These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Knowledge transfer methods in German disease prevention and health promotion. A survey of experts in the federal prevention research program].
    Author: Kliche T, Post M, Pfitzner R, Plaumann M, Dubben S, Nöcker G, Walter U.
    Journal: Gesundheitswesen; 2012 Apr; 74(4):240-9. PubMed ID: 21594814.
    Abstract:
    AIM OF THE STUDY: This expert survey analyzed the application and perceived usefulness of knowledge transfer methods for disease prevention and health promotion research. METHODS: 302 experts from 70 administratively distinct projects sponsored under the German federal prevention research program received a questionnaire on transfer methods used for preparation, dissemination and implementation of their project results and the perceived expediency of these methods. 130 experts (43%) from 59 projects (84.3%) responded. 40% were cooperation partners from health care suppliers or practitioners, and 60% worked in research institutions. Descriptive statistics and ANOVA were used for data analysis. RESULTS: The experts had wide range of transfer methods at their disposal. The main implementation barriers were scarce funding and the complexity of disease prevention and health promotion programs. The predominant channels of dissemination were scientific media (congresses, journals) and the Internet. Manuals and handouts were the most common methods of processing of research results for facilitators. Regarding implementation, two-thirds of the projects conducted user training, integrated experts in program development, and co-operated with important institutions. Most of the transfer methods implemented were perceived as useful, but some rated as useful were rarely used, e. g. health economics and quality assurance in wide-scale rollout. There were no substantial rating differences between experts from research and user institutions. CONCLUSIONS: In view of the fundaments for the broad application of knowledge transfer technologies laid by prevention scientists, health care suppliers and decision-makers should support the transfer of prevention research, and precendence should be given to evidence-based programs with quality assurance in the implementation stages. Prevention researchers, in turn, should further develop health economics evidence and quality assurance for effective interventions. The rich skills available for knowledge transfer in disease prevention and health promotion can be systematically developed and disseminated in the future.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]