Table 3.

Mixed methods results displaying complementarity (N =7)

Quantitative	Qualitative
Q1: Is the IDW effective for collaboration and growth? Yes, overall, both face-to-face and virtual IDW participants indicated positive agreement that they learned something they did not know, thought they could apply a lot of what they learned in their own work, and believed they had a firmer grasp of the principles and methods of implementation research.	Q1: What makes it effective or what impacts effectiveness? Qualitative participants indicated that in both face-to-face and virtual formats, they received thoughtful and helpful feedback from experts in the field, and interactions were positive and professional. While participants indicated that both formats facilitated making connections with colleagues, they also indicated that in-person IDWs offered more options for networking and socializing than virtual IDWs.
Q2: Does the IDW enhance success in obtaining grants (effective)? Yes, the IDWs were effective with many presenters both submitting the grant proposals they presented and successfully receiving funding for those proposals.	Q2: How does it enhance success in obtaining grants? Participants reported that the IDW offered concrete ideas for revising their proposals and that hearing how others viewed the project helps them to reframe their own thoughts. Many responded that they incorporated feedback received at the IDW and that subsequent proposals were funded. A few participants also noted that the objective of the IDW (i.e., to provide feedback on a proposal rather than a completed project) was an effective tool for the purpose of obtaining better funding outcomes.
Q3: Is the IDW acceptable/satisfying? Yes, participants indicated that they were not bored and did not find discussions confusing. They also agreed that they would be interested in presenting proposals at future IDWs.	Q3: What about the IDW makes it acceptable/satisfying? Participants indicated that the online platform was easy to use, and that the structured process of both the in-person and virtual IDW made it easy to participate. Most participants expressed a preference for the in-person IDW, however, satisfaction with outcomes did not seem to differ in substantial ways between formats. The benefit of senior colleague/expert involvement was mentioned as an element that made the experience particularly satisfying.
Q4: Is the IDW structure and facilitation process acceptable and/or satisfying? Yes, participants agreed in both face-to-face and virtual IDWs that the structure of the IDW and facilitation process was effective and/or acceptable. See Table 1 for detailed items. Only four differences were found between formats. Face-to-face IDW participants rated the idea that limiting the use of technology was helpful to get to the issues, that the day was too long, and having a break between talks would be better higher than virtual participants. Face-to-face IDW presenters also found the notes of feedback more helpful than the virtual presenters did.	Q4: What about the structure and facilitation process makes it acceptable and/or satisfying? Participants cited many aspects of the IDW as very helpful, including note-taking, three questions, limited technology, and the role of the facilitator. The single comment rule was also seen as helpful for managing discussion, though a few participants mentioned concerns that this rule may have limited depth of the discussion. Participants also indicated that although doing more presentations during the in-person IDWs was tiring, it makes sense to do this given the costs associated with in-person meetings.