Margaret M. Paschen-Wolff, Aimee N.C. Campbell, Ángel Vásquez, Jill Kessler, Kelley Jansen, Catherine P. Arnatt, Carmen Rosa, Hanna M. Hebden, Sandra Radin, Antony Stately, Jennifer Shaw, Favian Kennedy, Abigail G. Matthews, & Kamilla L. Venner
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: August 2025
Debbie L Humphries, Carolyn M Audet, Bijal A Balasubramanian, Nanette Benbow, Christopher G Kemp, Robin Gaines Lanzi, Sung-Jae Lee, Hannah Mestel, Alexandra B Morshed, Brian Mustanski, April Pettit, Borsika A Rabin, Olivia Sadler, Alison B Hamilton, Mary-Louise E Millett, Sheree Schwartz, Kenneth Sherr, Nicole A Stadnick, & Dennis H Li
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: April 2025
Nkiru Osude, Harriette Van Spall, Hayden Bosworth, Konstantin Krychtiuk, John Spertus, Sam Fatoba, Lee Fleisher, Edward Fry, Jennifer Green, Stephen Greene, Michael Ho, Jennifer Jackman, Jane Leopold, Melissa Magwire, Darren McGuire, George Mensah, Katherine R. Tuttle, Vincent Willey, Neha Pagidipati and Christopher Granger
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: March 2025
Chelsea L Kracht, Alison Tovar, Kim M Gans, Rebecca E Lee, Pooja S Tandon, Tayla von Ash, & Lucine Francis
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: March 2025
Patricia Mae G. Santos, Sierra Silverwood, Gita Suneja, Eric C. Ford, Nikhil G. Thaker, Jamie S. Ostroff, Bryan J. Weiner, and Erin F. Gillespie
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: December 2024
Ferdinand C Mukumbang, Sonja Klingberg, & Bipin Adhikari
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: October 2024
A realist review is a theory-driven approach to synthesizing evidence based on the realist philosophy of science. Realist reviews are conducted to provide the policy and practice community with a rich, detailed and practical understanding of complex social interventions that will likely be of much more use to them when planning and implementing programmes. Robust realist reviews must balance philosophical engagement, methodological rigour and relevance to practice. Nevertheless, they have been criticized for being more philosophically inclined and less methodologically robust, with findings that have little implication for practice. Using the philosophy/epistemology➔ methodology➔ theory➔ practice concept flow, we report how we balanced philosophical principles and practical insights in a recently conducted realist review on participatory practices that impact the benefits of non-communicable disease research and interventions in low- and middle-income countries. If realist reviews are not comprehensible enough for these practitioners, their utility and relevance may suffer from being limited to a specialist cohort of academics. We propose that realist review findings and outputs must be framed and communicated to meaningfully engage practitioners without undertaking translational efforts.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Rebekka M. Lee, Cristina Huebner Torres, James G. Daly, Annette Thomas, Peggy A. Hannon, Sonja Likumahuwa-Ackman and Karen M. Emmons
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: September 2024
Engaging diverse partners in each phase of the research process is the gold standard of community-engaged research and adds value to the impact of implementation science. However, partner engagement in dissemination, particularly meaningful involvement in developing peer-reviewed manuscripts, is lacking. The Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control are using the Translational Science Benefits Model to demonstrate the impact of our work beyond traditional metrics, including building capacity and promoting community engagement. This paper presents a case example of one center that has developed a policy for including community partners as coauthors. Standard practices are used to foster clear communications and bidirectional collaboration. Of published papers focused on center infrastructure and implementation research pilots, 92% have community partner coauthors. This includes 21 individuals in roles ranging from physician assistant to medical director to quality manager. Through this intentional experience of co-creation, community partners have strengthened implementation science expertise. Community coauthors have also ensured that data interpretation and dissemination reflect real-world practice environments and offer sustainable strategies for rapid translation to practice improvements. Funders, academic journals, and researchers all have important roles to play in supporting community coauthors as critical thought partners who can help to narrow the gap between research and practice.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Kyle S. Bilodeau, Frank F. Yang, Michael Shang, Audrey Mossman, David C. Mauchley, Scott DeRoo, & Christopher R. Burke
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: May 2024
The Ross procedure is a technically complex operation to address the pathology of the aortic valve. Prior attempts at widespread implementation have been plagued with variations in effectiveness. We report our initial programmatic outcomes using dissemination and implementation (D&I) science frameworks, with an aim to define both programmatic efficacy and effectiveness. The study design was a single center, explanatory sequential mixed methods evaluation of a Ross surgery program from June 2020 to April 2023. Quantitative measures for baseline patient characteristics and postoperative outcomes were summarized. Qualitative measures were obtained using semi-structured interviews and characterized using implementation science frameworks.
A total of 71 patients underwent the Ross procedure at a single academic center. Mean age was 40 years (± 13). There were no perioperative deaths or valve-related reinterventions (0%). During the follow-up period, 2 (2.8%) patients required re-operation and 2 (2.8%) required balloon dilation of the pulmonary homograft. Qualitative measures noted communication and prospective self-audit facilitated measures of effectiveness, as dichotomy within expected vs. observed outcomes led to program modifications. Collaboration across hospital systems promoted adoption and implementation, which led to the incorporation of the Ross procedure into accepted organizational practice.
In this formative evaluation, limited-efficacy outcomes demonstrated similar programmatic success to data from other established centers. With the prerequisite center volume and case selection, the Ross procedure is a safe and efficacious treatment for aortic valvular disease. Implementation science can be used both in real-time and retrospectively to guide organizational efforts to improve outcomes and to improve the translation of results across centers.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Terren Green, Hayden B. Bosworth, Gloria D. Coronado, Lynn DeBar, Beverly B. Green, Susan S. Huang, Jeffrey G. Jarvik, Vincent Mor, Douglas Zatzick, Kevin P. Weinfurt & Devon K. Check
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: January 2024
Kyle S. Bilodeau, David C. Mauchley, Scott DeRoo & Christopher R. Burke
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: December 2023
The science of dissemination and implementation (D&I) aims to improve the quality and effectiveness of care by addressing the challenges of incorporating research and evidence-based practice into routine clinical practice. This lens of D&I has challenged the interpretation and incorporation of data, noting that failure of a given therapy may not reflect lack of efficacy, but instead reflect an imperfect implementation. The aim of this manuscript is to review the influence of the Ross procedure’s historical context on its D&I.
A contextual baseline of the Ross procedure was defined from the procedure’s original description in the literature to major publications since the 2017 valvular heart disease guidelines. D&I evaluation was conducted using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), using constructs from each of the five respective domains to define the main determinants.
Each of the five CFIR domains appears to be correlated with a factor influencing the Ross procedure’s varied history of enthusiasm and acceptance. The complex nature of Ross required adaptation for optimization, with a strong correlation of center volume on outcomes that were not considered in non-contemporary studies. Outcomes later published from those studies influenced social and cultural contexts within the aortic surgery community, and led to further organizational uncertainty, resulting in slow guideline incorporation.
The D&I of the Ross procedure was a result of inadequate appreciation of technical complexity, effect of patient selection, and complex aortic surgery experience, resulting in dismissal of an efficacious procedure due to a misunderstanding of effectiveness
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**