Formation of a Dialogue Focus Group

Published July 2000

In an effort to facilitate the process of translating research into practice, and in turn respond to the needs of practitioners through research, the Northeastern States Addiction Technology Transfer Center (NS-ATTC) invited a group of Western New York practitioners to participate in a forum of dialogue and feedback designed to bridge the practice-research gap.

The focus group consisted of two NS-ATTC staff members and four practitioners from area addiction treatment facilities. Numbers of participants were kept to a manageable minimum, given the preliminary and introductory nature of the effort.

To begin, NS-ATTC staff decided to focus on the utility of disseminated research as it is received by agency practitioners. Specifically, our group was asked to examine an example of a research summary published and distributed by a local addictions research facility. After allowing a few minutes for reading, the panel was polled for their immediate reaction to the format, content, and practicality of the research summary.

Feedback was gathered (and captured using an audio tape recorder), and used to shape and guide the re-creation of the original summary into a more "user-friendly" form. A summary of the focus group discussion as well as the entire text of the discussion are also offered for viewing on this site. The September 2000 Research & Practice Dialogue, a translation of research results into a summary that practitioners should find useful, incorporates the suggestions offered by the focus group. And as an extension of the September Research and Practice Dialogue, the January 2001 Research & Practice Dialogue focuses upon engagement and retention strategies that could be implemented if a client could not be scheduled for an appointment within 48 hours of the initial phone call.

Charles Syms began with a brief overview of the mission of the Northeastern States Addiction Technology Transfer Center (NS-ATTC), its purpose in the tri-state area (New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania), and the goal of the meeting between NS-ATTC staff and area addictions treatment providers. Syms explained that the hope is to continue this session as an ongoing discussion forum of linking research findings with professionals in the field for whom those findings would be relevant. In turn, providers are able to articulate for researchers the kinds of studies that would benefit the treatment community.

Some participants were unaware of the existence of the School of Social Work's Center for Research on Urban Social Work Practice and felt that an immediate goal of the NS-ATTC might be to promote facilities that already exist within the University. Another participant encouraged equal emphasis on the preventive aspect of treatment services.                  

The meeting centered on the Research Institute on Addiction's (RIA) efforts at research dissemination via their periodical entitled, "Research in Brief" (RIB). These newsletters are 1-3 page summaries of research that has been conducted by scientists at RIA and are condensed forms of the studies' final write-ups, which are oftentimes published as journal articles. For the sake of time, two RIBs were selected for review at the present meeting. First, Stasiewicz and Stalker's (1999) research on first visit cancellation rates by addictions clients was discussed. Next, Rychtarik and McGillicuddy's (1998) study on the Spouse Situation Inventory (SSI) was reviewed.

Meeting participants were allowed time to read over the first article and were then polled for their feedback about the content and presentation of what they had read. Two primary issues were raised with the Stasiewicz and Stalker article. First, one participant commented on the length of time required to read over the summary. He suggested not to re-write it to a lower reading level, but to "repackage it," meaning to make it more readable for professionals with little time to devote to informational resources. Another participant agreed and suggested bulleted headlines at the beginning of the article that summarize the major points that the RIB is trying to convey to the reader. It was also suggested that alternative explanations for the findings that are not discussed be addressed.

The Rychtarik and McGillicuddy article discussed the researchers' development of the SSI, an instrument
designed to measure the coping abilities of women with alcoholic partners. Overall, participants found this summary requiring more time and effort to read and absorb than the first RIB presented. Comments regarding the summary referred to its length (being too "wordy"), the condensed nature of the summary (that it was so condensed that too many details were lost in the process), and the authors' speculation (rather than concrete findings that make the implementation of the instrument feasible).

Overall, the participants felt positive about the RIBs and RIA's efforts, but expressed concern regarding the ability (or desire) of the agencies to implement interventions and other findings that haven't been broadly tested or implemented elsewhere. The question was raised whether other treatment facilities were making use of or applying the information found in the RIBs.