ArticleImplementation science communications2025
Dissemination experiences and preferences from HIV service delivery organizations.
Article in Implementation science communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBetter understanding of how deliverers use research and select interventions can further reduce the gap between developing and delivering effective intervention and implementation strategies, especially in the field of HIV.
methodsWe interviewed a convenience sample of Midwest health organizations and health departments who are involved with HIV treatment and/or prevention services. Using an iterative, rapid qualitative analysis, we identified key steps in the process of prioritizing health needs, selecting interventions, and disseminating or receiving information about interventions.
resultsIn order to prioritize areas for interventions, organizations used community assessments, developing leaderships buy-in, considered staff capacity, accessed funding, and created partnerships. Once a priority areas was developed, interventions were usually developed by the organization or adapted from pre-existing interventions to meet local needs. Organizations preferred to receive information from trusted broker agencies or from peer organizations. There was a strong desire to evaluate and share results from home-grown interventions but evaluation capacity and funding were limiting factors.
conclusionsThere are several ways to improve dissemination and knowledge sharing between researchers and practitioners. Researchers can design flexible and adaptable interventions, with a range of dissemination materials available to broker agencies. Deliverers can partner with researchers for evaluation, while funders can specifically support evaluation and dissemination, including peer-to-peer learning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.