Bridging research and practice for dementia care: strategies and challenges of public and private funders in the dissemination and implementation of dementia research.

backgroundAlthough dementia research agendas increasingly prioritize dissemination and implementation (D&I) of research findings, there is still limited understanding of the role and activities of dementia research funders. Implementation science literature offers theories, frameworks and tools to integrate diverse stakeholder perspectives, supporting the translation of research evidence into practice and policy. This study identifies and categorizes the D&I strategies and related challenges, faced by public and private dementia research funders in the Netherlands. This study aims to provide evidence that clarifies the roles of public and private dementia research funders and offers guidance for planning and executing dementia research D&I. This study contributed to evidence and perspectives generated outside the traditional clinical settings, which are essential to advance implementation science.

methodsSemi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 20 individuals, selected through purposive snowball sampling. Respondents involved representatives of three public and four private funding agencies in the Netherlands. Interviews were conducted in-person or virtually, audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data extraction and data analysis were conducted using an iterative abductive thematic coding approach on the basis of the methodology of Timmermans and Tavory.

resultsThe strategies and related challenges of public and private funders of dementia research were clustered into three themes: "dissemination", "implementation support" and "research ecosystem capacity-building". Strategies for dissemination and implementation support were facilitated through brokering knowledge and providing financial incentives, procedural guidance and action mandates. Public and private funders contributed significantly to research ecosystem capacity-building through strategies such as establishing research consortium models, implementation training programs and professional connective networks. Results suggested that both types of funders are guided by distinct value systems and contribute different resources and expertise to the D&I process. Collaborative capacity between public and private funders was hindered by D&I role ambiguity and conflicting value systems, which emphasizes the lack of insights in how and when to engage each type of funder in D&I.

conclusionsThis study provides contextual insight into the opportunities to invest in developing D&I professional competencies and leveraging strategic public-private partnerships to optimize D&I processes. Future research could develop this research ecosystem concept to overcome persistent contextual D&I challenges.