Little is known about practices used to disseminate findings to non-research, practitioner audiences. This study describes the perspectives, experience and activities of dissemination & implementation (D&I) scientists around disseminating their research findings.

The study explored D&I scientists’ experiences and recommendations for assessment of dissemination activities to non-research audiences. Existing list serves were used to recruit scientists. Respondents were asked three open-ended questions on an Internet survey about dissemination activities, recommendations for changing evaluation systems and suggestions to improve their own dissemination of their work.

Surveys were completed by 159 scientists reporting some training, funding and/or publication history in D&I. Three themes emerged across each of the three open-ended questions. Question 1 on evaluation generated the themes of: 1a) promotional review; 1b) funding requirements and 1c) lack of acknowledgement of dissemination activities. Question 2 on recommended changes generated the themes of: 2a) dissemination as a requirement of the academic promotion process; 2b) requirement of dissemination plan and 2c) dissemination metrics. Question 3 on personal changes to improve dissemination generated the themes of: 3a) allocation of resources for dissemination activities; 3b) emerging dissemination channels and 3c) identify and address issues of priority for stakeholders.

Our findings revealed different types of issues D&I scientists encounter when disseminating findings to clinical, public health or policy audiences and their suggestions to improve the process. Future research should consider key requirements which determine academic promotion and grant funding as an opportunity to expand dissemination efforts.

In seriously ill cardiac patients, several psychotherapy efficacy studies demonstrate little to no reduction in depression or improvement in quality of life, and little is known about how to improve psychotherapies to best address the range of patient needs. An interpersonal and behavioral activation psychotherapy was a key component of the Collaborative Care to Alleviate Symptoms and Adjust to Illness (CASA) multisite randomized clinical trial. Although depressive symptoms did improve in the CASA trial, questions remain about how best to tailor psychotherapies to the needs of seriously ill patient populations. The study objective was to describe psychosocial needs emerging during a clinical trial of a palliative care and interpersonal and behavioral activation psychotherapy intervention that were not specifically addressed by the psychotherapy.

During the CASA trial, patient needs were prospectively tracked by the psychotherapist in each visit note using an a priori code list. Preplanned analysis of study data using directed content analysis was conducted analyzing the a priori code list, which were collapsed by team consensus into larger themes. The frequency of each code and theme were calculated into a percentage of visits.

A total of 150 patients received one or more visits from the therapist and were included in the analysis. Participants screened positive for depressive disorder (47%), had poor heart failure-specific health status (mean Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score = 48.6; SD = 17.4), and multiple comorbidities (median 4.3). Common needs that emerged during the therapy included difficulty coping with fatigue (48%), pain (28%), and satisfaction issues with medical care (43%). The following broader themes emerged: social support (77% of sessions), unmet symptom needs (67%), healthcare navigation (48%), housing, legal, safety, and transportation (32%), and end of life (12%).

Coping with chronic symptoms and case management needs commonly emerged during psychotherapy visits. Future psychotherapy interventions in seriously ill populations should consider the importance of coping with chronic symptoms and case management.