Skip to main content

Table 4 DIS capacity building program (CBP) survey results

From: A systematic review of dissemination and implementation science capacity building programs around the globe

CBP characteristics

n (%)

Based in United States (n=78)

62 (80%)

 International

16 (20%)

University-affiliated (n=79)

56 (71%)

 Total respondentsa

87 (100%)

Inputs

Organizational structure

  # Faculty (n = 87)

   0–5

34 (39%)

   6–20

24 (28%)

   21+

5 (6%)

  # Staff (n = 87)

   0–5

42 (48%)

   6–20

21 (24%)

   21+

3 (3%)

  Membership structure (n=62)

   0–50

22 (36%)

   51–100

11 (18%)

   101–150

3 (5%)

   151–200

2 (3%)

   201+

21 (34%)

   Not sure

3 (5%)

  D&I funding model (n=73)

   Short term (i.e., start-up funds)

9 (12%)

   Long term (i.e., ongoing)

33 (45%)

   Both

21 (29%)

   Other

9 (12%)

  Sources of financial support (n=87)

   Research / program grants

45 (52%)

   Internal institutional funds

35 (40%)

   CTSA

25 (29%)

   Internal department funds

20 (23%)

   Non-profits

17 (20%)

   Government

9 (10%)

   Education/course fees

4 (5%)

   Membership fees

3 (4%)

   Fees for services

3 (4%)

   Other

4 (5%)

Activities

  D&I activities (n=87)

   Training and Education

69 (79%)

   Mentorship

58 (67%)

   Resources and Tools

57 (66%)

   Consultation

58 (67%)

   Professional Networking

54 (62%)

   Technical Assistance

46 (52%)

   Grant Development Support

45 (52%)

   Internship for Students/Trainees

24 (28%)

   Other

5 (6%)

  Types of training (n=69)

   Webinars/Seminars

63 (91%)

   Workshops

48 (70%)

   Coursework

43 (62%)

   Invited Guest Speakers

41 (59%)

   Masters Programs (D&I or public health)

10 (14%)

   Integrated training in medical programs

10 (14%)

   Doctoral/PhD (D&I or public health)

9 (13%)

   Other

8 (12%)

  Fees for D&I consultation services (n=58)

   Ad hoc fees

5 (9%)

   Situational

23 (40%)

   No fees

28 (49%)

  D&I professional networking opportunities offered (n=54)

   Virtual/In-person networking events

35 (65%)

   Professional networking conferences

25 (46%)

   Informal gatherings/meet-ups

22 (41%)

   Journal club style meetings

19 (35%)

   Other

13 (24%)

  Types of D&I grant development offered (n=45)

   In-person/web-based trainings

28 (62%)

   Works in Progress meetings

23 (51%)

   Working groups

20 (44%)

   Recorded video instructions

12 (27%)

   Other

15 (33%)

  Types of D&I technical assistance offered (n=46)

   In-person or virtual training

35 (76%)

   Recorded video tutorials/trainings

23 (50%)

   Working groups

19 (41%)

   Journal club

13 (28%)

   Other

8 (17%)

  Types of D&I resources and tools offered (n=57)

   Educational materials

49 (86%)

   Training videos

32 (56%)

   Interactive web-based resources

30 (53%)

   Other

15 (26%)

Outputs

D&I product (n=75)b

  Yes

47 (63%)

  No

28 (37%)

Short-term outcomes

D&I competencies (n=73)

  Yes

27 (37%)

  No

19 (26%)

  Sometimes

17 (23%)

  Not sure

10 (14%)

Special populations of focus (n=87)

  No special population

37 (43%)

  Adults

31 (36%)

  Clinical

29 (33%)

  Women

27 (31%)

  Urban

27 (31%)

  Older adults

27 (31%)

  General community

23 (26%)

  Rural

23 (26%)

  LGBTQ+

20 (23%)

  Pediatrics

17 (20%)

  Underserved/marginalized community

17 (20%)

  Houseless/Homeless

14 (17%)

  Indigenous communities

12 (14%)

  Specific ethnic/racial group

9 (10%)

  Other

11 (13%)

Program evaluation domains (n=87)

  Productivity

48 (55%)

  Member engagement

32 (37%)

  Member satisfaction

31 (36%)

  Training effectiveness

30 (35%)

  D&I Knowledge

20 (23%)

  D&I skills

13 (15%)

  Other

10 (12%)

Productivity measurements (n=87)

  # of Publications

56 (64%)

  # of Grants

51 (59%)

  # of Mentees

41 (47%)

  # of Proposals submitted

33 (38%)

  # of Active Members

31 (36%)

  # of New collaborations

26 (30%)

  Member Satisfaction

25 (29%)

  Social media analytics

23 (27%)

  # of Meetings hosted

22 (25%)

  # of Individuals receiving communications

18 (21%)

  # of Conferences hosted

17 (20%)

  # Consultations

8 (9%)

  Uptake of findings

8 (9%)

  # Products

4 (5%)

  Other

5 (6%)

Frequency of productivity measurements (n=72)

  Once a month

5 (7%)

  Every 3 months

8 (11%)

  Every 6 months

16 (22%)

  Once a year

35 (49%)

  Other

8 (11%)

Long-term outcomes

Use of Translational Science Benefits Indicators (TSBI) for evaluation (n=74)

  Yes

20 (27%)

  No

37 (50%)

  Not sure

17 (23%)

TSBI Categories (n=20)

  Clinical & Medical

9 (45%)

  Community & Public Health

13 (65%)

  Economic

11 (55%)

  Policy & Legislative

11 (55%)

  1. aResponded to the first survey question with “I agree” to complete the survey and share responses for publication
  2. bResponses included in Additional file 1