how will you disseminate the findings of your research

Internet Explorer is no longer supported by Microsoft. To browse the NIHR site please use a modern, secure browser like Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, or Microsoft Edge.

How to disseminate your research

how will you disseminate the findings of your research

Published: 01 January 2019

Version: Version 1.0 - January 2019

This guide is for researchers who are applying for funding or have research in progress. It is designed to help you to plan your dissemination and give your research every chance of being utilised.

What does NIHR mean by dissemination?

Effective dissemination is simply about getting the findings of your research to the people who can make use of them, to maximise the benefit of the research without delay.

Research is of no use unless it gets to the people who need to use it

Professor Chris Whitty, Chief Scientific Adviser for the Department of Health

Principles of good dissemination

Stakeholder engagement: Work out who your primary audience is; engage with them early and keep in touch throughout the project, ideally involving them from the planning of the study to the dissemination of findings. This should create ‘pull’ for your research i.e. a waiting audience for your outputs. You may also have secondary audiences and others who emerge during the study, to consider and engage.

Format: Produce targeted outputs that are in an appropriate format for the user. Consider a range of tailored outputs for decision makers, patients, researchers, clinicians, and the public at national, regional, and/or local levels as appropriate. Use plain English which is accessible to all audiences.

Utilise opportunities: Build partnerships with established networks; use existing conferences and events to exchange knowledge and raise awareness of your work.

Context: Understand the service context of your research, and get influential opinion leaders on board to act as champions. Timing: Dissemination should not be limited to the end of a study. Consider whether any findings can be shared earlier

Remember to contact your funding programme for guidance on reporting outputs .

Your dissemination plan: things to consider

What do you want to achieve, for example, raise awareness and understanding, or change practice? How will you know if you are successful and made an impact? Be realistic and pragmatic.

Identify your audience(s) so that you know who you will need to influence to maximise the uptake of your research e.g. commissioners, patients, clinicians and charities. Think who might benefit from using your findings. Understand how and where your audience looks for/receives information. Gain an insight into what motivates your audience and the barriers they may face.

Remember to feedback study findings to participants, such as patients and clinicians; they may wish to also participate in the dissemination of the research and can provide a powerful voice.

When will dissemination activity occur? Identify and plan critical time points, consider external influences, and utilise existing opportunities, such as upcoming conferences. Build momentum throughout the entire project life-cycle; for example, consider timings for sharing findings.

Think about the expertise you have in your team and whether you need additional help with dissemination. Consider whether your dissemination plan would benefit from liaising with others, for example, NIHR Communications team, your institution’s press office, PPI members. What funds will you need to deliver your planned dissemination activity? Include this in your application (or talk to your funding programme).

Partners / Influencers: think about who you will engage with to amplify your message. Involve stakeholders in research planning from an early stage to ensure that the evidence produced is grounded, relevant, accessible and useful.

Messaging: consider the main message of your research findings. How can you frame this so it will resonate with your target audience? Use the right language and focus on the possible impact of your research on their practice or daily life.

Channels: use the most effective ways to communicate your message to your target audience(s) e.g. social media, websites, conferences, traditional media, journals. Identify and connect with influencers in your audience who can champion your findings.

Coverage and frequency: how many people are you trying to reach? How often do you want to communicate with them to achieve the required impact?

Potential risks and sensitivities: be aware of the relevant current cultural and political climate. Consider how your dissemination might be perceived by different groups.

Think about what the risks are to your dissemination plan e.g. intellectual property issues. Contact your funding programme for advice.

More advice on dissemination

We want to ensure that the research we fund has the maximum benefit for patients, the public and the NHS. Generating meaningful research impact requires engaging with the right people from the very beginning of planning your research idea.

More advice from the NIHR on knowledge mobilisation and dissemination .

Instant insights, infinite possibilities

What you need to know about research dissemination

Last updated

5 March 2024

Reviewed by

In this article, we'll tell you what you need to know about research dissemination.

Understanding research dissemination

Research that never gets shared has limited benefits. Research dissemination involves sharing research findings with the relevant audiences so the research’s impact and utility can reach its full potential.

When done effectively, dissemination gets the research into the hands of those it can most positively impact. This may include:

Politicians

Industry professionals

The general public

What it takes to effectively disseminate research will depend greatly on the audience the research is intended for. When planning for research dissemination, it pays to understand some guiding principles and best practices so the right audience can be targeted in the most effective way.

Core principles of effective dissemination

Effective dissemination of research findings requires careful planning. Before planning can begin, researchers must think about the core principles of research dissemination and how their research and its goals fit into those constructs.

Research dissemination principles can best be described using the 3 Ps of research dissemination.

This pillar of research dissemination is about clarifying the objective. What is the goal of disseminating the information? Is the research meant to:

Persuade policymakers?

Influence public opinion?

Support strategic business decisions?

Contribute to academic discourse?

Knowing the purpose of sharing the information makes it easy to accurately target it and align the language used with the target audience.

The process includes the methods that will be used and the steps taken when it comes time to disseminate the findings. This includes the channels by which the information will be shared, the format it will be shared in, and the timing of the dissemination.

By planning out the process and taking the time to understand the process, researchers will be better prepared and more flexible should changes arise.

The target audience is whom the research is aimed at. Because different audiences require different approaches and language styles, identifying the correct audience is a huge factor in the successful dissemination of findings.

By tailoring the research dissemination to the needs and preferences of a specific audience, researchers increase the chances of the information being received, understood, and used.

Types of research dissemination

There are many options for researchers to get their findings out to the world. The type of desired dissemination plays a big role in choosing the medium and the tone to take when sharing the information.

Some common types include:

Academic dissemination: Sharing research findings in academic journals, which typically involves a peer-review process.

Policy-oriented dissemination: Creating documents that summarize research findings in a way that's understandable to policymakers.

Public dissemination: Using television and other media outlets to communicate research findings to the public.

Educational dissemination: Developing curricula for education settings that incorporate research findings.

Digital and online dissemination: Using digital platforms to present research findings to a global audience.

Strategic business presentation: Creating a presentation for a business group to use research insights to shape business strategy

Major components of information dissemination

While the three Ps provide a convenient overview of what needs to be considered when planning research dissemination, they are not a complete picture.

Here’s a more comprehensive list of what goes into the dissemination of research results:

Audience analysis : Identifying the target audience and researching their needs, preferences, and knowledge level so content can be tailored to them.

Content development: Creating the content in a way that accurately reflects the findings and presents them in a way that is relevant to the target audience.

Channel selection: Choosing the channel or channels through which the research will be disseminated and ensuring they align with the preferences and needs of the target audience.

Timing and scheduling: Evaluating factors such as current events, publication schedules, and project milestones to develop a timeline for the dissemination of the findings.

Resource allocation: With the basics mapped out, financial, human, and technological resources can be set aside for the project to facilitate the dissemination process.

Impact assessment and feedback: During the dissemination, methods should be in place to measure how successful the strategy has been in disseminating the information.

Ethical considerations and compliance: Research findings often include sensitive or confidential information. Any legal and ethical guidelines should be followed.

Crafting a dissemination blueprint

With the three Ps providing a foundation and the components outlined above giving structure to the dissemination, researchers can then dive deeper into the important steps in crafting an impactful and informative presentation.

Let’s take a look at the core steps.

1. Identify your audience

To identify the right audience for research dissemination, researchers must gather as much detail as possible about the different target audience segments.

By gathering detailed information about the preferences, personalities, and information-consumption habits of the target audience, researchers can craft messages that resonate effectively.

As a simple example, academic findings might be highly detailed for scholarly journals and simplified for the general public. Further refinements can be made based on the cultural, educational, and professional background of the target audience.

2. Create the content

Creating compelling content is at the heart of effective research dissemination. Researchers must distill complex findings into a format that's engaging and easy to understand. In addition to the format of the presentation and the language used, content includes the visual or interactive elements that will make up the supporting materials.

Depending on the target audience, this may include complex technical jargon and charts or a more narrative approach with approachable infographics. For non-specialist audiences, the challenge is to provide the required information in a way that's engaging for the layperson.

3. Take a strategic approach to dissemination

There's no single best solution for all research dissemination needs. What’s more, technology and how target audiences interact with it is constantly changing. Developing a strategic approach to sharing research findings requires exploring the various methods and channels that align with the audience's preferences.

Each channel has a unique reach and impact, and a particular set of best practices to get the most out of it. Researchers looking to have the biggest impact should carefully weigh up the strengths and weaknesses of the channels they've decided upon and craft a strategy that best uses that knowledge.

4. Manage the timeline and resources

Time constraints are an inevitable part of research dissemination. Deadlines for publications can be months apart, conferences may only happen once a year, etc. Any avenue used to disseminate the research must be carefully planned around to avoid missed opportunities.

In addition to properly planning and allocating time, there are other resources to consider. The appropriate number of people must be assigned to work on the project, and they must be given adequate financial and technological resources. To best manage these resources, regular reviews and adjustments should be made.

Tailoring communication of research findings

We’ve already mentioned the importance of tailoring a message to a specific audience. Here are some examples of how to reach some of the most common target audiences of research dissemination.

Making formal presentations

Content should always be professional, well-structured, and supported by data and visuals when making formal presentations. The depth of information provided should match the expertise of the audience, explaining key findings and implications in a way they'll understand. To be persuasive, a clear narrative and confident delivery are required.

Communication with stakeholders

Stakeholders often don't have the same level of expertise that more direct peers do. The content should strike a balance between providing technical accuracy and being accessible enough for everyone. Time should be taken to understand the interests and concerns of the stakeholders and align the message accordingly.

Engaging with the public

Members of the public will have the lowest level of expertise. Not everyone in the public will have a technical enough background to understand the finer points of your message. Try to minimize confusion by using relatable examples and avoiding any jargon. Visual aids are important, as they can help the audience to better understand a topic.

10 commandments for impactful research dissemination

In addition to the details above, there are a few tips that researchers can keep in mind to boost the effectiveness of dissemination:

Master the three Ps to ensure clarity, focus, and coherence in your presentation.

Establish and maintain a public profile for all the researchers involved.

When possible, encourage active participation and feedback from the audience.

Use real-time platforms to enable communication and feedback from viewers.

Leverage open-access platforms to reach as many people as possible.

Make use of visual aids and infographics to share information effectively.

Take into account the cultural diversity of your audience.

Rather than considering only one dissemination medium, consider the best tool for a particular job, given the audience and research to be delivered.

Continually assess and refine your dissemination strategies as you gain more experience.

Should you be using a customer insights hub?

Do you want to discover previous research faster?

Do you share your research findings with others?

Do you analyze research data?

Start for free today, add your research, and get to key insights faster

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 18 April 2023

Last updated: 27 February 2023

Last updated: 5 February 2023

Last updated: 16 April 2023

Last updated: 16 August 2024

Last updated: 9 March 2023

Last updated: 30 April 2024

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 11 March 2024

Last updated: 4 July 2024

Last updated: 6 March 2024

Last updated: 5 March 2024

Last updated: 13 May 2024

Latest articles

Related topics, .css-je19u9{-webkit-align-items:flex-end;-webkit-box-align:flex-end;-ms-flex-align:flex-end;align-items:flex-end;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;-webkit-box-flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-box-pack:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;justify-content:center;row-gap:0;text-align:center;max-width:671px;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}}@media (max-width: 799px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}} decide what to .css-1kiodld{max-height:56px;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-1kiodld{display:none;}} build next, decide what to build next, log in or sign up.

Get started for free

Reserve a study room
Library Account
Undergraduate Students
Graduate Students
Faculty & Staff

Create a Research Dissemination Plan

Research Dissemination
Dissemination Plan Examples
Dissemination Plan Template
Guide Background
Does your research contain sensitive or protected data? Will you need to place conditions or restrictions on the recipient? Which parts of your research are you allowing your recipient to use for publication?
How will you share with other academic researchers, and how will you share with any community members involved in the research?
How will you share with other end users and stakeholders for your research?
What does utilization of your research look like for each of these audiences? Or, what are the outcomes you want your research to produce?
What are your shared mission or goals?
How can you build relationships with these partners?
What resources are available for dissemination (people, fundings, skills, etc.)?
Face-to-face or online?
How will you “package” your research for different audiences?
Where and how do each of your audiences get their information?
What potential difficulties are there in communicating with your audiences? For example, do they see you as a trusted source of information? Are there barriers to their receiving or finding your research or to their ability to utilize it?
How will you know/measure success? Impact on researchers? Impact for community?
What kind of indicators or assessment measures can you use?
Is your dissemination an ongoing conversation? For how long will you continue to share information, and are you concerned about sustainability of your project outcomes?
What actions and strategies will you take to disseminate your research?
When and how frequently will you share your data and findings, including preliminary findings, your research process and methodology, and any lessons learned? When is it most valuable for each of your audiences to receive your research findings?
Who is responsible for each step in your plan?
<< Previous: Dissemination Plan Examples
Next: Guide Background >>
Last Updated: Nov 20, 2023 11:33 AM
URL: https://guides.library.vcu.edu/dissemination

Request new password
Create a new account

Doing Research in Counselling and Psychotherapy

Student resources, disseminating the findings of your research study.

It is very important to find appropriate ways to disseminate the findings of your research – projects that sit on office or library shelves and are seldom or never read represent a tragic loss to the profession.

A key dimension of research dissemination is to be actively involved with potential audiences for your work, and help them to understand what it means to them. These dialogues also represent invaluable learning experiences for researchers, in terms of developing new ideas and appreciating the methodological limitations of their work. An inspiring example of how to do this can be found in:

Granek, L., & Nakash, O. (2016). The impact of qualitative research on the “real world” knowledge translation as education, policy, clinical training, and clinical practice. Journal of Humanistic Psychology , 56(4), 414 – 435.

A further key dimension of research dissemination lies in the act of writing. There are a number of challenges associated with writing counselling and psychotherapy research papers, such as the need to adhere to journal formats, and the need (sometimes) to weave personal reflective writing into a predominantly third-person standard academic style. The items in the following sections explore these challenges from a variety of perspectives.

Suggestions for becoming a more effective academic writer

Sources of advice on how to ease the pain of writing:

Gioia, D. (2019). Gioia’s rules of the game. Journal of Management Inquiry , 28(1), 113 – 115.

Greenhalgh, T. (2019). Twitter women’s tips on academic writing: a female response to Gioia’s rules of the game. Journal of Management Inquiry , 28(4), 484 – 487.

Roulston, K. (2019). Learning how to write successfully from academic writers. The Qualitative Report, 24(7), 1778 – 1781.

Writing tips from the student centre, University of Berkeley

The transition from being a therapist to being a researcher

Finlay, L. (2020). How to write a journal article: Top tips for the novice writer. European Journal for Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy , 10, 28 – 40.

McBeath, A., Bager-Charleson, S., & Abarbanel, A. (2019). Therapists and academic writing: “Once upon a time psychotherapy practitioners and researchers were the same people”. European Journal for Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy , 9, 103 – 116.

McPherson, A. (2020). Dissertation to published article: A journey from shame to sharing. European Journal for Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy , 10, 41 – 52.

Journal article style requirements of the American Psychological Association (including a section on writing quantitative papers)

Writing qualitative reports

Jonsen, K., Fendt, J., & Point, S. (2018). Convincing qualitative research: What constitutes persuasive writing? Organizational Research Methods , 21(1), 30 – 67.

Ponterotto, J.G. & Grieger, I. (2007). Effectively communicating qualitative research. The Counseling Psychologist , 35, 404 – 430.

Smith, L., Rosenzweig, L. & Schmidt, M. (2010). Best practices in the reporting of participatory action research: embracing both the forest and the trees. The Counseling Psychologist, 38, 1115 – 1138.

Staller, K.M. & Krumer-Nevo, M. (2013). Successful qualitative articles: A tentative list of cautionary advice. Qualitative Social Work, 12, 247 – 253.

Clark, A.M. & Thompson, D.R. (2016). Five tips for writing qualitative research in high-impact journals: moving from #BMJnoQual . International Journal of Qualitative Methods , 15, 1 – 3

Gustafson, D. L., Parsons, J. E., & Gillingham, B. (2019). Writing to transgress: Knowledge production in feminist participatory action research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 20 . DOI: 10.17169/fqs-20.2.3164

Caulley, D.N. (2008). Making qualitative reports less boring: the techniques of writing creative nonfiction. Qualitative Inquiry, 14, 424 – 449.

Website Navigation for Screen Readers

Return home
Go to header navigation
Go to search form
Go to content region
Go to footer region

Research Communications

Hopkins on the Hill

Team Members

Questions or Feedback?

Contact Keri Althoff
[email protected]

Do-It-Yourself Dissemination Tool Kit

Need help disseminating your research findings.

Fulfilling the responsibility of disseminating your research findings does not have to be an overwhelming task. We have developed the “Do-It-Yourself Dissemination Took Kit” to assist you in fulfilling your responsibility to disseminate your findings to relevant stakeholders, including: 1) those who may not have access publications, including people with the condition(s) of interest, advocacy groups, program and policy decision makers, funders, and elected officials; and 2) those who could help reach your stakeholders or amplify the findings, namely the media.

The responsibility for dissemination lies with you, the researcher. The “Do It Yourself Dissemination Tool Kit” will help you fulfill your responsibility efficiently and effectively.

Download the Tool Kit:

1) Tool Kit User Guide

Understand how to use the templates provided below, how to frame your summary, and access a link to contact information for all JHU media teams
Suggestions for groups of stakeholders who should be included in your stakeholder “rolodex” to allow for quick dissemination of your Executive Summary via email
Guidance to create a Twitter thread of findings to disseminate your findings more broadly, and a complete example of such a thread

2) Dissemination Executive Summary: Template 3) Dissemination Executive Summary: Example

A template to create a 1-page Executive Summary of your findings for efficient dissemination, as well as a complete example of such an Executive Summary

4) Dissemination Executive Summary – Elected Officials: Template 5) Dissemination Executive Summary – Elected Officials: Example

A template to create a 1-page Executive Summary of your findings for efficient dissemination specifically for elected officials , as well as a complete example

We hope this tool kit makes it easier for Johns Hopkins University researchers to efficiently and effectively disseminate research findings and fulfill the responsibility of dissemination while amplifying contributions to knowledge and discovery.

Feedback on the tool kit is welcome. E-mail Dr. Keri Althoff, Johns Hopkins Provost’s Fellow for Research Communication at [email protected] .

Vice Provost for Research

265 Garland Hall 3400 North Charles Street Baltimore, MD 21218

(443) 927-1957

External link to Twitter
Research at Johns Hopkins
Bloomberg Professors
Awards Programs & Initiatives
Research Development
Research Administration
© 2024 Johns Hopkins University
University Contacts
Emergency Contact Information
University Policies and Statements

Website Footer Navigation

Jump to content region

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 15: Sharing Your Research

15.3 Disseminating Findings

Presenting your work, as discussed in Section 15.1 “ Presenting Your Research “, is one way of disseminating your research findings. In this section, we will focus on disseminating the written results of your research. Dissemination refers to “a planned process that involves consideration of target audiences and the settings in which research findings are to be received and, where appropriate, communicating and interacting with wider policy and…service audiences in ways that will facilitate research uptake in decision-making processes and practice” (Wilson, Petticrew, Calnan, & Natareth, 2010, p. 93). In other words, dissemination of research findings involves careful planning, thought, consideration of target audiences, and communication with those audiences. Writing up results from your research and having others take notice are two entirely different propositions. In fact, the general rule of thumb is that people will not take notice unless you help and encourage them to do so. To paraphrase the classic line from the film Field of Dreams , just because you build it does not mean they will come.

Disseminating your findings successfully requires determining who your audience is, where they are, and how to reach them. When considering who your audience is, think about who is likely to take interest in your work. Your audience might include those who do not express enthusiastic interest but might nevertheless benefit from an awareness of your research. Your research participants and those who share some characteristics in common with your participants are likely to have some interest in what you’ve discovered in the course of your research. Other scholars who study similar topics are another obvious audience for your work. Perhaps there are policy makers who should take note of your work. Organizations that do work in an area related to the topic of your research are another possibility. Finally, any and all inquisitive and engaged members of the public represent a possible audience for your work.

The location of your audience should be fairly obvious once you have determined who you would like your audience to be. You know where your research participants are because you have studied them. You can find interested scholars on your campus (e.g., perhaps you could offer to present your findings at some campus event), at professional conferences, and via publications such as professional organizations’ newsletters (an often-overlooked source for sharing findings in brief form), and scholarly journals. Policymakers include your state and federal representatives, who, at least in theory, should be available to hear a constituent speak on matters of policy interest. Perhaps you are already aware of organizations that work in an area related to your research topic, but if not, a simple web search should help you identify possible organizational audiences for your work. Disseminating your findings to the public more generally could take any number of forms, including a letter to the editor of the local newspaper, or a blog.

Finally, determining how to reach your audiences will vary according to which audience you wish to reach. Your strategy should be determined by the norms of the audience. For example, scholarly journals provide author submission instructions that clearly define requirements for anyone wishing to disseminate their work via a particular journal. The same is true for newspaper editorials; check your newspaper’s website for details about how to format and submit letters to the editor. If you wish to reach out to your political representatives, a call to their offices or, again, a simple web search should tell you how to do that.

Whether or not you act on all these suggestions is ultimately your decision. But if you have conducted high-quality research, and you have findings that are likely to be of interest to any constituents besides yourself, it is your duty as a scholar and a sociologist to share those findings. Disseminating findings involves the following three steps:

Determine who your audience is.
Identify where your audience is.
Discover how best to reach them.

Research Methods for the Social Sciences: An Introduction Copyright © 2020 by Valerie Sheppard is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

What is the dissemination of research and why is it so important?

Learn what is research dissemination, how to quantify its effectiveness, and how to improve it by including an excellent graphical abstract.

Every research paper should include a component for dissemination and communication of research findings. Both lead to a greater understanding of research findings, improved public engagement in science, and higher social respect in research.

Effective dissemination of researc h simply means delivering your research findings to the individuals who can utilize them as soon as possible in order to maximize the usefulness of the research.

Here you will find experience gathered and recommendations based on learnings. You will learn how to reach a large audience within the scientific community and make a difference with your research.

Why is the dissemination of research important?

Doing research is a great way to aggregate value to the scientific community, but what does it matter if you do a good research if you don’t have the right audience or anyone to read?

Dissemination of research results is an important aspect of the research process because it ensures that the benefits of the study are passed on to others and that it is put to good use.

A research’s proper dissemination is however supposed to draw the attention of governments or stakeholders to the research’s outcomes, giving a social, political, or economic impact. The dissemination of your research will boost its visibility, comprehension, and even execution.

Open science for all

Open Science is a movement whose goal is to make scientific research, data, and dissemination available to anybody. It affects scientific development and public access ideals, such as public research publications, with the ultimate objective of making it easier to publish and disseminate scientific knowledge. Disseminating information and making sure it’s available to anyone is beneficial not just to research but also to the economy and society.

There are now programs being developed to make it easier to accomplish the aim of open science to everybody, part of Publishing Open Science, such as: The Public Library of Science , which is a library that provides open access to journals and scientific literature; arXiv is a system that provides electronic preprints in a wide range of fields; F1000Research is another platform that offers publication of life, science, and other articles without editorial bias; and bioRxiv is a free platform that archives and distributes unpublished preprints.

There’s also the Open Science Cloud, which is supposed to allow academics to use existing information and data in new, complementary ways, as well as the European Science Cloud and Open Science Framework .

Indicators of disseminating a research

When disseminating your study, you must assess if the dissemination is producing the desired results. In order to measure the overall effectiveness, all research initiatives should be extensively evaluated in order to determine which approaches succeeded and which did not provide the intended results.

Your dissemination may be evaluated using both qualitative and quantitative measurements. Assessing and selecting the most effective practices will provide evidence for the most successful techniques for reaching your target audience.

Qualitative measurements

The creation and distribution of printed materials;
Updates, visits, interactions, likes and reports: check websites and social media platforms to evaluate performance;
The number of events organized for certain audiences;
The number of people who attend those events;
Media coverage;
Citations of publications.

Quantitative measurements

New connections with networks and partners;
The consequences of these interactions;
Visibility in social media;
Attractiveness in website;
Feedback from the audience.

How can a graphical abstract help disseminate your research?

There are so many researchers releasing every day that it might be tough to distinguish your research from the crowd, there’s a major concern on how to make a study stand out aesthetically from the rest.

Visual assets are vital in grabbing the reader’s attention, boosting dissemination and access, and improving textual information, allowing the reader to comprehend critical topics more quickly and effectively. Therefore, including a graphical abstract in your research is a good way to promote your work and make it stand out among the many others, hence increasing visibility.

How to create a graphical abstract easily?

There are various benefits to using a graphical abstract in your research, and the Mind The Graph tool can help you do so! You may go from a scientist to a designer and create amazing visual content by utilizing the tool, which is surprisingly simple to use and has a large library that includes everything you could ever need.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.

Try the best infographic maker and promote your research with scientifically-accurate beautiful figures

no credit card required

About Jessica Abbadia

Jessica Abbadia is a lawyer that has been working in Digital Marketing since 2020, improving organic performance for apps and websites in various regions through ASO and SEO. Currently developing scientific and intellectual knowledge for the community's benefit. Jessica is an animal rights activist who enjoys reading and drinking strong coffee.

Content tags

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

12.2 Disseminating your findings

Learning objectives.

Define dissemination
Describe how audience impacts the content and purpose of dissemination
Identify the options for formally presenting your work to other scholars
Explain the role of stakeholders in dissemination

Dissemination refers to “a planned process that involves consideration of target audiences and the settings in which research findings are to be received and, where appropriate, communicating and interacting with wider policy and…service audiences in ways that will facilitate research uptake in decision-making processes and practice” (Wilson, Petticrew, Calnan, & Natareth, 2010, p. 91). In other words, dissemination of research findings involves careful planning, thought, consideration of target audiences, and communication with those audiences. Writing up results from your research and having others take notice are two entirely different propositions. In fact, the general rule of thumb is that people will not take notice unless you help and encourage them to do so.

Disseminating your findings successfully requires determining who your audience is, where your audience is, and how to reach them. When considering who your audience is, think about who is likely to take interest in your work. Your audience might include those who do not express enthusiastic interest but might nevertheless benefit from an awareness of your research. Your research participants and those who share some characteristics in common with your participants are likely to have some interest in what you’ve discovered in the course of your research. Other scholars who study similar topics are another obvious audience for your work. Perhaps there are policymakers who should take note of your work. Organizations that do work in an area related to the topic of your research are another possibility. Finally, any and all inquisitive and engaged members of the public represent a possible audience for your work.

Where your audience is should be fairly obvious. You know where your research participants are because you’ve studied them. You can find interested scholars on your campus, at professional conferences, and via publications such as professional organizations’ newsletters and scholarly journals. Policymakers include your state and federal representatives who, at least in theory, should be available to hear a constituent speak on matters of policy interest. Perhaps you’re already aware of organizations that do work in an area related to your research topic, but if not, a simple web search should help you identify possible organizational audiences for your work. Disseminating your findings to the public more generally could take any number of forms: a letter to the editor of the local newspaper, a blog, or even a post or two on your social media channels.

Disseminating findings involves the following three steps:

Determine who your audience
Identify where your audience
Discover how best to reach your audience

Tailoring your message to your audience

Once you are able to articulate with whom to you wish to share your research, you must decide what to share. While you would never alter your actual findings for different audiences, understanding who your audience is will help you frame your research in a way that is most meaningful to that audience. Certainly, the most obvious candidates with whom you’ll share your work are other social scientists. If you are conducting research for a class project, your main “audience” will probably be your professor. Perhaps you’ll also share your work with other students in the class.

What is more challenging, and possibly a little scary, is sharing your research with the wider world. Sharing with professional audiences is designed to bring your work to the attention of other social scientists and academics, but also other social workers or professionals who practice in areas related to your research. If you are sharing with other scientists, they are probably interested in your study’s methods, particularly statistical tests or data analysis frameworks. Sharing your work with this audience will require you to talk about your methods and data in a different way than you would with other audiences. Professional social workers are more likely to want to hear about the practice and policy implications of your research.

Scholars take extraordinary care not to commit plagiarism . Presenting someone else’s words or ideas as if they are your own is among the most egregious transgressions a scholar can commit. Indeed, plagiarism has ended many careers (Maffly, 2011) [1] and many students’ opportunities to pursue degrees (Go, 2008). [2] Take this very seriously. If you feel a little afraid and paranoid after reading this warning, consider it a good thing— and let it motivate you to take extra care to ensure that you are not plagiarizing the work of others.

Peer-reviewed journal articles

Researchers commonly submit manuscripts to peer-reviewed academic journals. These journals are commonly read by other researchers, students, and practitioners. Peer review is a formal process in which other scholars review the work to ensure it is a high quality before publication. A manuscript may be rejected by a journal after being submitted. Often, this is an opportunity for the researchers to correct problems with the manuscript or find a journal that is a better fit for their research findings. Usually, even if a manuscript is accepted for publication, the peer reviewers will request improvements to it before it can be published. The process of peer review helps improve the quality of journal articles and research.

Formal presentations

Getting your work published in a journal is challenging and time-consuming, as journals receive many submissions but have limited room to publish. Researchers often seek to supplement their publications with formal presentations, which, while adhering to stringent standards, are more accessible and have more opportunities to share research. For researchers, presenting your research is an excellent way to get feedback on your work. Professional social workers often make presentations to their peers to prepare for more formal writing and publishing of their work. Presentations might be formal talks, either individually or as part of a panel at a professional conference; less formal roundtable discussions, another common professional conference format; or posters that are displayed in a specially designated area.

Presentations to stakeholders

While it is important to let academics and scientists know about the results of your research, it is important to identify stakeholders who would also benefit from knowing the results of your study. Stakeholders are individuals or groups who have an interest in the outcome of the study you conduct. Instead of the formal presentations or journal articles you may use to engage academics or fellow researchers, stakeholders will expect a presentation that is engaging, understandable, and immediately relevant to their lives and practice. Informal presentations are no less rigorous than formal presentations, but they do not follow a strict format.

Disseminating to the general public

While there are a seemingly infinite number of informal audiences, there is one more that is worth mentioning—the general public. Part of our job as social workers is to shine a light towards areas of social injustice and raise the consciousness of the public as a whole. Researchers commonly share their results with popular media outlets to reach a broader audience with their study’s conclusions. Unfortunately, journalism about scientific results can sometimes overstate the degree of certainty researchers have in their conclusions. Consequently, it’s important to review the journalistic standards at the media outlet and reporter you approach by examining their previous work and clarifying the degree of control over the final product you will have.

Reports written for public consumption differ from those written for scholarly consumption. As noted elsewhere in this chapter, knowing your audience is crucial when preparing a report of your research. What are they likely to want to hear about? What portions of the research do you feel are crucial to share, regardless of the audience? What level of knowledge do they have about your topic? Answering these questions will help you determine how to shape any written reports you plan to produce. In fact, some outlets answer these questions for you, as in the case of newspaper editorials where rules of style, presentation, and length will dictate the shape of your written report.

Whoever your audience, don’t forget what it is that you are reporting: social scientific evidence. Take seriously your role as a social scientist and your place among peers in your discipline. Present your findings as clearly and as honestly as you possibly can; pay appropriate homage to the scholars who have come before you, even while you raise questions about their work; and aim to engage your readers in a discussion about your work and about avenues for further inquiry. Even if you won’t ever meet your readers face-to-face, imagine what they might ask you upon reading your report, imagine your response, and provide some of those details in your written report.

Key Takeaways

Disseminating findings takes planning and careful consideration of your audiences.
The dissemination process includes determining the who, where, and how of reaching your audiences.
Plagiarism is among the most egregious academic transgressions a scholar can commit.
In formal presentations, include your research question, methodological approach, major findings, and a few final takeaways.
Reports for public consumption usually contain fewer details than reports for scholarly consumption.
Keep your role and obligations as a social scientist in mind as you write research reports.
Dissemination- “a planned process that involves consideration of target audiences and the settings in which research findings are to be received and, where appropriate, communicating and interacting with wider policy and…service audiences in ways that will facilitate research uptake in decision-making processes and practice” (Wilson, Petticrew, Calnan, & Natareth, 2010, p. 91)
Plagiarism- presenting someone else’s words or ideas as if they are your own

Image attributions

microphone by Skitterphoto CC-0

woman man teamwork by rawpixel CC-0

audience by MariSmithPix CC-0

feedback by surdumihail CC-0

As just a single example, take note of this story about the pattern of plagiarism that cost a University of Utah scholar his job . ↵
As a single example (of many) of the consequences for students committing plagiarism, see this article about two students kicked off semester at sea for plagiarism . ↵

Foundations of Social Work Research Copyright © 2020 by Rebecca L. Mauldin is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Research Dissemination | Best Practices & Tips

Introduction

What is research dissemination, purpose of research dissemination, how do you disseminate research findings, disseminating qualitative research findings.

Research is just words and ideas until they are shared with the scientific community. Scientific knowledge needs to be discussed and critiqued so that others can build on the research with new inquiries, making it the researcher's responsibility to share their research. As a result, disseminating research findings is the last and most important step in the research process and one of the essential soft research skills that scholars should adequately understand.

In this article, we'll examine the dimensions of research dissemination, from scientific journal publication to research communication. Understanding the various processes for sharing research with the world will enable you to decide the best dissemination plan for your findings.

Research dissemination is any process that involves the presentation of research findings. This is a broad term as it applies to many efforts, both academic and non-academic, with the common characteristic among all of them being the sharing of scientific knowledge.

To be sure, researchers are likely well-aware of the need to present their knowledge at scientific conferences and in academic journals , as research papers and presentations are a cornerstone of research careers. However, research dissemination also refers to other activities such as stakeholder engagement, publishing press releases, and informal peer debriefing. Each of these efforts benefits a different target audience, as well as the researchers disseminating their findings.

Insights from research data are only as useful as their reach to and acceptance from the scientific community and the general public. Theories and conceptual frameworks that are known only to the researchers who devise them make little contribution, if any, to the larger world. Instead, this scientific knowledge can be used as further resources to inspire and facilitate future research. To that end, academic and research institutions have established channels of dissemination to ensure that new ideas and knowledge are shared.

From an instrumental standpoint, research dissemination also benefits the researcher in terms of their career development. Many doctoral programs require their students to publish their research in prestigious journals, while announcements for faculty openings often list academic publications as part of the necessary job qualifications. Other academic career accomplishments sought by recruiters and search committees include published books, invited talks, and engagement with the broader community such as blog articles and newspaper editorials.

All of this is to say that the value added by any research is largely determined by the audience that it reaches. This makes research dissemination a critical skill for researchers to have in order to demonstrate the novelty of the research they generate.

Turn research into key insights with ATLAS.ti

Analyze your data with our powerful qualitative data analysis platform. Start with a free trial today.

Researchers pursue various dissemination efforts in academic and mainstream venues to share their analysis and findings with key audiences. The bottom line is that a thorough study is often promoted through multiple channels that benefit both the researcher and the broader community.

Presentations

Scientific conferences are often the first venue in which academic research is shared. Researchers rely on engagement with other scholars who can comment on and critique the research findings and the data analysis that informs those findings. Moreover, conference presentations are a good opportunity for researchers to network with other scholars and establish potential collaborations for the ongoing research.

Conferences provide instant feedback from a researcher's target audience, and this feedback is often integrated to continue developing the research so that it can be further presented in academic journals and mainstream outlets. Researchers occasionally reference these presentations in their own research if the findings are sufficiently compelling, but the lack of a written or otherwise lasting record makes conference presentations a venue for improving on preliminary research instead of sharing final reports.

Research publications

While conferences are the means for sharing preliminary research findings, journals and other scholarly publications are the primary means through which research is shared. Scholars reference these publications in their own written work more often than they cite conference presentations or articles in mainstream outlets, making journals, academic bulletins, and conference proceedings core venues for contributing to scientific knowledge.

Some forms of research are only available in scholarly publications. A literature review such as a systematic scoping review or other kind of systematic review may typically be found only in academic journals. Narrative research and life history research both provide lengthy descriptions of findings that researchers may consider difficult to reduce to a brief oral presentation at a conference. Whatever kind of study you want to publish, keep in mind that the academic community expects a more extensive and transparent discussion of the research and its findings in a paper than at a conference presentation.

Research papers at prestigious academic journals undergo peer review to ensure the rigor and quality of the research, thus making the publication of a paper a sign that the study is of high quality and worth reading. Sometimes, research is published as an open access article distributed freely to increase the potential audience that could read it without restrictions. Scientific journals often charge sizable fees to publish an article with free access, but this ensures a broader accessibility of the research, as audiences do not need institutional subscriptions to read the study.

Scientific communication

Beyond the established means of research dissemination like conferences and journal articles, there are various other communication strategies researchers may employ to disseminate findings and spread knowledge to the general public. Scientific communication differs from publication in a scientific journal in that it is more oriented toward implications and developments of interest to a more general audience.

Scientific communication through online outlets such as Nature News and EurekAlert often takes the form of a press release meant to grab the attention of the mass media and the broader public. This means that researchers are expected to be able to tailor the presentation of their research to highlight more practical, surprising, or even provocative knowledge that the mainstream community might be more interested in reading.

Mainstream dissemination

Rather than rely on scientific communication, researchers, especially in the social sciences, sometimes appeal directly to the mainstream public, which can include opinion leaders, practitioners, and key stakeholders. More novel or interesting research results tend to garner media coverage from mass media when the findings are likely to invite engagement and interest from general audiences.

This is one reason why researchers have a public-facing, social media presence. Scholars may be interested in sharing their research in mass market books and social media content to engage directly with people who may not have a scientific background but may have a general interest in the topic of discussion. In some circumstances, academic institutions look at public presence among alternative metrics in assessing a researcher's qualifications in promoting research.

Member checking

There are a couple of informal forms of research dissemination that are nonetheless important to the development of research. One such channel is called member checking, where the researcher shares and discusses the data analysis and resulting findings with research participants and other stakeholders.

Member checking is an important step in sufficiently contextualizing qualitative data . However, it is also a useful channel for conveying knowledge back to research participants, policy makers, and key stakeholders, particularly in action research where research findings are used to raise awareness about potential solutions to pressing problems within a given context.

Peer debriefing

Researchers also share their research internally among colleagues and scholars through a process called peer debriefing . The main purpose of debriefing is to raise awareness of any issues in the research process so that future iterations of data collection and analysis within the study can be conducted with greater rigour.

In terms of dissemination, it is also a good way to engage other researchers and foster collaborative partnerships for current and future studies. Think about this form of research dissemination as a means for developing your research for more formal channels such as research papers and presentations.

Data repositories

One final channel of research dissemination focuses on sharing not the findings generated from the data, but the data itself. Researchers sometimes make their data available in public or institutional repositories that are accessible by other researchers who can then use this data in their own studies.

This form of dissemination facilitates scholarly discussion by providing data for researchers to examine and analyze on their own, potentially extending or further contextualizing the research generated by the data, and generating future research through continuing data analysis.

When it comes to qualitative research , there are various dissemination strategies that are key to expanding the audience that can and should look at your study and its findings.

Understand your target audience . From the very beginning, think about to whom you are presenting your research. Research that is tailored to target audiences is more likely to be persuasive and compelling. Papers published in scientific journals are expected to focus on theory, while research tailored to mass media should emphasize the immediate implications of new knowledge.
Define your frameworks concisely . Qualitative research can be challenging to explain to key audiences that are used to getting straight to the point. If your results focus on a proposed theory or concept, your dissemination plan should include presenting the framework in clear, simple terms. Consider naming the aspects of your theory with brief but descriptive keywords for instant impact.
Highlight attention-grabbing examples . While quantitative research is made persuasive through evidence-based statistics, qualitative research often relies on narratives that researchers use to represent their key findings. Think about how your framework can be represented through telling examples and data visualizations that convey evidence supporting your findings.
Identify the societal benefits . When research is disseminated in media interviews and popular publications, the delivery of findings should be straightforward and explain how it serves the broader public. Research that is presented to the mass media should de-emphasize the theoretical implications and highlight the immediate and potential impacts this knowledge has on society.
Maintain discussion of your research . In some ways, research dissemination is an active process that extends beyond papers and presentations. When it comes to career advancement, researchers are increasingly relying on social media and constant engagement with the scientific community and general public with the goal of encouraging regular discussion of research findings.

Make the most of your qualitative data with ATLAS.ti

Data organization, analysis, and visualization in one intuitive platform. Download a free trial of ATLAS.ti.

Disseminate Your Research

The ultimate “deliverable” of research is new or validated knowledge —and to be truly useful, knowledge must be shared.

Research involves many steps, and sharing the results of your efforts is the next task that lies before you after the working phase of your project has been completed–or is at last well under way. This crucial step of disseminating the new knowledge you have uncovered is absolutely essential to the research process. Others in your discipline and the community-at-large want, and need, to learn about your results. They may even undertake new research, scholarship, and creative activities in response to what they learn from your results. Disseminating your work is not just rewarding for you and your colleagues. It’s also a great way to add meaningful accomplishments to your resume or vita.

Opportunities for Dissemination

Presentation opportunities at wsu.

WSU students, faculty, and staff are eager to learn about your research, scholarship, and creative activities and what you have discovered through your efforts. There are numerous venues at WSU that make this exchange of information possible. Your professors, department, this website, and social media are good resources to learn about important dates, times, and places regarding these dissemination opportunities, as well as requirements to participate. Some key opportunities are listed below.

SURCA (the Showcase for Undergraduate Research and Creative Activities)

This annual spring event offers all students in every major from all campuses the chance to share their research results. See what other students are researching, deliver a one-to-one presentation to judges and guests, and win awards. Top presenters in SURCA’s nine categories are recognized at a special event . Those categories cover humanities, social sciences, arts, and STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields. More than 200 undergraduate presenters and as many judges bring the venue to life. SURCA is organized and hosted by the WSU Office of Undergraduate Research, part of WSU Division of Academic Engagement and Student Achievement (DAESA) in the Provost’s office.

Bruya-Wood Undergraduate Research Conference

This twice-yearly event is hosted by the Kinesiology Club in the College of Education

Dept. of Psychology Undergraduate Research Symposium

This annual event is held each spring and was begun in 2002.

Publication Opportunities at WSU

Some colleges and departments have journals where you can publish your work. For example, the Honors College sponsors The Palouse Review , a juried online literary arts publication. Another example is WSU Libraries Research Exchange , an institutional repository for WSU in which all faculty members, staff, and students can share their research in any digital format. Check with your research mentor about what other dissemination possibilities may be available in your college or department.

Presentations at the Regional, National, and International Levels

Meetings for undergraduates.

Our student researchers frequently submit abstracts and receive invitations to share research results beyond WSU. They travel to present at regional, national, and even international meetings in their discipline. For some, these venues offer their first experience to make and deliver a research presentation, though most choose to start at the local level, at SURCA or college-level dissemination events on campus.

Meetings that are geared toward undergraduates are also great places for a first presentation on research, scholarship, and creative activities. National meetings aimed at undergraduates frequently offer attractive and unique benefits, such as graduate-school recruiting fairs and special breakout sessions with information of interest to students. The industry-leaders, professionals, scholars, and students you meet there can also make great additions to your growing professional network.

Meetings specifically for undergraduates that have student support for travel funding include, but are not limited to:

National Conference on Undergraduate Research (NCUR) , which features all types of research including the creative and performing arts.
Annual Biomedical Research Conference for Minority Students (ABRCMS) , which is geared toward students involved in biomedical research (e.g. engineering, social sciences, biological, etc.).
The World Congress on Undergraduate Research is an international event held approximately every three years for Arts & Humanities students, cosponsored by America’s Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR), the Australasian Conference of Undergraduate Research (ACUR), and the British Conference of Undergraduate Research (BCUR). The event was held in Doha, Qatar in November 2016, in Oldenburg, Germany in May 2019, and in Coventry, England in April 2023.
Posters on the Hill is an annual spring undergraduate poster session sponsored by CUR on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. Members of Congress and their staff learn about the importance of undergraduate research by talking directly with student presenters. Your research should be aligned with arts and humanities, biology, chemistry, education, engineering, geosciences, health sciences, mathematics and computer sciences, physics and astronomy, psychology, or social sciences.

Travel Award Applications and Preparing to Present

The WSU Office of Undergraduate Research can provide qualified applicants with partial support to cover the costs of traveling to make a conference presentation. We can also guide you to find additional funding from other sources. Applying for a travel award from us is one of many important steps you should take if you want to present your research at an event beyond WSU.

Publication Opportunities at Regional, National, and International Levels

A popular way to disseminate your research is to publish your findings in a scholarly journal. Instead of in-person presentations, this is a writing-based method of dissemination that has potentially the widest-reaching impact. It involves a rigorous and formal peer-review evaluation of your methods and findings by an objective third party. This method also offers unprecedented accessibility to and permanence of your work—journals and articles are increasingly available online or as downloadable files.

Publishing your work in written form gives your work a broad audience; it is made up of individuals with interests and knowledge related to the publication your work appears in. Your perceived impact as a researcher is predominantly measured by how other researchers refer to, and rely on, the articles you produce using this dissemination method.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

Communicating and disseminating research findings to study participants: Formative assessment of participant and researcher expectations and preferences

Affiliations.

1 College of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
2 College of Health Professions/Healthcare Leadership & Management, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
3 South Carolina Clinical & Translational Research Institute (CTSA), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
4 SOGI-SES Add Health Study Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
5 College of Nursing, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
PMID: 32695495
PMCID: PMC7348011
DOI: 10.1017/cts.2020.9

Introduction: Translating research findings into practice requires understanding how to meet communication and dissemination needs and preferences of intended audiences including past research participants (PSPs) who want, but seldom receive, information on research findings during or after participating in research studies. Most researchers want to let others, including PSP, know about their findings but lack knowledge about how to effectively communicate findings to a lay audience.

Methods: We designed a two-phase, mixed methods pilot study to understand experiences, expectations, concerns, preferences, and capacities of researchers and PSP in two age groups (adolescents/young adults (AYA) or older adults) and to test communication prototypes for sharing, receiving, and using information on research study findings.

Principal results: PSP and researchers agreed that sharing study findings should happen and that doing so could improve participant recruitment and enrollment, use of research findings to improve health and health-care delivery, and build community support for research. Some differences and similarities in communication preferences and message format were identified between PSP groups, reinforcing the best practice of customizing communication channel and messaging. Researchers wanted specific training and/or time and resources to help them prepare messages in formats to meet PSP needs and preferences but were unaware of resources to help them do so.

Conclusions: Our findings offer insight into how to engage both PSP and researchers in the design and use of strategies to share research findings and highlight the need to develop services and support for researchers as they aim to bridge this translational barrier.

Keywords: Communication; dissemination; research findings; research participant preference; researcher preference.

PubMed Disclaimer

Prototype 1: study results email…

Prototype 1: study results email prototype. MUSC, Medical University of South Carolina.

Prototype 2: study results letter…

Prototype 2: study results letter prototype.

Prototype 3: study results MailChimp…

Prototype 3: study results MailChimp prototypes 1 and 2. MUSC, Medical University of…

Related information

Grants and funding.

UL1 TR001450/TR/NCATS NIH HHS/United States

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

Europe PubMed Central
PubMed Central

Miscellaneous

NCI CPTAC Assay Portal
Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Can J Hosp Pharm
v.68(6); Nov-Dec 2015

Dissemination of Research Results: On the Path to Practice Change

Introduction.

As the medication experts in the health care system, pharmacists manage the medication needs of individual patients. Engaging in research, however, offers the opportunity not only to improve the health of those individuals encountered in daily practice but also to make a significant impact on the lives of patients across the country and internationally through the translation of research into clinical practice. Yet practice change cannot occur if clinicians are unaware of the research that has been performed. Hung and Duffet 1 reviewed the status of residency projects conducted in Canada between 1999 and 2009. They identified a total of 518 projects, but less than one-third (32.2%) had been published in any format, and only 107 (20.6%) were ultimately published as full-length papers. Similar results were observed in an analysis of pharmacy residency projects conducted in the United States. 2

Although there are a number of constraints associated with residency projects that lead many to be unsuitable for publication, these figures suggest that a considerable volume of hospital pharmacy research in Canada cannot be accessed by practitioners. It should be emphasized that researchers have an ethical obligation to at least attempt to disseminate their research findings. 3 While it is tempting not to publish disappointing results, this can distort the literature on a particular topic. For example, clinicians, as well as the general public, are justifiably concerned when a pharmaceutical company elects not to publish the results of an unfavourable clinical trial, a practice that has led to a push for the creation of publicly available clinical trial databases. However, all who engage in research should be held to the same level of accountability, even if the research is not on the same scale as a multicentre clinical trial. The purpose of this paper is to provide readers with an overview of the most common methods by which research results are disseminated to the practice community and to introduce some of the concepts and barriers associated with knowledge translation.

RESEARCH DISSEMINATION AT PROFESSIONAL CONFERENCES

A variety of approaches are available for the dissemination of research findings, but by far the most common are publications in biomedical journals (discussed in detail later in this article) and presentations at professional meetings. The latter may take the form of either oral (platform) or poster presentations. Presenting clinical or practice research at a professional meeting offers the opportunity to disseminate research findings quickly, since the lag time between completing the research and presenting at a conference may be short. Furthermore, conferences are often attended by leaders in the field, who are more likely to be early adopters of research into practice. The poster format offers the additional advantage of facilitating a personal interaction between researcher and practitioner. Researchers can explain their project in detail and receive feedback that may be helpful for additional studies. Surveys of attendees at professional meetings indicate respondents’ belief that knowledge transfer is enhanced when authors are available to explain and discuss their research findings at a poster session. 4 Researchers should recognize that posters need to be visually appealing, to attract the widest audience at poster sessions. 4 , 5 Presenters are competing with each other for the attention of conference attendees, and knowledge transfer will be greatest for those who do the best job of “selling” their research.

Although there is value to disseminating research findings at professional conferences, there are also disadvantages. Chief among them is a lack of depth when the results of a study are compressed into an abstract or a poster. 5 One of the key tenets of research is that it must be reproducible, and the strict word limits imposed on abstracts preclude a detailed explanation of the methods used to conduct a research project. This limitation becomes less relevant if the research is later published as a full-length paper, but too often this does not occur. Prohaska and others 6 examined the publication rates of abstracts submitted to 5 national pharmacy meetings in the United States. Of 2000 published abstracts, less than 20% were subsequently published in journals that could be accessed through PubMed or Google Scholar. This issue is not unique to pharmacy and has been observed in medicine as well. 7 , 8

PREPARATION OF A RESEARCH PAPER

For research results to reach the widest possible audience and be available to practitioners not just today but permanently, they must be published in a journal. The gold standard is publication in a peer-reviewed journal that is indexed by the National Library of Medicine and other abstracting or indexing services, since this will ensure that anyone conducting a literature search will be able to locate the study. Novice researchers should be aware that the process of preparing a manuscript for publication begins before the research is even started. A well-written protocol will not only ensure successful review by the ethics committee but also form the basis for the introduction, background, and methods in the final paper. The following sections outline important considerations when preparing a paper for publication.

Authorship and Journal Selection Guidelines

As described by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 9 authors are expected to have made substantial contributions to the design or execution of the study or analysis of the data and must also be engaged in writing or editing of the manuscript. All authors must approve the final version of the paper. Conventions around the order of author names in the byline vary, but a general rule is that the first author has made the greatest contribution, with subsequent authors having made lesser contributions. The senior researcher may choose the final author position and will often serve as the corresponding author, particularly if the lead author is a student who may be moving on to a different institution.

Selecting an appropriate journal for each manuscript is important and must be done before the writing process begins. All journals have criteria with respect to the scope of research that is of interest to their readership, as well as style guidelines, and this information is typically provided online in “Instructions for Authors”. 10 Careful review of this information will ensure that the manuscript will not be rejected outright, for purely technical reasons, during editorial review. As an example, a researcher who has completed a study demonstrating the effectiveness of a drug in a rabbit model of disease should be aware that CJHP “does not accept original research articles involving animal research”. 10

Ideally, the choice of journal should be based on the audience that would benefit most from learning about the research. When there are multiple journals in a field, factors such as circulation and impact factor may come into play. The impact factor measures the rate of citation of articles published in a journal over the previous 2 years, with higher values suggesting that papers appearing in the journal have more impact. Prestigious medical journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine , have impact factors above 50, whereas most pharmacy practice journals in North America tend to have impact factors below 3, and some are not indexed in MEDLINE. 11 A low impact factor does not mean that a pharmacy journal is of poor quality; rather, it may reflect the relatively small readership and the fact that most readers are not researchers and thus are less likely to subsequently write a paper citing an article that they have read.

Organization of a Research Paper

The body of the paper begins with the Introduction, which should concisely outline the rationale for conducting the research and state the purpose or hypothesis being tested. Given the large number of papers that practitioners must review to stay current, the potential value of the research to practice must be made evident to the reader as early as possible.

The Methods section should present an overview of how the research was conducted, in sufficient detail that others could duplicate the work. Chan and Altman 12 reviewed over 500 clinical trials and reported that fewer than half provided adequate descriptions of items such as sample size calculation, primary outcomes, method of randomization, and handling of attrition. This problem can be largely avoided through the use of reporting guidelines, which provide detailed recommendations and checklists. For example, the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network has compiled 276 reporting guidelines covering a wide range of study designs used in clinical, preclinical, epidemiologic, and cost-effectiveness research. 13 For pharmacokinetic studies, Kanji and others 14 have recently developed a comprehensive checklist of 24 items that should be reported.

The Results section presents the key findings of the research without commentary or discussion, through a combination of text, tables, and figures. A well-designed figure can convey complex research data in a way that readers will find much more understandable than if the same information were presented in the text, but a figure should not duplicate data presented in the text or tables. Importantly, the results should match the methods. In other words, there should be results for all of the procedures listed in the Methods, and the reader should not find results for which no methods are described.

The Discussion typically includes a summary of the major research findings, an assessment of the importance of the results in the context of previously published studies, the limitations of the study, and suggestions for future research. The conclusions may be part of the Discussion or a separate section, depending on journal policy, and should address the original hypothesis or purpose. Authors should provide a balanced and unbiased evaluation of the validity and value of the results. Contradictory findings from previous studies should be addressed, not ignored. In addition, care should be taken to ensure that the conclusions are not overstated. Although it is tempting to speculate about the broad applicability of the findings, the external validity of studies with highly controlled conditions and extensive inclusion and exclusion criteria may be limited.

The Writing Process

It can be difficult for many researchers, particularly those who are also practitioners, to find an extended block of time to write. This challenge is often cited as the primary reason why data remain in file cabinets and manuscripts go unwritten. If the thought of preparing a 3000-word paper is intimidating, consider breaking it up into smaller chunks that can be written in short blocks of time. A single double-spaced page can be written in 1 to 2 hours, and writing for this period of time every day or two should produce a completed first draft of a manuscript in only a few weeks. Given the time constraints that every clinician-researcher faces, spending hours trying to craft the perfect sentence is a luxury that cannot be afforded. Writers should keep in mind that first drafts will not be widely distributed, and it is important to get something down on paper, even if it only roughly expresses the point to be made.

Health care professionals usually receive little or no formal training in writing. It is therefore important to find a mentor who not only is willing to take the time to read early drafts but also can be trusted to provide constructive criticism. Authors must learn to be receptive to suggestions and not defensive about their writing. Other health care professionals who are not pharmacists may also provide valuable advice. Because they will typically not be “content experts”, they may be able to provide a more unbiased critique with respect to the paper’s readability. The use of jargon and acronyms that are in widespread use in pharmacy should be avoided, particularly if the potential audience will include individuals with a wide range of backgrounds.

The Peer Review Process

Once a manuscript has been submitted to the journal of choice, it undergoes an initial editorial review to ensure that the paper meets expected standards for quality and style and that the content fits with the journal’s scope. Peer reviewers are then identified who have the expertise to provide an unbiased assessment of the quality and importance of the research.

The peer review process is not without fault. It is an unpaid activity that reviewers volunteer to undertake out of a sense of professional duty. However, not all reviewers have the appropriate expertise or take the time to conduct a thorough review. As discussed by Walker and Rocha da Silva, 15 problems related to peer review can include failure to recognize the importance of truly novel discoveries, lack of consensus among reviewers, failure to detect serious errors in study design, and unethical practices by some reviewers, who may deliberately delay publication, reject the work of competitors in their field, or even steal ideas for their own research. Research that fails to show a difference in the hypothesized outcome is more likely to be rejected and remain unpublished, a phenomenon referred to as “bias against the null hypothesis”. Koren and others 16 reported that research indicating that a drug is teratogenic is more likely to be published and publicized than studies demonstrating no damaging effect on the fetus.

Attempts to improve peer review have included making papers available online before publication to allow for open commentary from the scientific community. Bias during peer review may be minimized by masking the identity of the authors of manuscripts or by creating a transparent process whereby the identities of both authors and reviewers are known to each other. This approach is meant to discourage anonymous reviewers from providing harsh and unsubstantiated criticism that they would be unlikely to write if their identity were known to the authors.

Despite these problems with peer review, it continues to be the cornerstone of the review process in professional journals, and most reviews supply helpful comments that will ultimately improve a paper. Authors must address, but need not necessarily agree with, all of the reviewers’ comments, and inexperienced authors should be aware that rejection of a manuscript does not mean that the research has no value. A number of important papers that have resulted in significant knowledge translation were not accepted by the first journal to which they were submitted.

KNOWLEDGE TRANSLATION

Researchers should not expect that practice change will inevitably occur once their research results are published. A commonly quoted estimate is that it takes an average of 17 years for 14% of published evidence to be widely incorporated into clinical practice. 17 Efforts to close this gap between evidence and practice are referred to as “knowledge translation”, a term defined by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research as a “dynamic and iterative process that includes the synthesis, dissemination, exchange and ethically sound application of knowledge to improve health, provide more effective health services and products, and strengthen the health care system”. 18 As discussed in a recent editorial in CJHP , 19 knowledge translation is a complex process that is subject to multiple barriers, including factors such as the personality characteristics and culture of the members of a profession. 20

Researchers have historically considered their work to be complete once a paper based on their research has been presented and published. However, it is clear that this passive, unfocused approach, referred to as diffusion, 21 is often ineffective in changing practice. More active efforts to increase the exchange of knowledge between researcher and clinician are termed “dissemination” and may include the development of targeted messages for professional organizations or other stakeholders, the establishment of practice guidelines, and the use of knowledge brokers. 21 The latter are individuals who possess communication skills, clinical experience, and scientific expertise, specifically hired by organizations to improve practice by bridging the gap between researchers and clinicians. 21 , 22

Efforts by researchers to actively disseminate knowledge to targeted audiences are also referred to as a “push” process. 21 An example is the report by Truong and others, 23 who prepared a letter summarizing the results of the SCRIP-HTN trial in which an intervention by a pharmacist–nurse team was able to produce better clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes mellitus and hypertension. This communication was forwarded to 22 professional pharmacy organizations in Canada but, unfortunately, only 3 used this information to engage in any knowledge translation activities over the following 6-month period. A significant barrier was that many of these organizations did not view knowledge translation as a priority or as part of their mandate. Clinicians and policy-makers can contribute to knowledge translation using a “pull” approach, whereby evidence from the literature is used to prepare a systematic review or develop practice guidelines or is disseminated throughout a practice network. 21

The dissemination of research is an important first step on the path toward knowledge translation and practice change. Presenting research at professional meetings allows for more rapid dissemination of research findings, but the audience may be narrow, and the depth of information that can be provided in this format is limited. Pharmacists engaging in clinical or practice research should pursue the publication of their research in peer-reviewed journals, to ensure that the information is permanently available to the widest possible audience. Where appropriate, researchers are also encouraged to develop targeted messages for key stakeholders regarding their research, to enhance knowledge translation, and knowledge users can facilitate this process through systematic reviews, guideline development, and communication through practice networks.

This is the 15th and final article in the CJHP Research Primer Series, an initiative of the CJHP Editorial Board and the CSHP Research Committee. The 2-year series was designed to appeal to relatively inexperienced researchers, with the goal of building research capacity among practising pharmacists. The articles, presenting simple but rigorous guidance to encourage and support novice researchers, were solicited from authors with appropriate expertise.

Complete list of articles in this series:

Bond CM. The research jigsaw: how to get started. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2014;67(1):28–30.

Tully MP. Research: articulating questions, generating hypotheses, and choosing study designs. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2014;67(1):31–4.

Loewen P. Ethical issues in pharmacy practice research: an introductory guide. Can J Hosp Pharm. 2014;67(2):133–7.

Tsuyuki RT. Designing pharmacy practice research trials. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2014;67(3):226–9.

Bresee LC. An introduction to developing surveys for pharmacy practice research. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2014;67(4):286–91.

Gamble JM. An introduction to the fundamentals of cohort and case–control studies. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2014;67(5):366–72.

Austin Z, Sutton J. Qualitative research: getting started. C an J Hosp Pharm . 2014;67(6):436–40.

Houle S. An introduction to the fundamentals of randomized controlled trials in pharmacy research. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2015; 68(1):28–32.

Charrois TL. Systematic reviews: What do you need to know to get started? Can J Hosp Pharm . 2015;68(2):144–8.

Sutton J, Austin Z. Qualitative research: data collection, analysis, and management. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2015;68(3):226–31.

Cadarette SM, Wong L. An introduction to health care administrative data. Can J Hosp Pharm. 2015;68(3):232–7.

Simpson SH. Creating a data analysis plan: what to consider when choosing statistics for a study. Can J Hosp Pharm. 2015;68(4):311–7.

Dolovich L. Playing in the sandbox: considerations when leading or participating on a multidisciplinary research team. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2015;68(5):401–5.

Kanji S. Turning your research idea into a proposal worth funding. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2015;68(6):458–64.

Edwards DJ. Dissemination of research results: on the path to practice change. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2015;68(6):465–9.

Competing interests: None declared.

For a complete list of articles in the Research Primer series, see page 469.

Log in using your username and password

Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
Latest content
Current issue
BMJ Journals

http://orcid.org/0009-0009-0339-9700 Ryan Muller 1 , 2 ,
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8534-195X Giovanni Ferreira 3 ,
Geronimo Bejarano 4 ,
Andrew R Gamble 3 ,
James Kirk 5 ,
James Sindone 5 ,
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8981-2125 Joshua R Zadro 3
1 VA Connecticut Healthcare System PRIME Center , West Haven , Connecticut , USA
2 Biomedical Informatics and Data Science , Yale University School of Medicine , New Haven , Connecticut , USA
3 Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health , The University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District , Sydney , New South Wales , Australia
4 Department of Health Services, Policy, and Practice , Brown University , Providence , Rhode Island , USA
5 Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health , The University of Sydney , Sydney , New South Wales , Australia
Correspondence to Dr Joshua R Zadro; joshua.zadro{at}sydney.edu.au

Objective To compare the prevalence of ‘spin’, and specific reporting strategies for spin, between infographics, abstracts and full texts of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting non-significant findings in the field of health and medicine and to assess factors associated with the presence of spin.

Design Cross-sectional observational study.

Data source Publications in top quintile health and medical journals from August 2018 to October 2020 (Journal Citation Reports database).

Eligibility criteria Infographics, abstracts and full texts of RCTs with non-significant results for a primary outcome.

Main outcome(s) and measure(s) Presence of spin (any spin and spin in the results and conclusions of infographics, abstracts and full texts).

Exposure(s) Conflicts of interest, industry sponsorship, trial registration, journal impact factor, spin in the abstract, spin in the full text.

Results 119 studies from 40 journals were included. One-third (33%) of infographics contained spin. Infographics were not more likely to contain any spin than abstracts (33% vs 26%, OR 1.4; 95% CI 0.8 to 2.4) or full texts (33% vs 26%, OR 1.4; 95% CI 0.8 to 2.4). Higher journal impact factor was associated with slightly lower odds of spin in infographics and full texts, but not abstracts. Infographics, but not abstracts or full texts, were less likely to contain spin if the trial was prospectively registered. No other significant associations were found.

Conclusions Nearly one-third of infographics spin the findings of RCTs with non-significant results for a primary outcome, but the prevalence of spin is not higher than in abstracts and full texts. Given the increasing popularity of infographics to disseminate research findings, there is an urgent need to improve the reporting of research in infographics.

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request. Original data may be made available by the authors on reasonable request.

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ .

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113033

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC

Many infographics summarising health and medical research do not report sufficient information to allow for accurate interpretation of study results, despite their increasing use to summarise research findings.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

This investigation of spin in 119 infographics, abstracts and full texts of randomised controlled trials reporting non-significant findings for a primary outcome found that nearly one-third of infographics (33%) spin research findings. This was not statistically different to the prevalence of spin in abstracts (26%) and full texts (26%). Spin was substantially less likely in infographics if the study was prospectively registered, and slightly less likely in infographics and full texts if it was published in a higher impact factor journal.

HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY

The findings of this study underscore a need to improve the reporting of infographics summarising health and medical research, as many infographics spin research findings and health professionals, researchers and patients often use infographics as a substitute for reading full-text articles.

Introduction

Infographics (or ‘information graphics’) are becoming increasingly popular tools to summarise health and medical research and increase the attention research receives. 1–5 However, many health professionals, researchers and patients use infographics as a substitute for reading full-text articles and view infographics as tools to help them save time by not having to read the full text. 6 This could present a considerable issue if infographics do not accurately portray information from the full-text article and misrepresent study results.

In research, ‘spin’ is defined as a misrepresentation of study results that overemphasises the beneficial effects of an intervention or overstates safety compared with that shown by the results. 7 8 Spin may be a result of inadvertent bias, ignorance of this scientific issue, expectation of specific outcomes or of wilful intent. 8 9 Infographics may be uniquely prone to spin, as compared with abstracts and full-text articles, for several reasons. For example, infographic developers may want to limit text to improve visual appeal, which, in turn, might lead to selective reporting. Additionally, until recently, there has been little guidance for infographic developers on what to report in infographics of health and medical research. 10 As such, important details may be left out in the reporting of infographics.

A recent study investigated the proportion of infographics in health and medical research that report key characteristics of the full-text article (eg, participant and intervention characteristics, benefits and harms of an intervention, effect estimates and measures of precision). 1 Key characteristics included some aspects of spin which were found to varying degrees, such as whether the infographic’s conclusion acknowledged the risk of bias/certainty, had no issues of indirectness and was based on the primary outcome. However, there are many other examples of spin that were not investigated and may appear in infographics summarising health and medical research such as the omission of the primary outcome, selective reporting of positive results and omission of negative results and overenthusiastic interpretation of statistically non-significant findings as being effective.

The aim of this study was to compare the prevalence of spin (overall and by type of spin/specific reporting strategy) in infographics, abstracts and full texts of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting non-significant findings for a primary outcome in the field of health and medicine. This study also aimed to assess factors associated with the presence of spin in infographics, abstracts and full texts.

This cross-sectional study was reported following the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines ( online supplemental file ). 11

Supplemental material

Data sources and search strategy.

This study employed a rigorous approach to select studies with infographics from a range of high-quality health and medical journals in accordance with a previously published study. 1 The Journal Citation Reports database was used to identify 597 journals ranked in the top quintile (based on 2019 impact factor) of 35 unique fields related to health and medical research. Subsequently, two researchers independently screened each journal’s website to determine whether the journal published infographics. Searches were conducted using the search bar (searching “infographic”, “graphic abstract”, “visual abstract”), and by manually searching all issues from August 2018 to October 2020 as well as other potentially relevant parts of the website (eg, designated section for infographics). Through this process, 69 journals were identified as having published infographics within the time frame. Two researchers then manually searched the 69 journals identified as having published infographics (starting from the October 2020 issue and working backwards in August 2018) for studies meeting inclusion criteria.

Eligibility criteria and selection of infographics

Published RCTs with negative findings for at least one primary outcome (ie, the intervention being tested had no significant effect compared with the control group) and an infographic summarising findings were eligible for inclusion. A maximum of four studies were included per journal to avoid biasing results towards journals publishing more infographics. RCTs with positive findings (findings that were statistically significant for a primary outcome), secondary analyses of RCTs, pilot or feasibility RCTs, non-inferiority RCTs, adaptive RCTs that were stopped before reaching the primary endpoint, RCTs with coprimary efficacy and safety outcomes where the efficacy outcome was positive but the safety outcome was negative (ie, no difference in adverse events), animal studies, studies where a full text could not be obtained and studies in which the primary outcome was not clear from the full text were excluded. Studies were also excluded if the infographic was a duplicate of a table or figure from the full text or if the infographic did not portray any results of the study. These exclusions meant only ‘visual abstracts’ or ‘graphical abstracts’—hereafter referred to as ‘infographics’ for simplicity—were included.

Infographic characteristics

Studies were characterised, based on publishing journal, into their corresponding unique fields (eg, allergy, anaesthesiology, clinical neurology, orthopaedics, sports sciences and surgery) related to medicine and health research listed in the Journal Citation Reports database ( table 1 ). Additional characteristics extracted to describe the sample included whether the study had multiple primary outcomes, multiple time points, multiple intervention groups and if a primary time point was specified.

View inline

Number of included journals and studies per field

For the purposes of this study, spin was defined as the use of specific reporting strategies, regardless of motive, to portray the experimental intervention as effective (despite a statistically non-significant effect on a primary outcome(s)) or to distract readers from statistically non-significant effects. 7 Both text and graphics (ie, graphs, figures and tables) were assessed for spin in infographics. Only text was assessed for spin in abstracts and full texts. The specific reporting strategies of interested were identified from previous literature 7 and included:

Reporting focusing on statistically significant effects for within-group comparisons, secondary outcomes, subgroup analyses or a modified population of analyses (eg, per-protocol analyses).

Interpreting statistically non-significant effects a primary outcome as showing treatment equivalence or comparable effectiveness (ie, ‘both are effective’).

Reporting highlighting the benefit of an intervention despite statistically non-significant effects on a primary outcome.

Reporting focusing on statistically significant effects for one primary outcome while ignoring non-statistically significant effects for other primary outcomes.

Reporting focusing on statistically significant effects for a primary outcome at a non-primary time point or the primary outcome at one time point while ignoring non-statistically significant effects for the primary outcome at other time points (when no primary time point is specified).

Two researchers independently read the results and conclusions section of each included infographic, abstract and full text and coded whether the specific types of spin were present, absent or not applicable when either the infographic, abstract or full text did not include a particular section (eg, some infographics did not have a conclusion). Disagreements were resolved by discussion between the two researchers (two of either RM, GB, JK or JS) with a third researcher (JZ) being consulted if necessary.

Exposure variables

Additional variables extracted were the 2019 Journal Impact Factor of the journal included studies were published in and whether studies were prospectively registered, industry sponsored or reported conflicts of interest. Each of these variables was rated as yes, no or unclear and then collapsed to yes versus no/unclear for analysis. Studies were recorded as prospectively registered if the infographic, abstract or full text mentioned registration of the trial to an online database (eg, ClinicalTrials.gov) and the registry report showed it was ‘prospectively’ registered. If registry information was not available in these places, studies were recorded as not registered. Industry sponsorship was considered present if a non-academic or research organisation/institution funded any part of the study. In cases where funding was not mentioned, studies were reported as not having an industry sponsor. Studies were recorded as not having conflicts of interest if none were reported. All exposure variables were coded independently by two researchers (RM and GB), with disagreements resolved by discussion or consultation with a third researcher (JZ).

Data analysis

Study characteristics and the prevalence of spin (overall and in the results and conclusion sections specifically) were described using counts and percentages. Univariable logistic regression was performed to investigate differences in the prevalence of all types of spin between infographics, abstracts and full texts and investigate associations between exposure variables (see the ‘Exposure variables’ section) and any evidence of spin in the infographic, abstract and full text. All analyses were performed by using Stata V.16.1 (StataCorp).

Patient and public involvement

Patients or the public were not involved in the design, conduct, reporting or dissemination of this research.

Selection of studies

A total of 263 studies were identified and screened from the search for negative RCTs with infographics. Of these, 144 were excluded. Common reasons for exclusion were non-inferiority trials (n=40) or secondary analyses (n=34), and infographics being identical to a table or figure in the full-text article (n=26). Following exclusions, 119 studies from 40 journals were included ( figure 1 ).

Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint

Study flow diagram. RCT, randomised controlled trial; JCR, Journal Citation Reports.

Characteristics of included studies

Fields with the highest number of journals and studies included were Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems (7 journals; 16 included studies), Medicine, General & Internal (6 journals; 24 included studies), Surgery (6 journals; 13 included studies) and Urology & Nephrology (5 journals; 20 included studies). The other 10 fields contributed fewer journals and studies, ranging from 1 to 4 and 1 to 13, respectively ( table 1 ). Four studies from over half (n=22) of the journals found to have eligible infographics were included. Additionally, four journals included three studies, five journals included two studies and nine journals included one study. Three infographics did not contain a results section, 37 infographics did not contain a conclusions section and 2 full texts did not contain a conclusions section.

Of the 119 studies meeting the eligibility criteria, 34 (28.6%) had multiple primary outcomes and 26 (22%) had multiple interventions. 51 (43%) studies assessed outcomes at multiple time points, with 37 (73%) of these specifying a primary time point. Most included trials were prospectively registered (n=108, 91%), 42 (35%) were industry funded and 53 (44.5%) reported having conflicts of interest. The median journal impact factor was 7.3 (IQR: 4.9–20.6).

Spin in infographics, abstracts and full-texts articles

Spin was present in 39 (33%) infographics, 31 (26%) abstracts and 31 (26%) full texts ( table 2 ). While any evidence of spin occurred more frequently in infographics, infographics were not significantly more likely to contain spin than abstracts (OR 1.4; 95% CI 0.8 to 2.4) or full texts (OR 1.8; 95% CI 0.8 to 2.4). Additionally, abstracts were not more likely to contain spin than full texts (OR 1.0; 95% CI 0.6 to 1.8). The distribution of spin in infographics, abstracts and full texts only, combinations of these, and no spin in any section, is reported in online supplemental table 1 .

Spin in 119 infographics, abstracts and full-text articles*

Spin in results section

Infographics were significantly more likely to contain spin in the results than both abstracts (OR 2.1; 95% CI 1.1 to 4.1) and full texts (OR 4.3; 95% CI 1.9 to 9.5). Abstracts were not more likely to contain spin in the results than full texts (OR 2.0; 95% CI 0.9 to 4.8) ( table 2 ).

The most common strategies used to spin results sections of infographics and abstracts were highlighting the benefit of an intervention despite statistically non-significant effects (infographics: n=12 (10%); abstracts: n=6 (5%)) and focusing on statistically significant effects for secondary outcomes (infographics: n=10 (9%); abstracts: n=6 (5%)). Similarly, the strategy most used to spin results of full texts was highlighting the benefit of an intervention despite statistically non-significant effects (n=5, 4%). Infographics were significantly more likely than full texts to spin results by focusing on statistically significant effects for secondary outcomes (OR 5.5; 95% CI 1.2 to 25.8). No other comparisons were statistically significant ( online supplemental table 3 ).

Spin in conclusions section

Infographics were not significantly more likely to contain spin in the conclusion than abstracts (OR 0.8; 95% CI 0.4 to 1.6) or full texts (OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.3 to 1.4) and abstracts were not more likely to contain spin in the conclusion than full texts (OR 0.9; 95% CI 0.5 to 1.6) ( table 2 ). The most common strategy used to spin the conclusions sections of infographics, abstracts and full texts was highlighting the benefit of an intervention despite statistically non-significant effects (infographics: n=6 (7%); abstracts: n=13 (11%); full texts: n=13 (11%)). Specific strategies to spin conclusions sections were not more likely to occur in infographics compared with abstracts or full texts, or abstracts compared with full texts ( online supplemental table 2 ).

Factors associated with spin

Higher journal impact factor was associated with slightly lower odds of spin in infographics (OR 0.96 for a 1 unit increase in impact factor; 95% CI 0.92 to 0.99) and full texts (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.89 to 0.99), but not abstracts (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.01). Only infographics were less likely to contain spin (OR 0.2; 95% CI 0.1 to 0.9) if the trial was prospectively registered. No other significant associations were found ( table 3 ).

Factors associated with any spin in an infographic, abstract or full text

Summary of main findings

One-third of infographics summarising negative RCTs in journals in the top quintile of health and medical journals contain spin. Although the prevalence of spin was higher in infographics as compared with the corresponding abstract and full text, this difference was not statistically significant. Overall, the prevalence of spin in infographics, abstracts and full texts is problematically high, with greater than a quarter of each containing some form of spin.

The most common strategies used to spin results and conclusions were highlighting the benefit of interventions despite statistically non-significant effects and focusing on statistically significant effects for secondary outcomes. Infographics were 2 and 4 times more likely to contain spin in the results section than both abstracts and full texts, respectively. Preregistered trials and trials published in high-impact factor journals were less likely to contain spin in their infographics. To help readers avoid spin when designing an infographic, table 4 describes the different types of spin we investigated, with an explanation of each type and brief advice on how to avoid each type of spin.

Explanation of different types of spin and tips on how to avoid them

Interpretation

Results from this study support previous work demonstrating that most infographics do not report sufficient information for readers to appropriately interpret findings. 1 While infographics can increase the attention research receives, 2–5 12 many people—especially those not involved in research/academia—use infographics as a substitute for reading full-text articles. 6 As such, the use of infographics in health and medical research may attract more readers, but at the cost of presenting insufficient information to appropriately interpret study findings. This issue is particularly worrisome in healthcare as an inappropriate interpretation of study findings could affect healthcare provider and patient decision-making.

Spin was not unique to infographics in the present study and was highly prevalent in abstracts and full texts as well. These findings support the notion that although initiatives like public research protocols, prespecified endpoints, and peer review exist to improve integrity and reporting of studies, researchers may possess considerable flexibility in the manner in which they present outcomes. 8 Consequently, the data do not always ‘speak for themselves’ and may be distorted in scientific publications. 7 8 13 While RCTs reduce sources of bias and are considered the ‘gold standard’ in effectiveness research, 14 considerable spin still exists in the reporting of these studies, particularly when outcomes are not statistically significant. 7 15

A previous study by Boutron et al assessed the prevalence of spin in abstracts and full texts of RCTs with non-significant findings for primary outcomes. 7 It found substantially higher prevalences of spin compared with the present study in abstracts (results: 37.5% vs 14% in this analysis; conclusion: 58.0% vs 24% in this analysis) and full texts (results: 29.2% vs 8% in this analysis; conclusion: 50.0% vs 26% in this analysis). 7 There are several explanations for these differences. The present study investigated more RCTs (119 RCTs from 40 journals vs 72) compared with the study by Boutron et al and likely has more representative results. In addition, our assessment only included studies published in journals in the top quintile of medicine and health, whereas journal rank was not part of Boutron et al ’s inclusion criteria. Therefore, the present study may have included higher-quality articles that were less likely to spin findings. A search containing less-cited journals may have resulted in higher prevalences of spin, as demonstrated by the association between journal impact factor and the likelihood of spin in the infographic, abstract and full text that was found.

The high prevalence of spin in infographics published alongside articles in top health and medical journals underscores the need to improve the reporting of research in infographics, similar to ongoing efforts to improve the reporting of abstracts and full texts. 11 16 17 The Reporting of Infographics and Visual Abstracts of Comparative studies (RIVA-C) checklist and guide was recently developed following a review of how infographics report research and a two-stage, modified Delphi survey of 92 infographic developers/designers, researchers, health professionals and other key stakeholders. 10 The checklist and guide include 10 items to facilitate the creation of clear, transparent and sufficiently detailed infographics which summarise comparative studies of health and medical interventions. Appropriate dissemination and uptake of this checklist and guide have the potential to improve the completeness with which research findings are presented in infographics and subsequently reduce spin.

Limitations

While this assessment of spin involved the identification of specific strategies used to spin findings, the assessment of spin required the interpretation of data, which is inevitably subjective. 18 Measures were taken to reduce subjectivity by having two researchers independently extract data using a standardised data extraction form, compare responses and resolve disagreements by discussion or consultation with one-third researcher. Trial findings were dichotomised as positive versus negative for inclusion based on p values. However, there are known criticisms of the interpretation of trial findings based solely on these thresholds. 19 Inclusion of eligible studies was limited to four per journal to avoid biasing results towards journals publishing more infographics. As such, the total number of trials meeting our study’s inclusion criteria is unknown.

One-third of infographics published in top health and medical journals summarising negative RCTs contain spin. Although the prevalence of spin was higher in infographics as compared with the corresponding abstract and full text, this difference was not statistically significant. A higher journal impact factor was associated with slightly decreased odds of spin in infographics and full texts, but not in abstracts. Infographics, but not abstracts or full texts, were less likely to contain spin if the trial was prospectively registered. Conflicts of interest and industry sponsorship were not associated with spin in infographics, abstracts or full texts. Given the increasing popularity of infographics to disseminate research findings, there is an urgent need to improve the reporting of research in infographics.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not applicable.

Ferreira GE ,
Elkins MR ,
Jones C , et al
Huang SYM , et al
Ibrahim AM ,
Lillemoe KD ,
Klingensmith ME , et al
Martin LJ ,
Yeh CH , et al
O’Keeffe M , et al
Boutron I ,
Ravaud P , et al
Fletcher RH ,
Stahl-Timmins W , et al
Elm E von ,
Altman DG ,
Egger M , et al
Webb A , et al
Hariton E ,
Locascio JJ
Hewitt CE ,
Mitchell N ,
Torgerson DJ
Cuschieri S
Liberati A ,
Tetzlaff J , et al
Kaptchuk TJ
Thiese MS ,

X @giovanni_ef, @zadro_josh

Contributors JZ and GF conceptualised the study. JZ, RM, GB, ARG, JS and JK extracted data. JZ analysed the data. JZ and RM had substantial contributions to interpretation of the data. RM and JZ drafted the manuscript. GB, GF, ARG, JS and JK critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript for submission. All authors had access to the data in the study and took responsibility for the integrity of the data and accuracy of reporting and data analysis. RM is the guarantor. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.

Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. RM is supported by a Health Services Research and Development postdoctoral fellowship (Connecticut Veterans Health Administration, United States). GF is supported by an NHMRC fellowship (APP2009808). JZ is supported by an NHMRC fellowship (APP1194105).

Disclaimer Findings will be disseminated at scientific conferences and through media.

Competing interests None declared.

Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

COMMENTS

Ten simple rules for innovative dissemination of research
The motivation to disseminate research can come in many forms. You might want to share your findings with wider nonacademic audiences to raise awareness of particular issues or invite audience engagement, participation, and feedback. Start by asking yourself what you want to achieve with your dissemination.
How to disseminate your research
Principles of good dissemination. Stakeholder engagement: Work out who your primary audience is; engage with them early and keep in touch throughout the project, ideally involving them from the planning of the study to the dissemination of findings. This should create 'pull' for your research i.e. a waiting audience for your outputs.
PDF How to disseminate your research
Case studies - click for examples of effective dissemination. » Case study 1: Using blogs, podcasts and social media to increase reach. » Case study 2: Making use of press releases and infographics. » Case study 3: BITES and Signals to showcase findings. » Case study 4: New ways of utilising steering groups for dissemination.
A Guide to Effective Dissemination of Research
4. Manage the timeline and resources. Time constraints are an inevitable part of research dissemination. Deadlines for publications can be months apart, conferences may only happen once a year, etc. Any avenue used to disseminate the research must be carefully planned around to avoid missed opportunities.
PDF Ten simple rules for innovative dissemination of research
The motivation to disseminate research can come in many forms. You might want to share your findings with wider nonacademic audiences to raise awareness of particular issues or invite audience engagement, participation, and feedback. Start by asking yourself what you want to achieve with your dissemination.
Communicating and disseminating research findings to study participants
The researcher interview guide was designed to understand researchers' perspectives on communicating and disseminating research findings to participants; explore past experiences, if any, of researchers with communication and dissemination of research findings to study participants; document any approaches researchers may have used or intend ...
Create a Research Dissemination Plan
What kinds of research findings do you want to share (data, videos, images, etc.)? Does your research contain sensitive or protected data? Will you need to place conditions or restrictions on the recipient? Which parts of your research are you allowing your recipient to use for publication? With whom will you share your research findings?
Disseminating the Findings of your Research Study
Disseminating the Findings of your Research Study. It is very important to find appropriate ways to disseminate the findings of your research - projects that sit on office or library shelves and are seldom or never read represent a tragic loss to the profession. A key dimension of research dissemination is to be actively involved with ...
Ten tips to improve the visibility and dissemination of research for
The full potential for research evidence to influence changes in decision-making and policy and practice is not yet being realised. 1 Keeping in mind the growing interest in bridging the gap between research and policy and practice, effective dissemination in an appropriate format is of vital importance. If we wish to maximise the benefits of publication and its eventual influence on policy ...
PDF Do-It-Yourself Dissemination: Efficiently and effectively disseminating
Step 1: Check-in with your JHU media office if you think your findings are newsworthy. Media attention is one of the most efficient ways to broadly disseminate findings, and the communications team can help. Also check-in with the journal's media office to see if they have interest in promoting the findings. Step 2: If the communications team ...
Disseminating research findings: what should researchers do? A
We define dissemination as a planned process that involves consideration of target audiences and the settings in which research findings are to be received and, where appropriate, communicating and interacting with wider policy and health service audiences in ways that will facilitate research uptake in decision-making processes and practice.
PDF Quick-Start Guide to Dissemination for Practice-Based Research Networks
All dissemination should have a purpose and should support or inform project development in some way. The purpose of the activity may be to: Raise awareness—let others know what you are doing. Inform—educate the community. Engage—get input/feedback from the community. Promote—'sell' your outputs and results.
Do-It-Yourself Dissemination Tool Kit
We have developed the "Do-It-Yourself Dissemination Took Kit" to assist you in fulfilling your responsibility to disseminate your findings to relevant stakeholders, including: 1) those who may not have access publications, including people with the condition (s) of interest, advocacy groups, program and policy decision makers, funders, and ...
15.3 Disseminating Findings
15.3 Disseminating Findings Presenting your work, as discussed in Section 15.1 "Presenting Your Research", is one way of disseminating your research findings. In this section, we will focus on disseminating the written results of your research.Dissemination refers to "a planned process that involves consideration of target audiences and the settings in which research findings are to be ...
What is dissemination of research and why is it so important?
Every research paper should include a component for dissemination and communication of research findings. Both lead to a greater understanding of research findings, improved public engagement in science, and higher social respect in research. ... Indicators of disseminating a research. When disseminating your study, you must assess if the ...
12.2 Disseminating your findings
Disseminating findings takes planning and careful consideration of your audiences. The dissemination process includes determining the who, where, and how of reaching your audiences. Plagiarism is among the most egregious academic transgressions a scholar can commit. In formal presentations, include your research question, methodological ...
PDF How to disseminate your research
Principles of good disseminationStakeholder engagement: Work out who your primary audience is; engage with them early and keep in touch throughout the project, ideally involving the. from planning to dissemination. This should create 'pull' for your research i.e. a w. iting audience for your outputs. You may also have secondary.
Research Dissemination
Research that is presented to the mass media should de-emphasize the theoretical implications and highlight the immediate and potential impacts this knowledge has on society. Maintain discussion of your research. In some ways, research dissemination is an active process that extends beyond papers and presentations.
Disseminate Your Research
Disseminate Your Research. The ultimate "deliverable" of research is new or validated knowledge—and to be truly useful, knowledge must be shared. Research involves many steps, and sharing the results of your efforts is the next task that lies before you after the working phase of your project has been completed-or is at last well under way.
Responsible dissemination of health and medical research: some guidance
Dissemination has been defined as 'the targeted distribution of information and intervention materials to a specific public health or clinical practice audience', 1 and as being 'simply about getting the findings of your research to the people who can make use of them, to maximise the benefit of the research without delay'. 2 Ethics ...
Communicating and disseminating research findings to study ...
Introduction: Translating research findings into practice requires understanding how to meet communication and dissemination needs and preferences of intended audiences including past research participants (PSPs) who want, but seldom receive, information on research findings during or after participating in research studies. Most researchers want to let others, including PSP, know about their ...
Dissemination of Research Results: On the Path to Practice Change
The dissemination of research is an important first step on the path toward knowledge translation and practice change. Presenting research at professional meetings allows for more rapid dissemination of research findings, but the audience may be narrow, and the depth of information that can be provided in this format is limited.
Do infographics 'spin' the findings of health and medical research
Given the increasing popularity of infographics to disseminate research findings, there is an urgent need to improve the reporting of research in infographics. Data availability statement. Data are available on reasonable request. Original data may be made available by the authors on reasonable request.

How to disseminate your research

What does NIHR mean by dissemination?

Principles of good dissemination

Your dissemination plan: things to consider

More advice on dissemination

What you need to know about research dissemination

1. Identify your audience

2. Create the content

3. Take a strategic approach to dissemination

4. Manage the timeline and resources

Making formal presentations

Communication with stakeholders

Engaging with the public

Should you be using a customer insights hub?

Editor’s picks

Latest articles

Create a Research Dissemination Plan

Doing Research in Counselling and Psychotherapy

Website Navigation for Screen Readers

Research Communications

Team Members

Questions or Feedback?

Do-It-Yourself Dissemination Tool Kit

1) Tool Kit User Guide

2) Dissemination Executive Summary: Template 3) Dissemination Executive Summary: Example

4) Dissemination Executive Summary – Elected Officials: Template 5) Dissemination Executive Summary – Elected Officials: Example

Website Footer Navigation

15.3 Disseminating Findings

Share This Book

What is the dissemination of research and why is it so important?

Why is the dissemination of research important?

Open science for all

Indicators of disseminating a research

Qualitative measurements

Quantitative measurements

How can a graphical abstract help disseminate your research?

How to create a graphical abstract easily?

Subscribe to our newsletter

About Jessica Abbadia

Content tags

12.2 Disseminating your findings

Tailoring your message to your audience

Peer-reviewed journal articles

Formal presentations

Presentations to stakeholders

Disseminating to the general public

Key Takeaways

Image attributions

Share This Book

Research Dissemination | Best Practices & Tips

Introduction

Turn research into key insights with ATLAS.ti

Presentations

Research publications

Scientific communication

Mainstream dissemination

Member checking

Peer debriefing

Data repositories

Make the most of your qualitative data with ATLAS.ti

Disseminate Your Research

Opportunities for Dissemination

SURCA (the Showcase for Undergraduate Research and Creative Activities)

Bruya-Wood Undergraduate Research Conference

Dept. of Psychology Undergraduate Research Symposium

Publication Opportunities at WSU

Presentations at the Regional, National, and International Levels

Travel Award Applications and Preparing to Present

Publication Opportunities at Regional, National, and International Levels

Save citation to file

Add to My Bibliography

Communicating and disseminating research findings to study participants: Formative assessment of participant and researcher expectations and preferences

Similar articles

Related information

LinkOut - more resources

Miscellaneous

Dissemination of Research Results: On the Path to Practice Change

RESEARCH DISSEMINATION AT PROFESSIONAL CONFERENCES

PREPARATION OF A RESEARCH PAPER

Authorship and Journal Selection Guidelines