Mapping methods: charting future priorities for research methods in dissemination and implementation science

Closing the knowledge-practice gap requires applying research methods to advance the impact of dissemination and implementation (D&I) science. The purpose of this study was to identify research methods that are key to closing the research-practice gap, as determined by D&I researchers. The study used Concept Mapping—a mixed, participatory method that uses a structured approach to solicit and organize group opinions about a specific conceptual area. Ninety-eight researchers with expertise in D&I science (e.g. those associated with D&I research centers, training programs) were invited to participate in the study via the GroupWisdom online platform. Participants first completed the brainstorming prompt: “To accelerate the dissemination and implementation of evidence-based chronic disease prevention and control programs and policies, the most important research methods are…” Statements were reviewed for clarity and de-duplicated. Participants then sorted statements into similar groupings and rated statements according to 1) how important they are to D&I research and 2) how frequently they are currently used. The research team identified a cluster map depicting groupings of research methods derived from multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis of the sorted data. Twenty-six participants generated 108 statements, which were reduced to 89 after duplicates and extraneous statements were removed. Twenty-eight respondents sorted and rated those 89 statements. Twelve clusters were identified: theoretical and conceptual approaches; designing for dissemination; documenting and adapting implementation; measurement and evaluation; mechanism and cost analyses; user-centered design; partnerships and co-creation; analytic methods; systems and computational approaches; study designs; applied and adaptable methods, and rapid cycle methods. Participants ranked statements in the user-centered design cluster highest in importance, whereas designing for dissemination and analytic methods were ranked lowest in importance. Study designs was ranked the highest in frequency of use, while designing for dissemination, mechanism and cost analyses , and systems and computational approaches were ranked the least frequently used. These findings highlight clear priorities for methods development in D&I research, particularly in areas viewed as essential but remain underused. Aligning training, funding, and methodological innovation with these priorities can accelerate the rigor, relevance, and impact of D&I science.