuracy, and uploaded into MAXQDA, a qualitative data management software [ 11 ]. Two doctorally trained qualitative analysts (NJ & JVT) leveraged their previous IS knowledge and conducted primary-cycle inductive coding to identify IS constructs and trends in the data [ 12 ]. The analysts initially coded all transcripts together in real-time and resolved discrepancies immediately. During this first round of coding, several IS constructs were identified in participants’ discussion of their implementation strategies, including Staff Buy-in, Tailoring, Rapport, Fidelity, and Mentorship. Collaboration and Leadership Buy-in emerged as the two most discussed IS constructs among participants. For secondary-cycle deductive coding to interpret how communication was conceptualized in discussions of Collaboration and Leadership Buy-in, the lead author, a Health Communication scholar, used an iterative process to develop a codebook to identify the language representing a Process or Transaction orientation for each construct (i.e., Collaboration and Leadership Buy-in) [ 3 , 12 ]. The analysis focused on the how communication was discussed, not about the form of communication that took place.
Collaboration, a term often characterizing various levels of formal and informal partnerships between individuals, departments or organizations, is defined as a mutually beneficial and well-defined relationship between two or more parties to achieve common goals [ 13 ]. An example of discussing Collaboration from a Transaction orientation to communication would be using the term Collaboration to describe monthly meetings where the parties update one another about the status of their tasks and goals. From a Process orientation, Collaboration would be discussed in relational terms, describing the trust and rapport the team members have among one another.
Leadership Buy-in represents the role of support from individuals in leadership positions for a program’s adoption and sustainability, particularly when competing clinical and administrative demands are at play [ 7 ]. An example of discussing Leadership Buy-in using a Transaction orientation to communication would be a description of strategies for adoption that only focused on leadership education. However, someone who engaged a Process orientation to communication might: (1) discuss tailored persuasive strategies for demonstrating value to specific decision-makers, or (2) acknowledge the necessity for long-term relationships with individuals in leadership roles for sustainment.
We conducted 43 interviews with 28 evaluators, 12 implementors, and 12 administrators. We coded a total of 90 segments as Collaboration ( n = 46) and Leadership Buy-in ( n = 44) across all the interviews. Most segments coded as Collaboration ( n = 34, 74%) and Leadership Buy-in ( n = 31, 70%) discussed communication from a Transaction orientation. The following results present examples of the discussion of Collaboration and Leadership Buy-in from the Transaction and Process orientations to communication.
When communication is treated as a transaction, it is discussed as a one-way flow of information traveling from one party to another during a discrete moment in time [ 3 ]. The materiality of communication is reduced to accurate, efficient information transfer, thus putting emphasis on the channel (e.g., Teams meeting, email) through which information is exchanged and the task dimension of the interaction.
Participants sometimes discussed Collaboration in a way that missed its nuance and treated communication as merely a means for transferring information that produced Collaboration. For example, one participant implied that communication, regardless of quality, is inherently good, thus the more there is, the better. They identified “communication across the team level” as an important strategy having the most impact on desired outcomes. “The more communication there is, the more people are able (…) to divide up [responsibilities].” (1A) In this instance, communication is synonymous with information exchange. While we do not have enough information to assess the quality of communication that Participant 1A is referring to, the fact they only discussed the parties involved and quantity of communication is an example of the Transaction orientation to communication.
In another example, a participant explained what they felt did not work as well in their evaluation process. “We have excellent communication with some, but not all members of the [EWI] (…) I’m not sure they’re always on the same page with each other, and then depending on who we’re having a meeting with, we might hear one thing but then that’s not what someone else was going to do (…) that’s one of the pieces that I think is hard for us.” (2A) Again, we see the Transaction orientation, and the barometer for effective communication is accuracy. The participant went on to discuss ways to improve this lack of alignment among team members, suggesting that “even if it’s just being invited to join calls (…) [for us] to answer questions about the [evaluation] data” would improve teamwork. (2A) This passage highlights an important aspect of communication – being present for an interaction and having the opportunity to answer questions enables information exchange.
One participant described the communication that occurred during a monthly videoconference:
The learning collaborative is focused on bringing people [together] to share their experiences and how various facilitators identify ways to shape their program, but also the way that our national team gives feedback about the data (…) One call a month is right after a report (…) they do a data review on the call where they go over the numbers with the entire learning collaborative, everyone in the program, giving them feedback from a national perspective and always reminding people of the milestones of the metrics that they’ve agreed to under the ORH grant. (3A)
Here, we see another example of a participant discussing communication in terms of information exchange.
Participants also discussed Leadership Buy-in from a Transaction orientation. In the following passage, participant 4A described the benefits of the EWI leadership team visiting sites in-person:
They would do a site visit to all the hubs (…) and meet with the local leadership team and that’s where they confirmed if there were any issues that they might have. They would do like a 2–3 day site visit (…) so it helped create that structure where people knew exactly who to report to and how these programs were established and plenty of opportunities to address any concerns or any issues they might have.
There are substantial implications for local Leadership Buy-in through in-person visits, yet the only aspect of communication discussed here is information exchange and clarifying the information flow hierarchy (i.e., who to report to).
Participant 5A described their program’s efforts to obtain Leadership Buy-in:
Simple outreach and education, that was really the only things that we could do, and then as they continued, training kind of showed its usefulness. That had an impact on leadership buy-in.
Here, buy-in is attributed to education, which may account for some or even most of buy-in, but it does not recognize the relational dimension of communication.
For another EWI, leadership turnover at the facility presented a significant barrier to program sustainment, because Leadership Buy-in was perpetually reset, which exacerbated a “conflict between implementation and sustainment strategies” when the decision-maker for sustainment funding was not the same person to “sign off on it originally” (9A). Given the EWI provided seed-funding for specialty staff to implement the program, the expectation was that the facility would eventually incur the expense for sustainment, but the plan for funds was not made explicit at the time of application for the seed-funding. Participant 9A went on to explain how their program responded to the unforeseen challenge obtaining sustainment funding from sites:
Our clinical director worked really hard with the first cohort of sites prior to their funding ending to try to come up with strategies to pitch the program to leadership (…) Most sites had challenges with changing leadership priorities.
In response, the interviewer clarified their sources for funding, then changed topics: “Interviewer: Ok, alright. How about strategies that were intended to optimize the effectiveness outcomes for your EWI?” In this example, the interviewer seems to be approaching the participant’s description of Leadership Buy-in from a Transactional orientation. A Process-oriented approach that asked about the nature and details of pitching the EWI to leadership may have provided more information about implementation strategy.
From the process perspective, no single interaction serves as the cause or proof of effective Collaboration. Rather, the Process orientation recognizes the value of communication lies in the cumulative outcomes of consistent, often routine, interactions.
Collaborations require shared responsibility, mutual authority, accountability, and sharing of resources and rewards for success [ 13 ]. Collaboration in implementation has focused on strategies to enhance partners’ ability to work together to achieve mutual benefits. We identified examples from participants discussing Collaboration with a Process orientation to communication. From these examples we see that Collaboration is seen as a product of long-term efforts to develop positive relationships and establish trust and autonomy to make one’s own decisions. Many participants recognized the uniqueness and value in reaching the point of Collaboration. For example, Participant 10A shared, “The partnerships, it’s like a very special kind of relationship–, where we have to trust them, we rely on each other, but we also need to be able to make independent decisions.” Participant 6A also recognized the importance of relationships, “I would say they’re collegial but they’re not fully collaborative (…) when they’re really more deeply integrated and their role is understood and recognized (…) they are more collaborative members.”
One participant on a different EWI echoed this sentiment that individuals’ intent and motivations for the work should extend beyond the assignment to be considered Collaboration, “It’s not just trying to check off a box (…) there truly is a passion behind it, on all of our parts, and that has been wonderful.” (7B) Recognizing others’ intent for their work allows one to acknowledge how interpersonal communication is influenced by more than information exchange.
In the following exemplars, we can see how interviewers were able to elicit detail about the interactions surrounding the implementation strategies they were discussing.
Exemplar for Probing Collaboration . In Table 1 , we share an exemplar for engaging the Process orientation to communication, which led to greater explication of the role of communication in the implementation process.
Through this example, we see a more nuanced treatment of communication as a process after the interviewer probed twice to understand the participant’s use of “facilitation” as an implementation strategy. We gained description of the collaborative atmosphere within a team and how individuals’ psychological safety is manifested through authentic interactions.
It takes more than information-exchange to garner support (e.g., financial, staff) for facilitation and sustainment. One participant acknowledged the web of influence that contributes to Leadership Buy-in and effective implementation:
We reached out to all the rural sites their leadership… sort of advertising the program, so we would schedule a conference call with a director, chief of staff, emergency room chief, to sort of discuss the program (…) then we would follow up with an actual 1-day on-site visit (…) where we meet with again, leadership, but we also meet with the [staff from several departments] (…) It’s an all-day visit to further introduce our program, to the team on site, as well as learn more about their program, and how [our EWI] might incorporate itself, and what challenges (…) we might face in implementation. (2B)
Here, we see an acknowledgement of reciprocal relationship-building to learn about priorities and needs.
Several participants discussed how time costly it is to gain Leadership Buy-in to ease the burden of change on an organization and staff, particularly for a nationwide program. One participant reflected:
Ten years ago, it was a [regional] project, so the main kind of instruction came from a [regional] level down, you know. The site visit was just a medical director and the nurse manager telling you that, ‘Hey, this is what’s going to happen,’ and it happened. Now (…) it’s like a year-long process to get people familiarized (…) go live went from one day to four days long. (11B)
Despite its value, garnering Leadership Buy-in has its challenges. Sometimes identifying the right individuals who represent the relevant leadership roles is not clear cut.
Once we have identified that our program can go to that site, we ask the local (…) program manager to identify who (…) key local leaders are (…) It’s important to have the managers of those sites involved in this process from the beginning (…) We (…) set up an initial meeting (…) where we review the implementation process plan with everybody on that call, and answer questions about what we and [specialty care] services will provide as part of the training opportunity and clearly delineate what we need the site or the facility to commit to provide (…) we answer questions, alleviate concerns, things like that. (7B)
Participant 7B went on to describe the challenge of identifying the right leadership representative:
The only barrier that we’ve encountered is some challenges in getting the right leadership on the call to review this in real time and answer questions (…) whether it is due to leadership turnover at the site, even from the time that we set up the call to the time that we actually do the call, there have been some change-overs, and that has been a challenge.
Again, we see this participant engaging a strong Process orientation to communication as they emphasize the importance of relationship-building for Leadership Buy-in.
Exemplar for Probing Leadership Buy-in . In the following example, the interviewer engaged the Process orientation to communication with probes that led to greater explication of the role of communication in developing Leadership Buy-in (Table 2 ).
Results illustrate ways administrators, implementors, and evaluators characterized communication related to Collaboration and Leadership Buy-in. From the Transaction orientation, we saw that the term communication was used synonymously for information exchange. The problem of implementation lies beyond efficient and reliable information transfer, and instead centers on cooperative sensemaking and learning within and among teams situated in an organization that is influenced by its social, geographic, and political environments [ 2 , 14 , 15 ]. Communication necessary for effective implementation is based on improvisation and reciprocity and constitute relationships over time [ 2 , 15 ]. Our data indicate these processes are occurring in implementation, but we may not always be paying close enough attention to their occurrence. If most discussions about communication engage a Transaction orientation, then practitioners and evaluators will never have the insight necessary to maximize the impact of their communication efforts.
Participants often discussed Leadership Buy-in more as an outcome of education, and less as a byproduct of improvisational relationship-building, which demonstrates the predominant Transaction orientation to communication privileging rehearsed, often unidirectional, and mostly controlled interactions. Formal information exchange is undoubtedly an important element of effective implementation; the Transaction orientation aligns well with the goals of dissemination and implementation as a field [ 15 ]. However, our data point to the importance of thinking about communication from a Process orientation for improving effectiveness of implementation strategies—and show how members of implementation and evaluation teams too often focus on the transaction elements of communication. Previous work that engages the Transaction orientation and points to the benefits of reliable information exchange has paved the way for more exploratory naturalistic methods for studying IS from a Process orientation to communication [ 3 , 14 , 15 , 16 ]. As noted in our findings, the Transaction orientation overlooks the intricacies of processes that occur among individuals to build trust, cultivate buy-in, and influence team decision-making, all of which are markers of successful implementation.
Given the purpose of IS is to promote the adoption of research and evidence-based practices, it would behoove implementation scientists to tap into the richness of interdisciplinary theorizing and engage a Process orientation to communication [ 17 ]. As thinking about communication has evolved from a Transaction orientation, scholars recognized the symbolic process that humans use to create meaning through informal, improvised interactions over a period of time [ 2 ]. Recent analysis of implementation strategies for behavioral health interventions called for explicit attention to the supportive role communication may play in most, if not all, strategies [ 15 ]. The Process orientation to communication enriches theorizing and elevates scholars’ and practitioners’ understanding of how to leverage implementation strategies to be meaningfully responsive to the relationships among the interested parties [ 18 ]. However, we warn against over-characterizing communication into a ‘nebulous, global process’ [ 2 , 19 ]. For gaining insight on communication processes, we suggest two strategies: 1) interviewers focused on understanding implementation strategies could probe their interviewees to learn more about how communication is enacted; and 2) IS practitioners could utilize process-oriented communication theories in developing interventions and evaluation tools (e.g., interview guides).
The supplementary material accompanying this article includes excerpts from our interview data as examples demonstrating hypothetical ways interviewers can elicit more nuanced understanding of communication processes (see Tables S1 and S2).
Our analysis identified examples of missed opportunities for interviewers to probe about communication from a Process orientation recognizing the relational dimension of communication. Interview probes like those recommended in Tables S1 and S2 could lead to valuable understanding of the processes of communication, allowing exploration of the relational dimension of communication and implementation, and insight to individuals’ attitudes and sensemaking about those experiences. This may contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the importance of communication in implementation strategies beyond a transactional information exchange. We also provided examples highlighting the constitutive role communication plays in relationship-building. Our goal is to help attune IS researchers to the value of the processes of communication as a critical component of many implementation strategies.
Challenges to implementing any new program may be significantly varied and widespread. No single barrier serves as an intervention’s fatal flaw, but rather, implementation is affected by numerous factors shaped through informal interactions [ 17 , 20 ]. A recent study that aimed to identify which implementation strategies should be most closely considered for which determinants of practice reported one of its limitations was the heterogeneity of responses [ 21 ]. This variation in responses among administrators, implementors, and evaluators points to the value of a more nuanced understanding of the unique, context-dependent, and relationally based communication processes undergirding implementation strategies [ 21 ]. Further, in their ethnographic study on hand hygiene programs, Goedken and colleagues poignantly emphasized the importance of understanding how implementation strategies are used and defined in real-world settings for understanding determinants of practice [ 22 ]. By looking below the surface of implementation strategies and focusing on the interactions surrounding those strategies, we may begin to recognize the determinants of practices, the mechanisms for change, more precisely. Discussing communication from a Process orientation allows us to access what is happening below the surface that cannot be observed as an outsider. With greater insight on communication processes occurring throughout implementation, the field of IS would be poised to provide meaningful guidance for combining implementation strategies [ 22 ]. In a similar vein, IS researchers should consider the temporality of IS strategies and how this underscores the role of communication. The role of Leadership Buy-in at all stages of development and implementation on effectiveness cannot be overstated [ 23 ]. Albright suggests shifting away from the predominant focus of research on the active implementation period to explore activities occurring during design and preparation [ 15 ].
Most implementation strategies have a communication component representing the channel for education and promotion (e.g., workshops, webinars, brochures) [ 15 ]. Our proposed interview strategies interrogate communication in a way that recognizes the relational dimensions of interpersonal interactions, providing insight about what truly results in effective implementation. By understanding communication from a Process orientation, we may enrich our understanding of implementation strategies [ 24 ].
Theories that engage a Transaction orientation to communication often ascribe to the traditional knowledge-intention-behavior paradigm that proposes a stable, linear positive relationship between knowledge and behavior change (e.g., Theory of Reasoned Action, a predictive theory suggesting a strong relationship among individuals’ attitudes about a behavior, their intention, and their behavior [ 25 ]) and tends to overlook the nuance of communication processes. However, humans are more complicated and inconsistent than these theories acknowledge. The Process orientation to communication allows for more realistic approaches that privilege the constitutive nature of communication to co-create meaning socially. In a recent scoping review of 158 studies in implementation research on maternity care, effective communication was noted as a key factor for promoting change across the body of work, but the majority of research was atheoretical and ambiguous in operationalization of communication [ 26 ].
Health communication scholars are trained to be sensitive to the cooperative nature of establishing shared meaning, multiple interpretations of behaviors, and the challenges of coordinating interactions when studying implementation strategies. Several theories, including two that pay special attention to how meaning is created socially, Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM) [ 27 ] and Structuration Theory [ 28 ], could highlight perspectives that recognize communication as a complex process and translate well to practice. CMM is a constructivist theory that provides a practical heuristic for interpreting interpersonal communication events that comprise larger conversations. As such, CMM informs practitioners’ decision-making by illuminating patterns of interactions to find ways of talking that could result in desired outcomes [ 29 ]. Structuration Theory, coined by sociologist Anthony Giddens in the late 1970s, describes the dynamic relationship between individuals and their environment that constrains and enables social practices [ 28 ]. Through its critical lens, Structuration Theory highlights the (lack of) agency individuals perceive for themselves and others, and the rules and resources perpetuated through social interactions. Lastly, Diffusion of Innovations, a framework well-entrenched in IS research and practice, also engages a process paradigm [ 30 , 31 ]. There is ample opportunity and an imperative to employ a Process orientation to better understand communication in implementation science.
This study has multiple limitations. We did not collection demographic data to describe our participants beyond the role they held on their EWI teams. The data represents a convenience sample of administrators, implementors, and evaluators working on EWIs funded at the time of data collection, which resulted in variability in representation across EWIs and staff roles. Further, because of the diversity of foci, designs, and timelines of EWIs, we cannot draw conclusions about effectiveness of strategies discussed in this paper. Lastly, the interviews were not conducted to assess communication explicitly. Despite these limitations, our analysis facilitates concrete suggestions for improving understanding of the role of communication in implementation.
Research analyzing the role of communication from a Process orientation would enrich the field of IS. Similar to Fishman et al.’s work comparing measurement and operationalization of attitude among IS studies and those grounded in psychology, our work emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration [ 32 ]. The interviewees and interviewers in our study focused predominantly on a Transaction orientation to communication; more studies are needed that focus on this level of distinction, particularly how to adopt a Process orientation to communication for implementation strategy specification. There is great potential for a body of knowledge about communication processes that has been systematically developed to inform IS strategies supporting a range of aspects crucial to effectiveness including Leadership Buy-in and Collaboration. Future research may do well to conduct direct observation to characterize communication processes related to implementation strategies from a rich Process orientation. Dissemination Science, as one facet of Dissemination and Implementation Science, is firmly rooted in the mechanics of communication and would greatly benefit from engaging the Process orientation. A recent scoping review demonstrated that the field of Dissemination Science lacks insight to communication from the Process orientation; in their review of dissemination determinants, the Transaction orientation persists in focusing on imparting information from one party to the next [ 33 ].
This study described instances of two broadly accepted orientations to communication engaged by implementation scientists. The findings demonstrate opportunities – and strategies – for engaging in the Process orientation of communication to gain greater insight into the role communication plays in implementation outcomes. We hope this work inspires dialogue, new interdisciplinary collaboration, and innovative methods to highlight the utility of engaging the Process orientation to communication to undergird the value of communication theory to implementation science for improving health services. When communication is understood as a process, practitioners will be better able to prepare for the unpredictability and uniqueness of the relational dimensions of communication.
The datasets presented in this article are not readily available in accordance with federal requirements and standards and guidelines for the protection of participants’ privacy and to maintain confidentiality. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to Dr. Heather Reisinger ([email protected]).
Center for the Evaluation of Enterprise-Wide Initiatives
Coordinated Management of Meaning
Enterprise-Wide Initiative
Office of Rural Health
Department of Veterans Affairs
Zhao X, et al. Perceived communication effectiveness in implementation strategies: a measurement scale. Implement Sci Commun. 2022;3(1):38.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Jordan ME, et al. The role of conversation in health care interventions: enabling sensemaking and learning. Implement Sci. 2009;4: 15.
Manojlovich M, et al. Hiding in plain sight: communication theory in implementation science. Implement Sci. 2015;10:58.
What is communication? 2023. Available from: https://www.natcom.org/about-nca/what-communication . Cited 2023 July 11.
Kreps G. Analysis of the interdisciplinary credibility of communication as a social science. Assoc Communication Bull. 1982;42:40–3.
Google Scholar
Lette M, et al. Unknown makes unloved-a case study on improving integrated health and social care in the Netherlands using a participatory approach. Health Soc Care Community. 2020;28(2):670–80.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Lewis MA, et al. Multilevel communication to improve well-being during a pandemic. Implement Res Pract. 2021;2:2633489520988265.
Salvador JG, et al. Use of concept mapping to support evidence-based practice implementation improvement in rural areas. J Rural Mental Health. 2018;42(1):3–19.
Article Google Scholar
Bustos TE, Sridhar A, Drahota A. Community-based implementation strategy use and satisfaction: a mixed-methods approach to using the ERIC compilation for organizations serving children on the autism spectrum. Implement Res Pract. 2021;2:26334895211058086.
Chasco EE, et al. RE-AIM for rural health innovations: perceptions of (mis) alignment between the RE-AIM framework and evaluation reporting the Department of Veterans Affairs enterprise-wide Initiative program. Front Health Serv. 2024;4:1278209.
MAXQDA Plus 2022. Version 22.3.0. VERBI GmbH 1995–2023. Updated 2023. https://www.maxqda.com . Accessed 4 Mar 2023.
Saldana J. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage; 2009.
Huang KY, et al. Unpacking partnership, engagement, and collaboration research to inform implementation strategies development: theoretical frameworks and emerging methodologies. Front Public Health. 2018;6: 190.
Kislov R, et al. Harnessing the power of theorising in implementation science. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):103.
Albright K, et al. Communication strategies to facilitate the implementation of new clinical practices: a qualitative study of community mental health therapists. Transl Behav Med. 2022;12(2):324–34.
Salas E, et al. Communicating, coordinating, and cooperating when lives depend on it: tips for teamwork. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2008;34(6):333–41.
PubMed Google Scholar
Eccles MP, et al. An implementation research agenda. Implement Sci. 2009;4: 18.
Ornstein JT, et al. Rugged landscapes: complexity and implementation science. Implement Sci. 2020;15(1):85.
Donovan EE, LeBlanc K, Farris. Interpersonal communication and coping with cancer: a multidisciplinary theoretical review of the literature. Communication Theory. 2019;29(2):236–56.
McCullough MB, et al. The interplay of contextual elements in implementation: an ethnographic case study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:62.
Waltz TJ, et al. Choosing implementation strategies to address contextual barriers: diversity in recommendations and future directions. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):42.
Goedken CC, et al. The role as a champion is to not only monitor but to speak out and to educate: the contradictory roles of hand hygiene champions. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):110.
Ross J, et al. Factors that influence the implementation of e-health: a systematic review of systematic reviews (an update). Implement Sci. 2016;11(1):146.
Baker R, et al. Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;2015(4):CD005470.
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Montano DE, Kasprzyk D. Theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, and the integrated behavioral model. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K, editors. Health behavior: theory, research, and practices. Jossey-Bass; 2015. p. 75–94.
Dadich A, Piper A, Coates D. Implementation science in maternity care: a scoping review. Implement Sci. 2021;16(1):16.
Pearce WB, Pearce KA. Extending the theory of the coordinated management of meaning (CMM) through the community dialogue process. Communication Theory. 2000;10(4):405–23.
Hardcastle MA, Usher KJ, Holmes CA. An overview of structuration theory and its usefulness for nursing research. Nurs Philos. 2005;6(4):223–34.
Imran M, et al. A critical study of coordinated management of meaning theory: a theory in Practitioners’ hands. Int J Engl Linguistics. 2019;9(5):301.
Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. Free Press; 2003.
Powell BJ, et al. A mixed methods multiple case study of implementation as usual in children’s social service organizations: study protocol. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):92.
Fishman J, Yang C, Mandell D. Attitude theory and measurement in implementation science: a secondary review of empirical studies and opportunities for advancement. Implement Sci. 2021;16(1):87.
Baumann AA, et al. A scoping review of frameworks in empirical studies and a review of dissemination frameworks. Implement Sci. 2022;17(1):53.
Download references
We would like to thank the interview participants who participated in this study for their time and insights. We would also like to acknowledge Office of Rural Health (ORH) program analysts Dr. Kelly Lora Lewis, Karyn Johnstone, Nicole Sanchez, Maura Timm, Anthony Achampong, Richard Huang, and Janice Garland for their assistance, as well as Dr. Sheila Robinson, former Deputy Director of ORH, Dr. Peter Kaboli, Executive Director of ORH, and Dr. Thomas Klobucar, former Executive Director of ORH, for their support. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States government.
VA Office of Rural Health and QUERI Project #: PEC 19–456.
Authors and affiliations.
Center for Access and Delivery Research and Evaluation, Iowa City VA Healthcare System, Iowa City, IA, USA
Nicole L. Johnson, Jennifer Van Tiem, Erin Balkenende, DeShauna Jones, Julia E. Friberg, Emily E. Chasco, Jane Moeckli, Kenda S. Steffensmeier, Melissa J. A. Steffen & Heather Schacht Reisinger
Veterans Rural Health Resource Center-Iowa City (VRHRC-Iowa City), VA Office of Rural Health, Iowa City, IA, USA
Nicole L. Johnson, Jennifer Van Tiem, Julia E. Friberg, Jane Moeckli, Kenda S. Steffensmeier & Melissa J. A. Steffen
Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Erin Balkenende & Heather Schacht Reisinger
Institute for Clinical and Translational Science, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
DeShauna Jones, Emily E. Chasco & Heather Schacht Reisinger
Department of Health Management and Policy, College of Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Kanika Arora
Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, San Diego, USA
Borsika A. Rabin
UC San Diego ACTRI Dissemination and Implementation Science Center, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, San Diego, USA
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
HSR, EC, JVT, NJ, EB, DJ, and JF are responsible for the concept for this manuscript. NJ drafted the initial manuscript and HSR, JVT, EC, EB, DJ, KSS, and JF contributed substantially in the form of manuscript structure and revisions. HSR developed the proposal for this project and obtained funding, with input from JVT, EB, and JM. HSR, JVT, EB, JM, and MS conducted interviews. KA and BR advised on all aspects of the project including development of the standardized evaluation reporting template and manuscript revisions.
Correspondence to Nicole L. Johnson .
Ethics approval and consent to participate.
As designated by the IRB, this review is not human subject research (Protocol #202001043).
Not applicable.
HSR is an associate editor of Implementation Science . All decisions on this paper were made by another editor. The authors declare that they have no other competing interests.
Publisher’s note.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary material 1. , rights and permissions.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .
Reprints and permissions
Cite this article.
Johnson, N.L., Van Tiem, J., Balkenende, E. et al. Gaps in communication theory paradigms when conducting implementation science research: qualitative observations from interviews with administrators, implementors, and evaluators of rural health programs. Implementation Sci 19 , 66 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01395-3
Download citation
Received : 07 May 2024
Accepted : 03 September 2024
Published : 16 September 2024
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01395-3
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
ISSN: 1748-5908
Journal locations, scholarly or "peer-reviewed" articles, journal directories.
The University of Delaware offers exciting opportunities for both graduate and undergraduate communication students to engage in innovative and collaborative research. Students in the program have a strong track record of publishing their work in peer-reviewed journals and earning accolades at professional conferences.
One notable example is the work done under the mentorship of Professor Paul Brewer. Ph.D. students Wyatt Dawson, Ashley Paintsil, and James Bingaman achieved significant recognition by winning the top paper award in media communication at the annual Eastern Communication Association Convention in April 2022. Their award-winning research, which explores media use and public opinion about gene editing, has been published, adding to the academic discourse in this critical field.
Additionally, Ph.D. student Emily Pfender conducted impactful research on video therapy, guided by her faculty mentor, Professor Scot Caplan. Her work was published in Counselling Psychology Quarterly , highlighting the therapeutic benefits and innovative applications of video technology in counseling.
These examples demonstrate the university's commitment to supporting student research that not only advances academic knowledge but also addresses real-world issues. With strong faculty mentorship and a collaborative research environment, communication students at the University of Delaware are well-equipped to make meaningful contributions to their fields.
Explore undergraduate research at UD
Charise Lewis , a senior majoring in communication with minors in advertising and women and gender studies, spent her summer analyzing the portrayal of Black women in the media. She monitored content on streaming services, identifying the presence of stereotypes across 220 episodes of 70 different shows.
Undergraduate students can earn academic credit for research and independent study while building transferable skills, leadership, and educational competencies in the communication discipline. Students work closely with faculty who are widely recognized not only for their published research but also for their commitment to teaching and advisement. To learn more, email the Department of Communication at [email protected] .
Work one-on-one with a communication professor on an in-depth, specialized project.
For academic credit, students register for COMM366 or COMM466. Communication majors in their junior and senior years must have a grade point average of at least 3.0 in their major and 2.75 overall. Communication-related projects by non-majors will be reviewed for independent study credit and considered on a case-by-case basis.
To register for the course, independent study candidates must submit a contract (linked below) for review and approval by the chairperson.
The contract must include the following information:
Complete the Independent Study Contract
Build transferable skills, leadership, and educational competencies in communication.
For academic credit, students register for COMM468, Undergraduate Research in Communication. To be eligible, the student must be a junior or senior majoring in communication with a grade point average of at least 3.0 in their major and 2.75 overall. Registration by non-majors will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
To register for the course, the undergraduate research candidate must submit a contract (linked below) for review and approval. The contract must include the following information:
Complete the undergraduate Research Contract
For the record, friday, sept. 6, 2024, creating new chemistry tools, collaborations.
Research opportunities are available for undergraduate and graduate students with the Center for Health Communication and the Center for Political Communication . Recognized for their social science research, both centers offer research training for graduate students, including stipends for research assistants and use of data sources.
Visit UD's Center for Health Communication
The Center for Health Communication at the University of Delaware is a hub for faculty and students to conduct research and collaborate with others to advance the science of health communication. We promote the translation of research and engagement with communities to improve health and well being. With health, interpersonal and media communication expertise, CHC collaborators are working to expand their reach across and beyond campus to identify partnership synergies for competitive funding opportunities.
Housed in UD's Department of Communication, the CHC is a hub for faculty and students to engage in scholarly research and collaborations with the goals of:
Advancing the science of health communication . CHC approaches scholarship from interpersonal and mass media perspectives and works to investigate questions about the bidirectional influence of communication and health at multiple (i.e., micro and macro) levels. Questions center around understanding (a) how individuals can communicate in ways that improve their relational, psychological, and physical/physiological health, (b) how health-related issues impact communication in relationships, (c) how media affect health cognitions and behaviors, (d) the development of persuasive health messaging, and (e) how to best communicate about risk.
Training a diverse set of health communication scholars. The CHC uses a team science approach, with research teams of faculty, postdocs, undergraduate students, graduate students, and community members. CHC researchers mentor undergraduate, masters, and doctoral students and provide opportunities for publishing, presenting at national and international conferences, and grant writing experience. The CHC is inclusive and enthusiastic about working with students and scholars from diverse backgrounds.
Promoting the translation of research findings and engaging with communities to improve health and well-being. The CHC provides expertise to assist researchers in their goal to translate and disseminate research findings through interacting with stakeholders and engaging in outreach efforts to disseminate research information to specific target audiences.
Visit UD's Center for Political Communication
The Center for Political Communication at the University of Delaware is a nonpartisan, interdisciplinary center connecting academics, students, and the community to relevant issues in political communication. Since its creation, the CPC consistently touches on issues that are part of, or about to be part of, the national conversation. Whether it is racial injustice, climate change, polarization, or the future of our democracy, the CPC provides context through courses, research, and programs.
Faculty affiliated with the Center for Political Communication conduct cutting-edge research through national and statewide public opinion polls. Studies sponsored by the CPC have received coverage in a wide range of news outlets, including the Atlantic , the New York Times , the Washington Post , USA Today , US News & World Report, the Wall Street Journal, Slate , and Wired .
COMMENTS
New research on communication from Harvard Business School faculty on issues including intentiona nd meaning, communication technology, and communication strategies. ... As companies continue to weigh the benefits and drawbacks of remote work, a study of how knowledge flows among academic researchers by Karim Lakhani, Eamon Duede, and ...
Communication Research (CR), peer-reviewed and published bi-monthly, has provided researchers and practitioners with the most up-to-date, comprehensive and important research on communication and its related fields.It publishes articles that explore the processes, antecedents, and consequences of communication in a broad range of societal systems.
Why you need Communication Research. Research and theory presented in all areas of communication give you comprehensive coverage of the field ; Rigorous, empirical analysis provides you with research that's reliable and high in quality ; The multi-disciplinary perspective contributes to a greater understanding of communication processes and ...
The results of this study argue that communication, and specifically oral communication education, is critical to students' future personal and professional success. Similar to three earlier studies, thematic analysis of 2,155 articles, identified in academic and popular press publications extending from 2016 to 2020, provides support for the ...
This study surveyed how delegates at COP24 perceived the efficacy of technology and climate targets. ... Reorienting social communication research via double empathy. Oluwatobi Abubakare;
Referred to as "performance-based" or "competence-oriented tests" within the field of competence research, such tests seek to represent holistically the individual's capabilities to act (Blömeke et al., 2015; Shavelson et al., 2018). Thus, even the designation of a "competence-oriented examination" of communication skills, for ...
Communication Research Reports publishes original research in the form of brief empirical articles (approximately 3,500 words maximum, and no more than two tables or figures; accepted papers are usually edited to 10 double-spaced pages prior to press) on a variety of topics of human communication. Empirical studies in the general contexts of interpersonal, organizational, communication traits ...
Communication research is evolving and changing in a world of online journals, open-access, and new ways of obtaining data and conducting experiments via the Internet. ... accompanied by engaging examples from the literature of communication, journalism, and media studies. Entries cover every step of the research process, from the creative ...
What is communication science? Communication science is the discipline of the social scientific study of human communication that explores the processes, behaviors/practices, and effects of human communication, which encompasses a wide range of topics and approaches that examine how individuals, groups, organizations, and societies create, share, process, and use information transmitted in ...
In this study, we aim to map crisis communication in the communication research. The study also seeks to find the field's social, intellectual and conceptual structures over the past 50 years.
Ultimately, research that focuses on the relationship between language and emotion, as related to communication, serves to underscore the notion that language is a powerful means through which emotion is modulated, and within bilingual or multilingual speakers, the richness of recall of information from memory can vary significantly depending ...
Communication researchers study a communication process. We're interested in how people exchange information, how they use messages to create "meaning", and what happens when meaning isn't shared. We're interested in information processes. We study information (even everyday ways of knowing!) creation, use, exchange, and breakdown in ...
To date, there is no research examining these interconnected variables simultaneously in Asia, specifically in Malaysia. In this study, two forms of communication processes, namely, (1) accommodation and (2) capitalization, were explored concurrently to disentangle the unique associations and influence on relationship satisfaction.
Communication in the Real World: An Introduction to Communication Studies overviews the time-tested conceptual foundations of the field, while incorporating the latest research and cutting-edge applications of these basics. Each chapter will include timely, concrete, and real-life examples of communication concepts in action.
modifying or even changing in behaviour. Specifically, communication is held to. share feelings and thoughts for several purposes that aim to connect with others. such as: inspiring, motivati ng ...
This chapter explores how communication studies focuses on human communication among people in groups, teams, and organizations. While persuasive communication has long been at the heart of leadership development, the discipline's contributions to effective leadership also range from advancing our understanding of organizational communicative systems to the development of skills for ...
Communication Research and Media Studies, History of. Michael Meyen, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition), 2015. Abstract. Communication research is both the latecomer of the social sciences and a product of political and economic necessities. The discipline's formation took the search for effective propaganda designs and a growing interest of both ...
Alongside changes associated with globalization, digitization has destabilized much of what is taken for granted in journalism and communication studies, including theories and concepts that have unproblematically reproduced assumptions about the hegemony of legacy media, journalistic practice as a clearly defined professional practice, and the ...
Theoretical Approach to Qualitative Research in Communication - seeks to explore the theoretical assumptions of qualitative research in communication from an epistemological perspective. The chapters in the first section are, in different ways, exploring a fundamental field of research in communication: media and technology studies.
New research on communication strategies from Harvard Business School faculty on issues including whether interactions with candidates increase voter support and participation, the power of conversational leadership, and why persistent, redundant communication works. ... This study of a mid-sized city in northern Italy during the 2014 municipal ...
The starting place for effective communication is effective listening. "Active listening is listening with all of one's senses," says physician communication expert Kenneth H. Cohn, MD, MBA, FACS. "It's listening with one's eyes as well as one's years. Only 8% of communication is related to content—the rest pertains to body language and ...
The researcher interview guide was designed to understand researchers' perspectives on communicating and disseminating research findings to participants; explore past experiences, if any, of researchers with communication and dissemination of research findings to study participants; document any approaches researchers may have used or intend ...
There is limited research based on this variable, and it is in accordance with the findings of this study, as previous research has indicated that first-generation students do not develop peer support to establish meaningful social relationships, which leads to a lack of belonging and social fulfillment and, ultimately, loneliness (Huerta ...
Yet, even as a means for information exchange, Manojlovich and colleagues recognized the lack of attention on communication in implementation research . Broadly, the study of communication focuses on how messages are used to generate meanings , and provides perspective for moving beyond an emphasis on information exchange, thus moving beyond ...
Contains scholarly research covering communication in the broadest sense; recent issues have included articles on avoidance in friendships, UFO beliefs and rumors, and television news. ... communication studies, discourse studies and semiotics, media and cultural studies, sociology, and the disciplines dealing with history, theory and practice ...
University of Delaware communication students can join research teams led by award-winning faculty who conduct collaborative, interdisciplinary research. Undergraduates and graduates have access to research training, financial support, and resources. ... Undergraduate students can earn academic credit for research and independent study while ...