experimental social innovation and dissemination

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

ESID, dissemination, and community psychology: a case of partial implementation?

Affiliation.

• 1 Department of Psychology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7801, USA. [email protected]
• PMID: 14703270
• DOI: 10.1023/b:ajcp.0000004754.37080.57

Dissemination, the second stage of Experimental Social Innovation and Dissemination (ESID) is a critical, if not defining, element of this social change model. This paper attempts to assess the extent to which community psychology has adopted and implemented ESID's dissemination focus in its training and publications. We identify four levels of commitment to dissemination: dissemination advocate, dissemination activist, dissemination researcher, and experimental dissemination researcher. Content analyses of textbooks, journal publications, and conference papers and a brief survey of doctoral training in the field were conducted. Findings suggest that the dissemination aspects of ESID have been modestly and partially implemented within the field. That is, although there is some evidence of a commitment to dissemination practice (advocate, activist), there is much less evidence of a commitment to dissemination research. The implications of these findings for the effectiveness of the ESID model and for training and practice in community psychology are discussed.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Experimental social innovation and dissemination: the promise and its delivery. Hazel KL, Onaga E. Hazel KL, et al. Am J Community Psychol. 2003 Dec;32(3-4):285-94. doi: 10.1023/b:ajcp.0000004748.50885.2e. Am J Community Psychol. 2003. PMID: 14703264 Review.
• Fairweather and ESID: contemporary impact and a legacy for the twenty-first century. Seidman E. Seidman E. Am J Community Psychol. 2003 Dec;32(3-4):371-5. doi: 10.1023/b:ajcp.0000004755.51641.d3. Am J Community Psychol. 2003. PMID: 14703271
• HIV, sex, and social change: applying ESID principles to HIV prevention research. Fernández MI, Bowen GS, Gay CL, Mattson TR, Bital E, Kelly JA. Fernández MI, et al. Am J Community Psychol. 2003 Dec;32(3-4):333-44. doi: 10.1023/b:ajcp.0000004752.42987.a1. Am J Community Psychol. 2003. PMID: 14703268
• An ESID case study at the federal level. Emshoff J, Blakely C, Gray D, Jakes S, Brounstein P, Coulter J, Gardner S. Emshoff J, et al. Am J Community Psychol. 2003 Dec;32(3-4):345-57. doi: 10.1023/b:ajcp.0000004753.88247.0d. Am J Community Psychol. 2003. PMID: 14703269
• Evolution of diffusion and dissemination theory. Dearing JW. Dearing JW. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2008 Mar-Apr;14(2):99-108. doi: 10.1097/01.PHH.0000311886.98627.b7. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2008. PMID: 18287914 Review.
• A pilot randomized controlled trial of a brief parenting intervention in low-resource settings in Panama. Mejia A, Calam R, Sanders MR. Mejia A, et al. Prev Sci. 2015 Jul;16(5):707-17. doi: 10.1007/s11121-015-0551-1. Prev Sci. 2015. PMID: 25703382 Clinical Trial.
• Top-down, bottom-up, and around the jungle gym: a social exchange and networks approach to engaging afterschool programs in implementing evidence-based practices. Smith EP, Wise E, Rosen H, Rosen A, Childs S, McManus M. Smith EP, et al. Am J Community Psychol. 2014 Jun;53(3-4):491-502. doi: 10.1007/s10464-014-9656-0. Am J Community Psychol. 2014. PMID: 24781678 Free PMC article.
• Diffusion of school-based prevention programs in two urban districts: adaptations, rationales, and suggestions for change. Ozer EJ, Wanis MG, Bazell N. Ozer EJ, et al. Prev Sci. 2010 Mar;11(1):42-55. doi: 10.1007/s11121-009-0148-7. Prev Sci. 2010. PMID: 19697133 Free PMC article.
• "Queremos aprender": Latino immigrants' call to integrate cultural adaptation with best practice knowledge in a parenting intervention. Cardona JP, Holtrop K, Córdova D Jr, Escobar-Chew AR, Horsford S, Tams L, Villarruel FA, Villalobos G, Dates B, Anthony JC, Fitzgerald HE. Cardona JP, et al. Fam Process. 2009 Jun;48(2):211-31. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2009.01278.x. Fam Process. 2009. PMID: 19579906 Free PMC article.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Europe PMC requires Javascript to function effectively.

Either your web browser doesn't support Javascript or it is currently turned off. In the latter case, please turn on Javascript support in your web browser and reload this page.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Implement Sci

A scoping review of frameworks in empirical studies and a review of dissemination frameworks

Ana a. baumann.

1 Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, USA

Cole Hooley

2 School of Social Work, Brigham Young University, Provo, USA

Emily Kryzer

3 BJC HealthCare, Community Health Improvement, St. Louis, USA

Alexandra B. Morshed

4 Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, USA

Cassidy A. Gutner

5 ViiV Healthcare, Research Triangle Park, NC USA

6 Department of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA USA

Sara Malone

7 Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, USA

Callie Walsh-Bailey

Meagan pilar.

8 Department of Infectious Diseases, Washington University School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, USA

Brittney Sandler

9 Bernard Becker Medical Library, School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, USA

Rachel G. Tabak

Stephanie mazzucca, associated data.

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

The field of dissemination and implementation (D&I) research has grown immensely in recent years. However, the field of dissemination research has not coalesced to the same degree as the field of implementation research. To advance the field of dissemination research, this review aimed to (1) identify the extent to which dissemination frameworks are used in dissemination empirical studies, (2) examine how scholars define dissemination, and (3) identify key constructs from dissemination frameworks.

To achieve aims 1 and 2, we conducted a scoping review of dissemination studies published in D&I science journals. The search strategy included manuscripts published from 1985 to 2020. Articles were included if they were empirical quantitative or mixed methods studies about the dissemination of information to a professional audience. Studies were excluded if they were systematic reviews, commentaries or conceptual papers, scale-up or scale-out studies, qualitative or case studies, or descriptions of programs. To achieve aim 1, we compiled the frameworks identified in the empirical studies. To achieve aim 2, we compiled the definitions from dissemination from frameworks identified in aim 1 and from dissemination frameworks identified in a 2021 review (Tabak RG, Am J Prev Med 43:337-350, 2012). To achieve aim 3, we compile the constructs and their definitions from the frameworks.

Out of 6017 studies, 89 studies were included for full-text extraction. Of these, 45 (51%) used a framework to guide the study. Across the 45 studies, 34 distinct frameworks were identified, out of which 13 (38%) defined dissemination. There is a lack of consensus on the definition of dissemination. Altogether, we identified 48 constructs, divided into 4 categories: process, determinants, strategies, and outcomes. Constructs in the frameworks are not well defined.

Implication for D&I research

This study provides a critical step in the dissemination research literature by offering suggestions on how to define dissemination research and by cataloging and defining dissemination constructs. Strengthening these definitions and distinctions between D&I research could enhance scientific reproducibility and advance the field of dissemination research.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-022-01225-4.

Contributions to the literature

• The field of dissemination research has not coalesced to the same degree as the field of implementation research. Clearly defining dissemination and identifying dissemination constructs will help enhance dissemination research.
• In a review of 34 frameworks, we found a lack of consensus in the definition of dissemination and 48 constructs identified in the frameworks.
• We provide a suggested definition of dissemination and a catalog of the constructs to advance the field of dissemination research.

The field of dissemination and implementation (D&I) research has grown extensively in the past years. While scholars from the field of implementation research have made substantial advances, the field of dissemination research has not coalesced to the same degree, limiting the ability to conduct rigorous, reproducible dissemination research. Dissemination research has broadly focused on examining how evidence-based information gets packaged into practices, policies, and programs. This information delivery is often targeted at providers in public health and clinical settings and policymakers to improve public health decision-making. Here, we use provider to refer to a person or group that provides something—in this case, information. The chasm between how evidence-based information is disseminated and how this information is used by providers and policymakers is well-documented [ 1 ] and further evidenced by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic [ 2 , 3 ].

The definition of dissemination research has been modified over the years and is not consistent across various sources. Dissemination research could be advanced by further development of existing conceptual and theoretical work. In a previous review [ 4 ], nine D&I science frameworks were categorized as “dissemination only” frameworks (i.e., the explicit focus of the framework was on the spread of information about evidence-based interventions to a target audience) [ 4 ]. Frameworks are important because they provide a systematic way to develop, plan, manage and evaluate a study [ 5 , 6 ]. The extent to which dissemination scholars are using frameworks to inform their studies, and which frameworks are used, is unclear.

Building on previous compilations of dissemination frameworks [ 7 ], this paper intends to advance the knowledge of dissemination research by examining dissemination frameworks reported in the empirical literature, cataloging the constructs across different frameworks, and providing definitions for these constructs. A scoping review is ideal at this stage of the dissemination research literature because it helps map the existing frameworks from a body of emerging literature and identifies gaps in the field [ 8 ].

Specifically, this study has three aims: (1) to conduct a scoping review of the empirical dissemination literature and identify the dissemination frameworks informing those studies, (2) to examine how scholars define dissemination, and (3) to catalog and define the constructs from the dissemination frameworks identified in aim 1 and the frameworks categorized as dissemination only by Tabak et al. [ 4 ]

The methods section is divided into the three aims of this study. First, we report the methods for our scoping review to identify the frameworks used in empirical dissemination studies. Second, we report on how we identified the definitions of dissemination. Third, we report the methods for abstracting the dissemination constructs from the frameworks identified in the empirical literature (aim 1) and from the frameworks categorized as “dissemination only” by Tabak et al. [ 4 ] Tabak et al. [ 4 ] categorized models “on a continuum from dissemination to implementation” and acknowledge that “these divisions are intended to assist the reader in model selection, rather than to provide actual classifications for models.” For the current review, we selected only those categorized as dissemination-only because we aimed to examine whether there were any distinct components between the dissemination and implementation frameworks by coding the dissemination-only frameworks.

Scoping review of the literature

We conducted a scoping review to identify dissemination frameworks used in the empirical dissemination literature. A scoping review is appropriate as the goal of this work is to map the current state of the literature, not to evaluate evidence or provide specific recommendations as is the case with a systematic review [ 8 ]. We followed the method developed by Arksey and O’Malley [ 9 ] and later modified by Levac and colleagues [ 10 ]. In doing so, we first identified the research questions (i.e., “Which dissemination frameworks are used in the literature?” and “How are the dissemination constructs defined?”), identified relevant studies (see below), and charted the data to present a summary of our results.

We iteratively created a search strategy in Scopus with terms relevant to dissemination. We ran the search in 2017 and again in December 2020, using the following terms: TITLE-ABS-KEY (dissem* OR (knowledge AND trans*) OR diffuse* OR spread*) in the 20 most relevant journals for the D&I science field, identified by Norton et al. [ 11 ] We ran an identical search at a second time point due to several logistical reasons. This review was an unfunded project conducted by faculty and students who experienced numerous significant life transitions during the project period. We anticipated the original search would be out of date by the time of submission for publication, thus wanted to provide the most up-to-date literature feasible given the time needed to complete the review steps. This approach is appropriate for systematic and scoping reviews [ 12 ]

We included studies if they were (a) quantitative or mixed methods empirical studies, (b) if they were about the dissemination of information (e.g., guidelines) to targeted professional audiences, and (c) published since 1985. Articles were excluded if they were (a) systematic reviews, commentaries, or other non-empirical articles; (b) qualitative studies; (c) scale-up studies (i.e., expanding a program into additional delivery settings); (d) case studies or description of programs; and/or (e) dissemination of information to lay consumer audiences or the general public. Some of the exclusion criteria, specifically around distinguishing studies that were dissemination studies from scale-up or health communication studies, were refined as we reviewed the paper abstracts. In the “Definition of dissemination section, we explain our rationale and process to distinguish these types of studies.

The screening procedures were piloted among all coders with a random sample of articles. AB, SaM, CH, CG, EK, and CWB screened titles for inclusion/exclusion independently, then met to ensure a shared understanding of the criteria and to generate consensus. The same coders then reviewed titles based on the above inclusion/exclusion criteria. Any unclear records were retained for abstract review. Consistent with the previously utilized methodology, the abstract review was conducted sequentially to the title review [ 13 , 14 ]. This approach can improve efficiency while maintaining accuracy [ 15 ]. In this round of review, abstracts were single-screened for inclusion/exclusion. Then, 26% of the articles were independently co-screened by pairs of coders; coding pairs met to generate consensus on disagreements.

Articles that passed to full-text review were independently screened by two coders (AB, CH, EK, and CWB). Coders met to reach a consensus and a third reviewer was consulted if the pair could not reach an agreement. From included records, coders extracted bibliometric information about the article (authors, journal, and year of publication) and the name of the framework used in the study (if a framework was used). Coders met regularly to discuss any discrepancies in coding and to generate consensus; final decisions were made by a third reviewer if necessary.

Review of definitions of dissemination

First, we compiled the list of frameworks identified in the empirical studies. Because some frameworks categorized as dissemination-only by the review of frameworks in Tabak et al. [ 4 ] were not present in our sample, we added those to our list of frameworks to review. From the articles describing these frameworks, we extracted dissemination definitions, constructs, and construct definitions. AB, SM, AM, and MP independently abstracted and compared the constructs’ definitions.

Review of dissemination constructs

Once constructs were identified, the frequency of the constructs was counted, and definitions were abstracted. We then organized the constructs into four categories: dissemination processes, determinants, strategies, and outcomes. These categories were organized based on themes by AB and reviewed by all authors. We presented different versions of these categories to groups of stakeholders along our process, including posters at the 2019 and 2021 Conferences on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in Health, the Washington University Network for Dissemination and Implementation Researchers (WUNDIR), and our network of D&I research peers. During these presentations and among our internal authorship group, we received feedback that the categorization of the constructs was helpful.

We defined the constructs in the dissemination process as constructs that relate to processes, stages, or events by which the dissemination process happens. The dissemination determinants construct encompasses constructs that may facilitate or obstruct the dissemination process (i.e., barriers or facilitators). The dissemination strategies constructs are those that describe the approaches or actions of a dissemination process. Finally, dissemination outcomes are the identified dissemination outcomes in the frameworks (distinct from health service, clinical, or population health outcomes). These categories are subjective and defined by the study team. The tables in Additional file 1 include our suggested labels and definitions for the constructs within these four categories, the definitions as provided by the articles describing the frameworks, and the total frequency of each construct from the frameworks reviewed.

The PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) flowchart is shown in Fig. ​ Fig.1. 1 . The combined searches yielded 6017 unique articles. Of those, 5622 were excluded during the title and abstract screening. Of the 395 full-text articles, we retained 89 in our final sample.

PRISMA chart

Papers were excluded during the full-text review for several reasons. Many papers ( n = 101, 33%) were excluded because they did not meet the coding definitions for dissemination studies. For example, some studies were focused on larger quality improvement initiatives without a clear dissemination component while other studies reported disseminating findings tangentially. Many ( n = 61; 20%) were excluded because they reported a study testing approaches to spread information to the general public or lay audiences instead of to a group of professionals (e.g., disseminating information about HIV perinatal transmission to mothers, not healthcare providers.) Several articles ( n = 55, 18%) were related to the scale up of interventions and not the dissemination of information.

Frameworks identified

Table ​ Table1 1 shows the frameworks used in the included studies. We identified a total of 27 unique frameworks in the empirical studies. Out of the 27 frameworks identified, only three overlapped with the 11 frameworks cataloged as “dissemination only” in Tabak et al. [ 4 ] review. Two frameworks identified in the empirical studies were cataloged by Tabak et al [ 4 ] as “D = I,” one was cataloged as “D > I,” and one as “I only.” Additional file 1 : Table S1 shows all the frameworks, with frameworks 1–11 being “D only” from Tabak et al. [ 4 ], and frameworks 12–34 are the ones identified in our empirical sample. Rogers’ diffusion of innovation [ 16 ] was used most frequently (in 10 studies), followed by the Knowledge to Action Framework (in 4 studies) [ 17 ] and RE-AIM (in 3 studies) [ 18 ]. Dobbins’ Framework for the Dissemination and Utilization of Research for Health-Care Policy and Practice [ 19 ], the Interactive Systems Framework and Network Theory [ 20 ], and Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework [ 21 ] were each used by two studies. Thirty studies (33%) did not explicitly describe a dissemination framework that informed their work.

Frequency of frameworks used in the dissemination studies from our sample ( N = 89)

a Identified as D only framework in Tabak et al.

b Identified as D = I in Tabak et al.

c Identified as D > I in Tabak et al.

d Identified as I only at Tabak et al. Frameworks with no note were not identified in Tabak et al.

Definition of dissemination

Table ​ Table2 2 shows the definition of dissemination from the frameworks. Out of the 38 frameworks, only 12 (32%) defined dissemination. There is wide variability in the depth of the definitions, with some authors defining dissemination as a process “transferring research to the users,” [ 24 ] and others defining it as both a process and an outcome [ 19 , 23 ]. The definitions of dissemination varied among the 13 frameworks that defined dissemination; however, some shared characteristics were identified. In nine of the 13 frameworks, the definition of dissemination included language about the movement or spread of something, whether an idea, innovation, program, or research finding [ 16 , 23 – 28 , 31 , 32 ]. Seven of the frameworks described dissemination as active, intentional, or planned by those leading a dissemination effort [ 7 , 16 , 23 , 25 – 27 , 32 ]. Five frameworks specified some type of outcome as a result of dissemination (e.g., the adoption of an innovation or awareness of research results) [ 7 , 19 , 23 , 27 , 29 , 30 ]. Three of the frameworks’ definitions included the role of influential determinants of dissemination [ 19 , 27 , 29 , 30 ]. Only two frameworks highlighted dissemination as a process [ 23 , 25 ].

Definition of dissemination across the dissemination frameworks

Definition of dissemination constructs

Below, we describe the results presented in Tables ​ Tables3, 3 , ​ ,4, 4 , ​ ,5, 5 , and ​ and6 6 with constructs grouped by dissemination process, determinants, strategies, and outcomes. The definitions proposed for the constructs were based on a thematic review of the definitions provided in the articles, which can be found in the Additional file 1 : Tables S2-S5.

Dissemination process constructs, suggested definition, frequency of construct across frameworks, and other names in the literature

Dissemination determinants constructs, suggested definition, frequency of construct across frameworks, and other names in the literature

Dissemination strategy constructs, suggested definition, frequency of construct across frameworks, and other names in the literature

Dissemination outcome constructs, suggested definition, frequency of construct across frameworks, and other names in the literature

Table ​ Table3 3 shows the constructs that relate to the dissemination processes , i.e., the steps or processes through which dissemination happens. Seven constructs were categorized as processes: knowledge inquiry, knowledge synthesis, communication, interaction, persuasion, activation, and research transfer. That is, six frameworks suggest that the dissemination process starts with an inquiry of what type of information is needed to close the knowledge gap. Next, there is a process of gathering and synthesizing the information, including examining the context in which the information will be shared. After the information is identified and gathered, there is a process of communication, interaction with the information, and persuasion where the information is shared with the target users, where the users then engage with the information and activate towards action based on the information received. Finally, there is a process of research transfer, where the information sharing “becomes essentially independent of explicit intentional change activity.” [ 33 ]

Table ​ Table4 4 shows the 17 constructs categorized as dissemination determinants , which are constructs that reflect aspects that may facilitate or hinder the dissemination process. Determinants identified included content of the information, context, interpersonal networks, source of knowledge and audience, the medium of dissemination, opinion leaders, compatibility of the information with the setting, type of information, and capacity of the audience to adopt the innovation. Communication, the salience of communication, and users’ perceived attitudes towards the information were the most frequent constructs ( n = 14 each), followed by context ( n = 13), interpersonal networks ( n = 12), sources of knowledge, and audience ( n = 10 each).

Table ​ Table5 5 shows the nine constructs related to dissemination strategies , which are constructs that describe the approaches or actions to promote or support dissemination. Leeman and colleagues [ 34 ] conceptualize dissemination strategies as strategies that provide synthesis, translation, and support of information. The authors refer to dissemination as two broad strategies: developing materials and distributing materials. We identified several strategies related to the synthesis of information (e.g., identify the knowledge), translation of information (e.g., adapt information to context), and other constructs. Monitoring and evaluation were the most frequent constructs ( n = 10), with identify the quality gap and increase audience’s skills next ( n = 6).

Finally, Table ​ Table6 6 shows the dissemination outcomes , which are constructs related to the effects of the dissemination process. Fifteen constructs were categorized here, including awareness and changes in policy, decision and impact, adoption and cost, emotion reactions, knowledge gained, accountability, maintenance, persuasion, reception, confirmation, and fidelity. Knowledge utilization was the most cited construct across frameworks ( n = 11), followed by awareness and change in policy ( n = 8 each).

The goals of this study were threefold. First, we conducted a scoping review of the empirical literature to catalog the dissemination frameworks informing dissemination studies. Second, we compiled the definition of dissemination, and third, we cataloged and defined the constructs from the dissemination frameworks. During our review process, we found that clearly identifying dissemination studies was more complicated than anticipated. Defining the sample of articles to code for this study was a challenge because of the large variability of studies that use the word “dissemination” in the titles but that are actually scale-up or health communication studies.

The high variability in the definition of dissemination poses a challenge for the field because if we do not clearly define what we are doing, we are unable to set boundaries to distinguish dissemination research from other fields. Among the identified frameworks that defined dissemination, the definitions highlighted that dissemination involved the spread of something, whether knowledge, an innovation, or a program. Distinct from diffusion, several definitions described dissemination as an active process, using intentional strategies. Few definitions described the role of determinants, whether dissemination is a process or a discrete event, and what strategies and outcomes may be pertinent. Future work is needed to unify these distinct conceptualizations into a comprehensive definition that dissemination researchers can use.

While it is clear that dissemination differs from diffusion, as the latter has been considered the passive and “haphazard” spread of information [ 35 ], the distinction between dissemination and scale-up—as shown in the definitions identified in this study—is less clear. Some articles from our search not included in the review conceptualized dissemination as similar to scale-up. To clarify the distinction between dissemination and scale-up in our review, we used the WHO’s definition of scale-up [ 36 ] as “deliberate efforts to increase the impact of successfully tested health innovations to benefit more people and to foster policy and program development on a lasting basis.” In other words, based on these definitions, our team considered scale-up as referencing active efforts to spread evidence-based interventions , whereas diffusion is the passive spread of information. Dissemination, therefore, can be conceptualized as the active and planned spread of information.

Another helpful component in distinguishing dissemination science from other sciences is related to the target audience. Brownson et al. [ 1 ] define dissemination as an “active approach of spreading evidence-based information to the target audience via determined channels using planned strategies” (p. 9). Defining the target audience in the context of dissemination is important because it may help distinguish the field from social marketing. Indeed, several studies we excluded involved sharing information with the public (e.g., increasing the awareness of the importance of sunscreen in public swimming pools). Grier and Bryant define social marketing as a “program-planning process that applies commercial marketing concepts and techniques to promote voluntary behavior change ( … ) by groups of individuals, often referred to as the target audience.” [ 37 ] The target audience in the context of social marketing, the authors explain, is usually considered consumers but can also be policymakers [ 37 ]. To attempt to delineate a distinction between these two fields, dissemination work has traditionally identified professionals (e.g., clinicians, public health practitioners, policymakers) as the target audience of dissemination efforts, whereas the target audience in social marketing is conceptualized as a broader audience. Figure ​ Figure2 2 shows how we conceptualize the distinct components of dissemination research from other fields. Based on these distinctions, we propose the following coalesced definition for dissemination research to guide this review: the scientific study of the targeted distribution of information to a specific professional person or group of professionals. Clearly distinguishing dissemination from scale-up as well as health communication will help further advance the dissemination research field.

Proposed distinction of definitions between diffusion, scale-up, and dissemination

Our results show that of the empirical papers identified in this review, 51% used a framework to guide their study. This finding mirrors the suboptimal use of frameworks in the field of implementation research [ 38 , 39 ], with scholars recently putting forth guidance on how to select and use frameworks to enhance their use in implementation research studies [ 6 ]. Similarly, we provide a catalog of dissemination frameworks and their constructs identified in dissemination studies. It is necessary to move the dissemination research field forward by embedding frameworks in dissemination-focused studies.

Some empirical papers included in our review used frameworks based on the knowledge translation literature. Knowledge translation, a field most prominent outside the USA, has been defined as “a dynamic and iterative process that includes the synthesis, dissemination, exchange and ethically sound application of knowledge to improve health, provide more effective health services and products, and strengthen the health care system” [ 40 ]. As such, it conceptualizes an interactive relationship between the creation and the application of knowledge. In the USA, however, researchers tend to conceptualize dissemination as a concept discrete from implementation and use the acronym “D&I” to identify these two fields.

While one could state that there is a distinct set of outcomes, methods, and frameworks between dissemination and implementation fields, previous scholars have cataloged [ 4 ] a continuum, from dissemination only” to “implementation only” frameworks. Consistent with this, our findings show that scholars have adapted implementation frameworks to fit dissemination outcomes (e.g., Klesges’ adaptation of RE-AIM [ 41 ]), while other frameworks have both dissemination and implementation components (e.g., integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services [i-PARIHS] [ 42 ]). Additionally, behavioral change frameworks (e.g., theory of planned behavior) were cataloged in our study as they were used in included articles. The use of implementation frameworks in studies identified here as dissemination studies highlights at least three potential hypotheses. One possibility is the use of implementation frameworks in dissemination studies is due to the underdevelopment of the field of dissemination, as shown in the challenges that we found in the conceptual definition of dissemination. We hope that, by clearly outlining a definition of dissemination, scholars can start to empirically examine whether there are distinct components between implementation and dissemination outcomes and processes.

The second hypothesis is that we still do not have enough evidence in the dissemination or implementation fields to be dogmatic about the categorization of frameworks as either “dissemination” or “implementation.” Until we have more robust evidence about what is and what is not dissemination (or other continua along which frameworks may be categorized), we caution against holding too firm to characterizations of frameworks [ 38 , 43 – 45 ] Frameworks evolve as more empirical evidence is gathered [ 43 , 45 – 49 ], and they are applied in different settings and contexts. We could hypothesize that it is less important, as of now, to categorize a framework as an implementation or dissemination framework and instead clearly explain why a specific framework was selected and how it is applied in the study.

Selection and application of frameworks in dissemination and implementation research is still a challenge, especially considering scholars may often select frameworks in a haphazard way [ 6 , 50 , 51 ]. While scholars have put forward some guidance to select implementation frameworks [ 6 , 52 ], the challenge in the dissemination and implementation research fields is likely not only in the selection of the frameworks but perhaps more so in the misuse or misapplication of frameworks, theories, or models. A survey indicated that there is little consensus on the process that scholars use to select frameworks and that scholars select frameworks based on several criteria, including familiarity with the framework [ 50 ]. As such, Birken et al. [ 52 ] offer other criteria for the selection of frameworks, such as (a) usability (i.e., whether the framework includes relevant constructs and whether the framework provides an explanation of how constructs influence each other), (b) applicability (i.e., how a method, such as an interview, can be used with the framework; whether the framework is generalizable to different contexts), and (c) testability (i.e., whether the framework proposed a testable hypothesis and whether it contributes to an evidence-based or theory development). Moullin et al. [ 6 ] suggest that implementation frameworks should be selected based on their (a) purpose, (b), levels of analysis (e.g., provider, organizational, system), (c) degree of inclusion and depth of analysis or operationalization of implementation concepts, and (d) the framework’s orientation (e.g., setting and type of intervention).

More than one framework can be selected in one study, depending on the research question(s). The application of a framework can support a project in the planning stages (e.g., examining the determinants of a context, engaging with stakeholders), during the project (e.g., making explicit the mechanisms of action, tracking and exploring the process of change), and after the project is completed (e.g., use of the framework to report outcomes, to understand what happened and why) [ 6 , 51 , 53 ]. We believe that similar guidance can and should be applied to dissemination frameworks; further empirical work may be needed to help identify how to select and apply dissemination and/or implementation frameworks in dissemination research. The goal of this review is to support the advancement of the dissemination and implementation sciences by identifying constructs and frameworks that scholars can apply in their dissemination studies. Additional file 1 : Tables S6-S9 show the frequency of constructs per framework, and readers can see the variability in the frequency of constructs per framework to help in their selection of frameworks.

A third hypothesis is that the processes of dissemination and implementation are interrelated, may occur simultaneously, and perhaps support each other in the uptake of evidence-based interventions. For example, Leppin et al. [ 54 ] use the definition of implementation based on the National Institutes of Health: “the adoption and integration of evidence-based health interventions into clinical and community settings for the purposes of improving care delivery and efficiency, patient outcomes, and individual and population health” [ 55 ], and implementation research as the study of this process to develop a knowledge base about how interventions can be embedded in practices. In this sense, implementation aims to examine the “how” to normalize interventions in practices, to enhance uptake of these interventions, guidelines, or policies, whereas dissemination examines how to spread the information about these interventions, policies, and practices, intending to support their adoption (see Fig. ​ Fig.1). 1 ). In other words, using Curran’s [ 56 ] simple terms, implementation is about adopting and maintaining “the thing” whereas dissemination is about intentionally spreading information to enable learning about “the thing.” As Leppin et al. argue, these two sciences [ 54 , 57 , 58 ], while separate, could co-occur in the process of supporting the uptake of evidence-based interventions. Future work may entail empirically understanding the role of these frameworks in dissemination research.

This review aimed to advance a critical step in the dissemination literature by defining and categorizing dissemination constructs. Constructs are subjective, socially constructed concepts [ 59 ], and therefore their definitions may be bounded by factors including, but not limited to, the researchers’ discipline and background, the research context, and time [ 60 ]. This is evident in the constructs’ lack of consistent, clear definitions (see Additional file 1 ). The inconsistency in the definitions of the constructs is problematic because it impairs measurement development and consequently validity and comparability across studies. The lack of clear definitions of the dissemination constructs may be due to the multidisciplinary nature of the D&I research field in general [ 61 , 62 ], which is a value of the field. However, not having consistency in terms and definitions makes it difficult to develop generalizable conclusions and synthesize scientific findings regarding dissemination research.

We identified a total of 48 constructs, which we separated into four categories: dissemination processes, determinants, strategies, and outcomes. By providing these categories, we can hope to help advance the field of dissemination research to ensure rigor and consistency. Process constructs are important to guide the critical steps and structure that scholars may need to take when doing dissemination research. Of note is that the processes identified in this study may not be unique to dissemination research but rather to the research process in general. As the field of dissemination research advances, it will be interesting to examine whether there are unique components in these process stages that are unique to the dissemination field. In addition to the process, an examination of dissemination determinants (i.e., barriers and facilitators) is essential in understanding how contextual factors occurring at different levels (e.g., information recipient, organizational setting, policy environment) influence dissemination efforts and impede or improve dissemination success [ 7 ]. Understanding the essential determinants will help to guide the selection and design of strategies that can support dissemination efforts. Finally, the constructs in the dissemination outcomes will help examine levels and processes to assess.

The categorization of the constructs was not without challenges. For example, persuasion was coded as a strategy (persuading) and as an outcome (persuasion). Likewise, the construct confirmation could be conceptualized as a stage [ 16 ] or as an outcome [ 19 ]. The constructs identified in this review provide an initial taxonomy for understanding and assessing dissemination outcomes, but more research and conceptualization are needed to fully describe dissemination processes, determinants, strategies, and outcomes. Given the recent interest in the dissemination literature [ 22 , 63 ], a future step for the field is examining the precise and coherent definition and operationalization of dissemination constructs, along with the identification or development of measures to assess them.

Limitations

A few limitations to this study should be noted. First, the search was limited to one bibliometric database and from journals publishing D&I in health studies. We limited our search to one database because we aimed to capture articles from Norton et al. [ 11 ], and therefore, our search methodology was focused on journals instead of on databases. Future work learning from other fields, and doing a broader search on other databases could provide different perspectives. Second, we did not include terms such as research utilization, research translation, knowledge exchange, knowledge mobilization, or translation science in our search, limiting the scope and potential generalizability of our search. Translation science has been defined as being a different science than dissemination, however. Leppin et al. [ 54 ], for example, offer the definition of translation science as the science that aims to identify and advance generalizable principles to expedite research translation, or the “process of turning observations into interventions that improve health” (see Fig. ​ Fig.1). 1 ). Translation research, therefore, focuses on the determinants to achieve this end. Accordingly, Wilson et al. [ 7 ] used other terms in their search, including translation, diffusion of innovation, and knowledge mobilization and found different frameworks in their review. In their paper, Wilson and colleagues [ 7 ] provided a different analysis than ours in that they aimed to examine the theoretical underpinning of the frameworks identified by them. Our study is different from theirs in that we offer the definition of disseminating and a compilation of constructs and their definitions. A future study could combine the frameworks identified by our study with the ones identified by Wilson and colleagues and detail the theoretical origins of the frameworks, and the definitions of the constructs to support in the selection of frameworks for dissemination studies. Third, by being stringent in our inclusion criteria, we may have missed important work. Several articles were excluded from our scoping review because they were examining the spread of an evidence-based intervention (scale up) or of the spread of dissemination for the public (health communication). As noted above, however, clearly distinguishing dissemination from scale-up and from health communication will help further advance the dissemination research field and identify its mechanisms of action. Fourth, given the broad literatures in diffusion, dissemination, and social marketing, researchers may disagree with our definitions and how we conceptualized the constructs. Fifth, we did not code qualitative studies because we wanted to have boundaries in this study as it is a scoping study. Future studies could examine the application of frameworks in qualitative work. It is our hope that future research can build from this work to continue to define and test the dissemination constructs.

Conclusions

Based on the review of frameworks and the empirical literature, we defined dissemination research and outlined key constructs in the categories of dissemination process, strategies, determinants, strategies, and outcomes. Our data indicate that the field of dissemination research could be advanced with a more explicit focus on methods and a common understanding of constructs. We hope that our review will help guide the field in providing a narrative taxonomy of dissemination constructs that promote clarity and advance the dissemination research field. We hope that future stages of the dissemination research field can examine specific measures and empirically test the mechanisms of action of the dissemination process.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the WUNDIR community for their invaluable feedback.

Abbreviations

Authors’ contributions

AB developed the research question. AB, CH, AM, CAG, SM, and RT designed the study. AB, CH, EK, ABM, CAG, SaM, CWB, MP, RGT, and SM coded the data. BS supported with editing and references. All authors collaborated on writing the manuscript, and all approve the final version of the document.

AB is supported by the National Heart, Lung and Blook Institute U24HL154426 and 5U01HL133994, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development R01HD091218, and the National Institute of Mental Health P50MH122351. CWB is funded by NIMHD T37 MD014218. MP is supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (K24AI134413). ABM is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (1T32HL130357). RGT and SM were supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases P30DK092950 and by the Nutrition Obesity Research Center, P30 DK056341, and Cooperative Agreement number U48DP006395 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. AB, SM, and TB were supported by the National Cancer Institute P50CA244431. AAB, ABM, MP, RGT, and SM were also supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences UL1TR002345. The findings and conclusions in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official positions of the National Institutes of Health or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Availability of data and materials

Declarations.

Not applicable

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Download Free PDF

ESID, Dissemination, and Community Psychology: A Case of Partial Implementation?

2000, American Journal of Community Psychology

Free related PDFs Related papers

Translational Behavioral Medicine

Translational behavioral medicine, 2017

Participating in community-engaged dissemination and implementation (CEDI) research is challenging for a variety of reasons. Currently, there is not specific guidance or a tool available for researchers to assess their readiness to conduct CEDI research. We propose a conceptual framework that identifies detailed competencies for researchers participating in CEDI and maps these competencies to domains. The framework is a necessary step toward developing a CEDI research readiness survey that measures a researcher's attitudes, willingness, and self-reported ability for acquiring the knowledge and performing the behaviors necessary for effective community engagement. The conceptual framework for CEDI competencies was developed by a team of eight faculty and staff affiliated with a university's Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA). The authors developed CEDI competencies by identifying the attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors necessary for carrying out commonly accepted...

We examine historical and conceptual literature in community psychology in order to understand the field's potential to be the socially transformative subdiscipline of psychology to which it aspires. By reviewing papers from two prominent journals and other literature, we conclude that the claim that community psychology is well-suited to social transformation, because it is a product of Sixties' radicalism and is theoretically equipped, is untenable. Systematic accounts of the subdiscipline's origins suggest that the transformative aspirations of current community psychologists do not correspond to the subdiscipline's reformist past. Furthermore, in analyzing three related concepts currently employed in the field—social justice, power, and praxis—we show that each suffers from conceptual ambiguity and a restricted political scope. These conceptual flaws, coupled with community psychology's historical inclination toward social reform, inhibit the possibility of contributing to radical social transformation. We conclude that neither questionable historical claims nor ambiguous and politically dubious concepts support a community psychology of social transformation. We offer solutions for the historical and conceptual problems we identify and, as a broader solution to the problem of engaging in socially transformative work, propose that community psychologists should seek direct political engagement in solidarity with other citizens as fellow citizens not as psychologists.

Journal of Community Psychology, 2011

International Community Psychology: Shared Agendas in Diversity, 2009

Historical influences on the development of community psychology in the U.S. I take an historical perspective in discussing the relevance to community psychology of other social science and applied professional disciplines. I argue for the need for community psychologists to consider, adapt, and test (1) theories and research methods from urban, rural, and community sociology, social and environmental psychology, geography, anthropology, and policy research, and (2) intervention approaches from community organizing and development, organizational change, urban and regional planning, health promotion, social work, law and justice. I will conclude with an argument that as community psychology's viability within, and influence on, the broader field of psychology in the U.S. diminishes over time, the transdisciplinary and international opportunities and reality of community research and action outside of academic psychology have never been better.

Community psychology is a scientific discipline within the broad field of psychology which deals with mental health and social welfare issues of the community taking a holistic, systems-based approach to understanding behavior and how people fit in to society, much like related fields such as sociology and social psychology. Community psychology tends to be more centered on applying psychological and social knowledge to solving problems, creating real-world solutions and taking immediate action. Community psychologists primarily work in agency settings. Whether working in community health clinics involving in counseling practices and mental health work, or working in government or large social service agencies and doing research on existing social problems or planning and implementing grass roots social service programs. Their work is primarily with the marginalized and less-advantaged areas of society and those who struggle with poverty and discrimination amongst many other social ills. The primary purpose of a these psychologists is to strive for the wellbeing of an individual and society as a whole and to prevent issues from growing and treating them if they exit. The main focus of community psychologists are empowerment, social justice and wellness and prevention programs in community. These are all very broad areas of work that educate citizens to help themselves, their families and their communities to improve both their present and future. Despite the progress that has been made in Community Psychology since 1960s there is still much more improvement to be made. Societies are becoming increasingly diverse and with the continuing economic fluctuations many groups are becoming more and more marginalized. Community psychologists are working hand-in-hand with community members to identify and rectify problems as they arise and will continue to increase our knowledge regarding the society and improve the prosperity, health, well-being and lifestyles of society. Researchers have proposed one conceptual model for community crisis intervention for its development. Keywords: Community Psychology; Social Change; Marginalized; Mental Health; Prevention; Scra & Intervention.

Canadian Psychology, 2022

American Journal of Community Psychology, 2005

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and Engagement, 2014

Health Expectations

American Journal of Community Psychology, 1992

Journal of Community Psychology, 1998

Journal of Community Psychology, 2008

The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, 2009

American journal of community psychology, 2002

Journal, 2012

American journal of community psychology, 1991

Qualitative Research Journal, 2018

The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology

American Journal of Community Psychology, 1988

International journal of behavioral medicine, 2014

Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 2006

Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 2020

Related topics

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• DOI: 10.1023/B:AJCP.0000004748.50885.2E
• Corpus ID: 41230095

Experimental Social Innovation and Dissemination: The Promise and Its Delivery

• K. Hazel , Esther Onaga
• Published in American Journal of Community… 1 December 2003
• Psychology, Sociology

35 Citations

Profiling existing research on social innovation in the public sector.

• Highly Influenced

Social Innovation: Towards a Conceptualisation

An incubation perspective on social innovation: the london hub as a social, an incubation perspective on social innovation: the london hub – a social incubator, the homelessness research and action collaborative: case studies of the social innovation process at a university research center, social innovation research: an emerging area of innovation studies, restructuring vocational schools as social innovation, a convergent diffusion and social marketing approach for disseminating proven approaches to physical activity promotion., knowledge mobilization, collaboration, and social innovation: leveraging investments in higher education, how social innovation ‘came to be’: tracing the evolution of a contested concept, 61 references, esid, dissemination, and community psychology: a case of partial implementation, dissemination of innovation as social change, the fidelity-adaptation debate: implications for the implementation of public sector social programs, human diversity and community psychology: still hazy after all these years, cultural phenomena and the research enterprise: toward a culturally anchored methodology.

• Highly Influential

HIV, Sex, and Social Change: Applying ESID Principles to HIV Prevention Research

Back to the future, community psychology: unfolding a theory of social intervention, the dissemination of evaluation, an esid case study at the federal level, qualitative evaluation and research methods, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

• Get IGI Global News

• All Products
• Book Chapters
• Journal Articles
• Video Lessons
• Teaching Cases

Shortly You Will Be Redirected to Our Partner eContent Pro's Website

eContent Pro powers all IGI Global Author Services. From this website, you will be able to receive your 25% discount (automatically applied at checkout), receive a free quote, place an order, and retrieve your final documents .

What is Experimental Social Innovation Dissemination

Related Books View All Books

Related Journals View All Journals

Major knowledge mobilization event in French in Canada’s capital from May 13 to May 17, 2024

The size of this conference is almost unparalleled; it will be one of the most important conferences in Acfas history after last year’s event, which commemorated the 100th anniversary of the founding of the association. As such, attendance at this conference will be much larger than in 2009, the last time the conference was held at the University of Ottawa.

Under the overall theme of Mobiliser les savoirs en français  [mobilizing knowledge in French], scholars from every discipline will broadcast the results of their research through a packed schedule of over  220 symposiums and  410 free papers . Their research provides new perspectives on today’s world and its challenges: how to improve immigrant integration, what environmental controversies will arise due to climate change, what kinds of boundaries should we impose on artificial intelligence, why are elderly renters socially excluded from certain areas, what social issues are related to energy insecurity, what issues do minority language community members face in accessing health care, to name a few.

“It’s an honour to begin my term with the 91st conference, an inescapable venue for research in French and the largest academic multidisciplinary gathering in the Francophonie. Hosted in partnership with the University of Ottawa, the 2024 conference is the first to be held outside Quebec in the past decade and one of the largest in its history. This illustrates Acfas’ extra efforts to promote the dissemination and outreach of research conducted in French in Quebec and in Francophone areas of Canada. As we stand on the brink of our second century, Acfas has never shone more brightly,” said Martin Maltais , the newest Acfas president.

“We are proud of this close partnership with Acfas, which illustrates our commitment to our Francophone mission, and proud of this opportunity to welcome researchers from around the world to the University of Ottawa,” said uOttawa President and Vice-Chancellor Jacques Frémont . “Together, we will celebrate excellence in research conducted in French on an international scale as we reaffirm our openness to the world.”

The conference’s academic program, which is now available on the  Acfas website , will take place on the campus of the University of Ottawa and online, a hybrid format that encourages participation and ensures greater dissemination, both here and internationally.  

“Together, we will celebrate excellence in research conducted in French on an international scale as we reaffirm our openness to the world”

Jacques Frémont

— uOttawa President and Vice-Chancellor

Activities for the general public to bring science to life!

Science at night among the tulips, therapeutic comic books, amazing scientific images on display during the La preuve par l’image exposition and Un vendredi avec Tardi,  the national finals of a competition to present a doctoral thesis in three minutes (MT180), along with piano, drum and other healing rhythms. Some 20 highly creative and free activities, designed with the general public in mind, will be held during the 91st Acfas conference to elicit wonder, surprize and reflection.

This very entertaining program for all audiences will also deal with relevant social issues. For example, the conference’s honorary chairperson, the HonourableMichelle O’Bonsawin , will give a  presentation in which she will share her knowledge and thoughts on those afflicted by mental illness, who are too often stigmatized when they become involved in the justice system.

Activities aimed at the general public are posted on the Acfas’ 91st conference website in the  Activités spéciales et  Science-moi! sections.     

Dissemination of Innovation as Social Change

Cite this chapter.

• Jeffrey P. Mayer 3 &
• William S. Davidson II 4  

3800 Accesses

36 Citations

For community psychology, the phrase “dissemination of innovation” implies the use of new social programs or social policies. As such, it also implies the potential for broad-scale change. It typically addresses how individuals and organizations can improve their approach to particular problems. Hence, for community psychologists interested in promoting human welfare, this paradigm offers an approach to the study and creation of social change ( e.g., Rappaport, 1977 ; Fairweather & Davidson, 1986 ). If solution of a social problem is the goal of an innovation, then dissemination and implementation of that innovation on a wide scale may mean that important steps have been accomplished ( Fairweather & Tornatzky, 1977 )

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

From Advocacy to Social Innovation: A Typology of Social Change Efforts by Nonprofits

Social Innovation: Towards a Conceptualisation

Sharing and Spreading Innovations

Aiken, M., & Hage, J. (1971). The organic organization and innovation. Sociology , 5, 563–582

Article   Google Scholar  

Ascione, F. J., Kirking, D. M., Wenzloff, N. J., Foley, T. A., & Kwok, D. K. (1987). Effect of innovation characteristics on pharmacists’ use of written patient medication information. Patient Education & Counseling , 9, 53–64

Backer, T. E., & Rogers, E. M. (1998). Diffusion of innovations theory and work-site AIDS programs. Journal of Health Communication , 3, 17–28

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Baldridge, J. V., & Burnham, R. A. (1975). Organizational innovation: individual, organizational and environmental impacts. Administrative Science Quarterly , 20 ,165–176

Barnett, H. G. (1953). Innovation: The basis of cultural change New York: McGraw-Hill

Google Scholar  

Bartholomew, L. K., Parcel, G. S., & Kok, G. (1998). Intervention mapping: A process for developing theory and evidence based health education programs. Behavior , 25 , 545–563

Basch, C. E., Eveland, J. D., & Portnoy, B. (1986). Diffusion systems for education and learning about health. Family and Community Health , 9 , 1–26

Bauman, L. J., Stein, R. E., & Ireys, H. T. (1991). Reinventing fidelity: The transfer of social technology among settings. American Journal of Community Psychology , 19, 619–639

Berman, P. (1978). The study of macro-and micro-implementation. Public Policy , 26 ,157–184

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Berman, P. (1980). Thinking about programmed and adaptive implementation: Matching strategies to situations. In D. Mann and H. Ingram (Eds.), Why policies succeed or fail (pp. 205–227). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1978). Federal programs supporting educational change: Implementing and sustaining innovations Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. R-1589/8-HEW

Beyer, J. M., & Trice, H. M. (1978). Implementing change: Alcoholism policies in work organizations New York: Free Press

Blakely, C. H., Mayer, J. P., Gottschalk, R. G., Schmitt, N., Davidson, W. S., Roitman, D. B., & Emshoff, J. G. (1987). The fidelity-adaptation debate: Implications for the implementation of public sector social programs. American Journal of Community Psychology , 15 , 253–268

Boruch, R. F., & Gomez, H. (1977). Sensitivity, bias and theory in impact evaluations. Professional Psychology , 8 , 411–434

Brink, S. G., Levenson-Gingiss, P., & Gottlieb, N. H. (1991). An evaluation of the effectiveness of a planned diffusion process: The Smoke-Free Class of 2000 Project in Texas. Health Education Research , 6 , 353–362

Brink, S. G., Basen-Engquist, K. M., O’Hara-Tompkins, N. M., Parcel, G. S., Gottlieb, N. H., & Lovato, C. Y. (1995). Diffusion of an effective tobacco prevention program: Part 1: Evaluation of the dissemination phase. Health Education Research , 10 , 283–295

Brunk, S. E., & Goeppinger, J. (1990). Assessing reinvention of community-based interventions. Evaluation and the Health Professions , 13 ,186–203

Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation London: Tavistock

Calsyn, R., Tornatzky, L. G., & Dittmar, S. (1977). Incomplete adoption of an innovation: The case of goal attainment scaling. Evaluation , 4 ,128–130

Chakrabati, A. K. (1974). The role of champion in project innovation. California Management Review , 17 , 58–62

Chapko, M. K. (1991). Time to adoption of an innovation by dentists in private practice: Sealant utilization. Journal of Public Health Dentistry , 5, 144–151

Charters, W. W., & Jones, J. E. (1973). On the risk of appraising non-events in program evaluation. Educational Researcher , 12 , 5–7

Charters, W. W., & Pellegrin, R. J. (1973). Barriers to the innovation process: Four case studies of differential staffing. Educational Administration Quarterly , 17 , 1–25

Coch, L., & French, J. R. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations , 15, 512–533

Cockerill, R., & Barnsley, J. (1997). Innovation theory and its applicability to our understanding of the diffusion of new management practices in health care organizations. Healthcare Management Forum , 10 , 35–38

Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage-can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly , 17 ,1–25

Coombs, J. A., Silversin, J. B., & Drolefte, M. E. (1980). Policy research related to the diffusion of medical; technologies. Journal of Dental Education , 44 , 520–525

Cummings, K. M., Jaen, C. R., & Funch, D. P. (1984). Family physicians’ beliefs about screening for colorectal; cancer using the stool guaiac slide test. Public Health Reports , 99, 307–312

Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall

Datta, L. E. (1981). Damn the experts and full speed ahead. Evaluation Review , 55, 5–32

Davidson, W. S., Redner, R., & Saul, J. (1983). Research modes in social and community change. In E. Seidman (Ed.), Handbook of social intervention (pp. 99–118). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Dearing, J. W., Meyer, G., & Rogers, E. M. (1994). Diffusion theory and HIV risk behavior change. In R. J. DiClemente, & J. L. Peterson (Eds.), Preventing AIDS: Theories and methods of behavioral interventions (pp. 79–93). New York: Plenum

Dijkstra, M., de Vries, H., & Parcel, G. S. (1993). The linkage approach applied to a school-based smoking prevention program in The Netherlands. Journal of School Health , 63 , 339–342

Downs, G. W. (1978). Complexity and innovation research. In M. Radnor, I. Feller, and E. M. Rogers (Eds.), The diffusion of innovations: An assessment (pp. 1–21). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University

Downs, G. W., & Mohr, L. B. (1976). Conceptual issues in the study of innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly , 21 , 700–714

Downs, G. W., & Mohr, L. B. (1979). Toward a theory of innovation. Administration and Society , 10 , 329–408. Ellickson, P., & Petersilia, J. (1983). Implementing new ideas in criminal justice Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation

Emrick, J. A. (1977). Evaluation of the national diffusion network Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute. Ettlie, J. E. (1980). Adequacy of stage models for decisions on adoption of innovation. Psychological Reports , 46 ,991–995

Eveland, J. D. (1979). Issues in using the concept of adoption of innovations. Journal of Technology Transfer , 4 , 1–14

Eveland, J. D., Rogers, E. M., & Klepper, C. M. (1977). The innovation process in public organizations: Some elements of a preliminary model Ann Arbor: University of Michigan

Fairweather, G. W. (1972). Social change: The challenge to surviva l. Secaucus, NJ: General Learning Press

Fairweather, G. W., & Davidson, W. S. (1986). An introduction to community experimentation: Theory methods and practice New York: McGraw-Hill

Fairweather, G. W., Sanders, D. H., & Tornatzky, L. G. (1974). Creating change in mental health New York: Pergamon

Fairweather, G. W., & Tornatzky, L. G. (1977). Experimental methods for social policy research New York: Pergamon

Frank, L., & Hackman, J. R. (1975). A failure of job enrichment: The case of the change that wasn’t. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science , 11 , 413–436

Fullan, M., & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum instruction and implementation. Review of Educational Research , 47 ,335–367

Glaser, T., & Backer, T. (1977). Innovation redefined: Durability and local adaptation. Evaluation , 4 , 131–135

Glaser, T., & Backer, T. (1980). Durability of innovations: How goal Attainment scaling programs fared over time. Community Mental Health Journal , 16 , 130–143

Goodman, R. M., Tenney, M., Smith, D. & Steckler, A. (1992). The adoption process for health curriculum innovation in schools: A case study. Journal of Health Education , 23 , 215–220

Goodman, R. M., & Steckler, A. (1989). A framework for assessing program institutionalization. Knowledge , 2 , 57–71

Goodman, R. M., & Steckler, A. (1989). A model for the institutionalization of health promotion programs. Family and Community Health , 11 , 63–78

Goodman, R. M., McLeRoy, K. R., Steckler, A., & Hoyle, R. H. (1993). Development of Level of Institutionalization Scales for health promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly , 20 ,161–178

Green, L. W. (1989). Is institutionalization the proper goal of grantmaking? American Journal of Health Promotion , 3 ,43–44

Green, L. W., Johnson, J. L. (1996). Dissemination and utilization of health promotion and disease prevention knowledge: Theory, research and experience. Canadian Journal of Public Health , 87 , (Supp12), S11–S17

Green, L. W., & McAlister, A. L. (1984). Macro intervention to support health behavior: Some theoretical perspectives and practical reflections. Health Education Quarterly , 11 , 323–339

Greer, A. L. (1977). Advances in the study of diffusion of innovation in health care organizations. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly , 55 , 505–532

Gross, N. G., Gianquinta, J. B., & Bernstein, M. (1971). Implementing organizational innovations New York: Basic Books

Guba, E. (1968). Diffusion of innovations. Educational Leadership , 25 ,292–295

Hage, J. (1980). Theories of organization New York: Wiley

Hage, J., & Aiken, M. (1970). Social change in complex organizations New York: Random House

Hage, J., & Dewar, R. (1973). Elite values versus organizational structure in predicting innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly , 18 ,27–31

Hage, G. E., & Loucks, S. E (1978). Innovation configurations: Analyzing the adaptation of innovations Presented at the American Educational Research Association, Toronto, Canada

Harveyberino, J., Ewing, J. F., Flynn, B., & Wick, J. R. (1998). Statewide dissemination of a nutrition program: Showthe-Way to 5-A-Day. Journal of Nutrition Education , 30 , 29–36

Havelock, R. G. (1973). Planning for innovation through dissemination and utilization of knowledge Ann Arbor: Center for Research on Utilization of Scientific Knowledge, University of Michigan

Heck, S., Steigelbauer, S., Hall, G. E., & Loucks, S. F. (1981). Measuring innovation configurations: Procedures and applications Austin: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas

Hollisfield, J. H., & Slavin, R. E. (1983). Disseminating student team learning through federally funded programs. Knowledge: Creation , Diffusion , Utilization , 4 , 576–589

House, E. R., Kerins, T., & Steele, J. M. (1972). A test of the research and development model of change. Educational Administration Quarterly , 8 , 1–14

Howze, E. H., & Redman, L. J. (1992). The uses of theory in health advocacy: Policies and programs. Health Education Quarterly , 19 ,368–383

Johnston, J. (1982). Evaluation of curriculum innovations: A product validation approach. In R. Lehming, & M. Kane (Eds.), Improving schools: Using what we know (pp. 79–99). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd Ed.) New York: Wiley

Kivlin, J. E., & Fliegel, E C. (1967). Differential perceptions of innovations and rate of adoption. Rural Sociology , 32 , 78–91

Laflin, M., Edmundson, E. W., & Moore-Hirsh, S. (1995). Enhancing adoption of an alcohol prevention program: An application of diffusion theory. Journal of Primary Prevention , 16 , 75–101

LaPiere, R. T. (1965). Social change New York: McGraw-Hill

Larsen, J. K., & Agarwala-Rogers, R. (1977). Reinvention of innovative ideas. Evaluation ,4, 136–140

Lawrence, P. R., Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly , 12 , 1–47

Leithwood, K. A., & Montgomery, D. J. (1980). Evaluating program implementation. Evaluation Review , 4 , 193–214

Leonard, W. H., & Lowery, L. E (1979). Was there really an experiment? Educational Researcher , 8 , 4–7

Lindbladh, E., Lyttkens C. H., Hanson, B. S., & Ostergren, P. O. (1997). The diffusion model and the socialhierarchical process of change. Health Promotion International , 12 ,323–330

Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review , 19 ,79–88

Litwak, E. (1961). Models of bureaucracy which permit conflict. American Journal of Sociology , 67 , 177–184

Loucks, S. F., Newlove, B., & Hall, G. E. (1975). Measuring levels of use of an innovation: A manual Austin: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas

Mayer, J. P., & Blakely, C. H. (1984). Implementation and outcome in criminal justice innovation Presented at the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Chicago, IL

Mayer, J. P., Blakel, C. H., & Davidson, W. S. (1986). Social program innovation and dissemination: A study of organizational processes. Policy Studies Review , 6 , 273–286

McAlister, A. L. (1991). Population behavior change, A theory-based approach. Journal of Public Health Policy , 12(3), 345–361

McCormick, L. K., Steckler, A. B., & McLeroy, K. R. (1995). Diffusion of innovations in schools: A study of adoption and implementation of school-based tobacco prevention curricula. American Journal of Health Promotion , 9 , 210–219

Menzel, H. (1960). Innovation, integration and marginality: A survey of physicians. American Sociological Review , 25 , 704–713

Miller, R. L., & Eckholdt, H. M. (1998). HIV prevention with male prostitutes and patrons of hustler bars: Replication of an HIV preventive intervention. American Journal of Community Psychology , 26 ,97–131

Mirvis, E, & Berg, D. (1977). Failure in organizational development and change New York: Wiley Interscience

Mohr, L. B. (1969). Determinants of innovation in organizations. American Political Science Review , 63 , 111–126

Mohr, L. S. (1982). Explaining organizational behavior San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Monahan, J. L., & Scheirer, M. A. (1988). The role of linking agents in the diffusion of promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly , 15 , 417–433

Nelson, R. R., & Yates, D. (1978). Innovation and implementation in public organizations Lexington, MA: Lexington Books

Oldenburg, B., Hardcastle, D. M., & Kok, G. (1997). Diffusion of innovations. In K. Glanz, F. M. Lewis, & B. Rimer (Eds.), Health behavior and health education 2nd ed. (pp. 270–286). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

O’Neill, H. M., (1998). Patterns in the diffusion of strategies across organization: Insights from the innovation diffusion literature. Academy of Management Review , 23 , 98–114

Owens, T. R., & Haenn, J. F. (1979). Assessing the degree of implementation of experience-based career education programs Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory

Paine-Andrews, A., Vincent, M. L., Fawcett, S. B., & Campuzano, M. K. (1996). Replication of a community initiative for preventing adolescent pregnancy. Family and Community Health , 19 ,14–30

Palumbo, D. J., Maynard-Moody, S., & Wright, P. (1984). Measuring degrees of successful implementation: Achieving policy versus statutory goals. Evaluation Review , 8 , 45–74

Parcel, G. S., O’Harra-Tompkins, N. M., Harrist, R. B., Basen-Engquist, K. M., McCormick, L. K., Gottlieb, N. H., & Eriksen, M. P. (1995). Diffusion off an effective tobacco prevention program: Part II: Evaluation of the adoption phase. Health Education Research , 10 , 297–307

Parcel, G. S., Perry, C. L., & Taylor, W. C. (1990). Beyond demonstration: Diffusion of health promotion innovations. In N. Bracht (Ed.), Health promotion at the community level ,(pp. 229–251). Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Parcel, G. S., Taylor, W. C., Brink, S. G., & Gottlieb, N. (1989). Translating theory into practice: Intervention strategies for the diffusion of a health promotion innovation. Family and Community Health , 12 ,1–13

Perry, J. L., & Kraemer, K. L. (1980). Chief executive support and innovation adoption. Administration and Society , 12 , 158–177

Portnoy, B., Anderson, D. M., & Ericksen, M. P. (1989). Application of diffusion theory to health promotion research. Family and Community Health , 12 ,63–71

Pressman, J. L., & Wildaysky, A. B. (1973). Implementation Berkeley: University of California Press

Radnor, M., Feller, J., & Rogers, E. M. (1978). The diffusion of innovations: An assessment Evanston, IL: Northwestern University

Raizen, S. A. (1979). Dissemination programs at the National Institute of Education. Knowledge , 1 ,259–291

Rappaport, J. (1977). Community psychology: Values , research and action . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston

Rice, R. E., & Rogers, E. M. (1980). Reinvention in the innovation process. Knowledge , 1 , 499–514

Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations , 3rd ed. New York: Free Press

Rogers, E. M. (1993). Diffusion and reinvention of project D.A.R.E. In T. E. Backer, E. M. Rogers (Eds.), Organizational aspects of health communication campaigns: What works? (pp. 139–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. E (1971). Communication of innovations: A cross-cultural approach New York: Free Press

Roitman, D., Gottschalk, R, Mayer, J. P., & Blakely, C. H. (1983). Implementation of social program innovations in public sector organizations. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , 2, 68–75

Roitman, D., & Mayer, J. P. (1982). Fidelity and reinvention in the implementation of innovations Paper presented at the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C

Rothman, J. (1974). Planning and organizing for social change: Action principles from social science research New York: Columbia University Press

Ryan, B., & Gross, N. C. (1943). The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa communities. Rural Sociology , 8 ,15–24

Scheirer, M. A. (1982). Program implementation: The organizational context . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Scheirer, M. A., & Rezmovic, E. (1983). Measuring the implementation of innovations. Evaluation Review , 7, 599–633

Scheirer, M. A. (1990). The life cycle of an innovation: Adoption versus discontinuation of the fluoride mouth rinse program schools. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 31 , 203–215

Sechrest, L., & Redner, R. (1978). Strength and integrity of treatments. In Review of Criminal Evaluation Results (pp. 19–62). Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Justice

Shepard, H. A. (1967). Innovation resisting and innovation producing organizations. Journal of Business , 40 ,470–477

Smith, D. W., Zhang, J. J., & Colwell, B. (1996). Pro-innovation bias: The case of the Giant Texas Smoke Screen. Journal of School Health , 66 , 210–213

Steckler, A., & Goodman, R. M. (1989). How to institutionalize health promotion programs. American Journal of Health Promotion , 3 ,34–43

Steckler, A., Goodman, R. M., McLeroy, K. R., Davis, S., & Koch, G. (1992). Measuring the diffusion of innovative health promotion programs. American Journal of Health Promotion , 6 ,214–224

Stevens, W. F., & Tornatzky, L. G. (1979). The dissemination of evaluation: An experiment. Evaluation Review , 4 ,339–354

Thomas, S. B., Leite, B., & Duncan, T. (1998). Breaking the cycle of violence among youth living in metropolitan Atlanta: A case history of kids alive and loved. Health Education and Behavior , 25 , 160–174

Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action New York: McGraw-Hill

Tornatzky, L. G., Eveland, J. D., Boylan, M. G., Hetzner, W. A., Johnson, E. C., Roitman, D., & Schneider, J. (1983). The process of technological innovation: Reviewing the literature . Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation

Tornatzky, L. G. (1982). Research on implementation: Implications for evaluation practice and evaluation policy Presented at Evaluation Research Society, Austin, TX

Tornatzky, L. G., Fergus, E. O., Avellar, J. W., Fairweather, G. W., & Fleischer, M. (1980). Innovation and social process New York: Pergamon

Tornatzky, L. G., & Klein, K. J. (1982). Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-implementation: A meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , 29 , 28–45

Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly , 21 , 1–19

Williams, W. (1975). Implementation analysis and assessment. Policy Analysis , 3, 531–566

Witte, K. (1993). Managerial style and health promotion programs. Social Science and Medicine , 36 , 227–235

Yin, R. R. (1978). Changing urban bureaucracies: How new practices become routinized . Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation

Yin, R. K. (1977). Production efficiency versus bureaucratic self-interest: Two innovative processes? Policy Sciences , 8 , 381–389

Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and organizations New York: Wiley

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Community Health, School of Public Health, St. Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri, 63108, USA

Jeffrey P. Mayer

Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 48824, USA

William S. Davidson II

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA

Julian Rappaport

New York University, New York, New York, USA

Edward Seidman

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2000 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Mayer, J.P., Davidson, W.S. (2000). Dissemination of Innovation as Social Change. In: Rappaport, J., Seidman, E. (eds) Handbook of Community Psychology. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4193-6_18

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4193-6_18

Publisher Name : Springer, Boston, MA

Print ISBN : 978-1-4613-6881-6

Online ISBN : 978-1-4615-4193-6

eBook Packages : Springer Book Archive

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research