Dissemination

There are various ways in which the results of research studies can be disseminated (see Table 10.19). A level 1 of dissemination, involving very restricted (or no) dissemination of results, is rarely advised. Even if a study does not result in significant or meaningful findings, there are still a number of reasons why it is ethical to make these results available. This is covered more in Chapter 12. The

Table 10.17 The spectrum of options for financial research outcomes

1

2

3

4

5

Depth/length

The study has not considered financial outcomes or has found financial losses from the project.

The study has demonstrated a sustainable use of resources and a reliable business model to run the arts intervention.

The study has demonstrated that the intervention is more cost- effective than similar interventions for the same target group.

the study has demonstrated financial benefits for the wider health service, focusing on immediate or short-term effects.

the study has demonstrated long-term financial benefits from the intervention for the health service.

Breadth/reach

The study did not find any financial benefits focusing on the costs directly associated with the target health condition.

The study has demonstrated financial benefits in relation to the individual's wider health costs.

the study has demonstrated financial benefits for the main healthcare system in relation to individuals involved in the intervention and healthcare professionals, carers, or relatives.

the study has demonstrated financial benefits of the intervention extending beyond health, such as in social care, employment, or housing.

the study has demonstrated financial benefits for society as a whole.

exception to this might be if conflicting events seriously impact on the study meaning that data are unreliable, but in this case a detailed process evaluation may be publishable. Level 2 involves some research dissemination, but with only a local reach, such as a report going to stakeholders involved in the study. Stronger dissemination (level 3) involves publicizing findings in academic and public arenas, across both the arts sector and health sector so that patients, arts practitioners, and researchers become aware of the outcomes. This could include public-facing reports, magazine articles, conference presentations, or videos summarizing results. Level 4 involves more detailed reporting. This level of dissemination should involve peer-review journal publication of findings and may be accompanied by more public messaging, such as social media to further the reach outside academia. Finally, a high level of dissemination could, in addition, involve a distinct strategy to engage healthcare professionals and provide training related to the findings, such as programmes to teach arts practitioners how to lead a similar intervention themselves. Dissemination could in

Table 10.18 The spectrum of options for artistic research outcomes

1

2

3

4

5

Depth/length

The research study did not examine artistic outcomes, or there was evidence of poor artistic outcomes for individuals involved.

The study has demonstrated basic artistic outcomes, such as

enjoyment from participants in the artistic process or the acquisition of basic artistic skills.

The study has demonstrated the artistic impact on participants in greater detail, such as showing that participants have

expanded their knowledge, appreciation, or experience of an art form.

The study has demonstrated artistic learning and development including skill acquisition for participants and shown indications of lasting effects.

the study has demonstrated meaningful improvements in the acquisition of artistic skills among participants, meaning they could lead their own projects in the future.

Breadth/reach

the study found no evidence of effects on the individual involved in the intervention.

The study found evidence that the artistic experience impacted on the wider life of the individual involved, outside the intervention.

The study found evidence of impact on the artists involved too.

the study additionally found that those connected to the individual were affected and changed their attitude towards or became more engaged with the arts as a result of the intervention.

the study found that the artistic involvement of the individual (and perhaps the artistic outputs) led to a shift in public perception towards the target group.

Table 10.19 The spectrum of options for disseminating research findings

1

2

3

4

5

Basic or restricted dissemination of results is attempted.

some

dissemination of results and publicity about the project is undertaken but it is informal and predominantly local.

Good reports of results take place across arts and health sectors, across both academic and public arenas, with some national reach.

Full reporting takes place through academic streams (adhering to reporting guidelines on good practice) and public streams (perhaps with multi-media links or public performances) with national reach.

the project dissemination has a distinct strategy with a goal of engaging public and professionals, promoting learning, and possibly offering training/ capacity-building at national and international level.

turn lead to increased chances of the intervention being taken forwards in the future, leading into the next point: implementation.

Guidelines exist to support thorough reporting of studies, such as the TREND statement, which provides a checklist for reporting controlled studies in sufficient detail (www.cdc.gov/trendstatement), or the CONSORT statement for randomized controlled studies (www.consort-statement.org).

 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >