Skip to main content

Table 4 Perceptions of implementation science

From: A landscape assessment of the activities and capacities of evidence-to-policy intermediaries (EPI) in behavioral health

 

Full sample (n = 31),

mean (SD)

University-based (n = 15)a,

mean (SD)

Outside a university (n = 16),

mean (SD)

t (95% CI)

USA (n = 21)a,

mean (SD)

International (n = 10),

mean (SD)

t (95% CI)

Request-driven evidence reviews (1–5)

 Our organization uses this method regularly

3.00 (1.51)

3.33 (1.45)

2.69 (1.54)

1.20 (− 0.45, 1.74)

2.95 (1.40)

3.33 (1.73)

 − 0.58 (− 1.79, 1.03)

 This method is highly effective at influencing behavioral health policymaking

3.68 (0.70)

3.40 (0.63)

3.94 (0.68)

 − 2.28 (− 1.08, − 0.06)*

3.71 (0.64)

3.56 (0.88)

0.49 (− 0.55, 0.87)

 I am interested in learning more about this method

3.38 (1.20)

3.36 (1.01)

3.42 (1.44)

 − 0.12 (− 1.10, 0.98)

3.74 (0.99)

2.17 (1.17)

2.97 (0.33, 2.81)*

 My organization would pay $____ to attend or have a staff member attend a workshop about this topic ($0–500)

203.6 (168.4)

262.1 (196.5)

127.5 (80.3)

2.24 (7.58, 261.58)*

222.6 (184.6)

144.0 (66.0)

1.44 (− 38.09, 195.20)

Connecting research relationships (1–5)

 Our organization uses this method regularly

3.32 (1.45)

3.67 (1.45)

3.00 (1.41)

1.30 (− 0.39, 1.72)

3.48 (1.36)

3.11 (1.69)

0.57 (− 1.02, 1.75)

 This method is highly effective at influencing behavioral health policymaking

3.71 (0.97)

3.67 (0.90)

3.75 (1.06)

 − 0.24 (− 0.81, 0.64)

3.86 (1.01)

3.44 (0.88)

1.12 (− 0.36, 1.19)

 I am interested in learning more about this method

2.92 (1.32)

2.77 (0.93)

3.09 (1.70)

 − 0.56 (− 1.54, 0.90)

3.24 (1.35)

2.17 (0.98)

2.06 (− 0.06, 2.19)

 My organization would pay $____ to attend or have a staff member attend a workshop about this topic ($0–500)

166.8 (191.0)

231.0 (231.0)

113.2 (138.4)

1.41 (− 60.63, 296.13)

187.9 (208.8)

95.0 (94.2)

1.41 (− 46.98, 232.74)

Structured policy and program design (1–5)

 Our organization uses this method regularly

3.29 (1.42)

3.01 (1.58)

3.50 (1.26)

 − 0.84 (− 1.49, 0.63)

3.24 (1.41)

3.44 (1.59)

 − 0.34 (− 1.52, 1.11)

 This method is highly effective at influencing behavioral health policymaking

3.80 (0.89)

3.73 (0.59)

3.87 (1.13)

 − 0.41 (− 0.82, 0.55)

3.85 (0.99)

3.78 (0.67)

0.23 (− 0.58, 0.72)

 I am interested in learning more about this method

3.81 (0.94)

3.79 (1.05)

3.83 (0.83)

 − 0.13 (− 0.81, 0.72)

3.74 (0.99)

4.17 (0.75)

 − 1.12 (− 1.27, 0.41)

 My organization would pay $____ to attend or have a staff member attend a workshop about this topic ($0–500)

256.4 (209.6)

280.0 (188.9)

232.7 (236.3)

0.49 (− 154.38, 248.98)

231.7 (232.9)

330.4 (98.5)

 − 1.32 (− 256.41, 58.95)

Perceptions of implementation science (IS) (0–100)

 Familiarity with IS regarding the organization’s policy translation work

81.8 (21.9)

76.7 (28.6)

86.6 (11.9)

 − 1.25 (− 26.64, 6.72)

79.3 (20.4)

87.8 (26.4)

 − 0.86 (− 29.84, 12.95)

 Relevance of IS to day-to-day policy translation work

83.6 (19.6)

85.4 (17.2)

81.9 (22.0)

0.49 (− 11.02, 17.94)

79.8 (21.2)

91.8 (13.9)

 − 1.83 (− 25.51, 1.57)

 IS research findings are actionable to policy translation work

62.5 (25.1)

64.4 (25.4)

60.9 (25.6)

0.37 (− 15.71, 22.54)

59.0 (25.0)

67.1 (23.8)

 − 0.81 (− 29.73, 13.48)

 Relevance of IS to overall policy translation work

82.6 (22.9)

88.1 (17.5)

77.9 (26.3)

1.26 (− 6.39, 26.78)

77.3 (25.1)

94.4 (9.0)

 − 2.69 (− 30.04, − 4.04)*

  1. at-test reference group
  2. *p < 0.05