Dissemination in Extension: Health Specialists' Information Sources and Channels for Health Promotion Programming

Abstract

In the National Cooperative Extension System (herein: Extension), state-level specialists serve as key intermediaries between research, educators, and the community members they serve. There is a need to understand information seeking and sharing practices (i.e., dissemination) among specialists to increase the adoption of evidence-based health promotion programs. Specialists (N = 94) across 47 states were identified and invited to participate in this mixed methods study. A one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni corrections was used to analyze survey data. Data collected through semi-structured interviews were analyzed using an immersion crystallization approach. Forty-seven health specialists completed the survey representing 31 eligible states (65%) and were predominately female (89%), Caucasian (70%), had a doctorate (62%), and were employed within Extension for 10.2 + 9.7 years. The information sources used most frequently were academic journals and other specialists, and most used email and online meetings to communicate. Qualitative findings support the use of other specialists as a primary source of information and indicate specialists' desire for an on-demand, bi-directional, online national repository of Extension programs. This repository would facilitate the dissemination of evidence-based programming across the system and reduce program duplication as well as information burden on county-based educators.

Keywords: Cooperative Extension; diffusion of innovations; dissemination; health promotion; mixed-methods; translational science.

Figure 1

Specialists’ Information Sources. These data are reported in a frequency format with color-coded stacked bars representing the frequency of the sample that valued each information source. Information sources are listed in order of significance. Lettering at the end of the bars were indicates statistical differences between each source. That is, each letter indicates the presence of a statistically significant difference between that source and any differently lettered sources. Identical lettering indicates that there is no statistical difference (p > 0.05) between sources. For example, “Previously Purchased Curriculum,” lettered “BCD,” is only statistically different than “Academic Journals,” which is labeled as “A”.

Figure 2

Specialists’ Information Channels. These data are reported in a frequency format with color-coded stacked bars representing the frequency of the sample that valued each information channel. Information channels are listed in order of significance. Lettering at the end of the bars were indicates statistical differences between each channel. That is, each letter indicates the presence of a statistically significant difference between that channel and any differently lettered channel. Identical lettering indicates that there is no statistical difference (p > 0.05) between channels.

Figure 3

Specialists’ Information Channels Used for Educator Communication. These data are reported in a frequency format with color-coded stacked bars representing the frequency of the sample that valued each information channel. Information channels are listed in order of significance. Lettering at the end of the bars were indicates statistical differences between each channel. That is, each letter indicates the presence of a statistically significant difference between that channel and any differently lettered channel. Identical lettering indicates that there is no statistical difference (p > 0.05) between channels.