Knowledge translation in developing countries

Access, sources and value of new medical information: views of final year medical students at the University of Nairobi

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate final year medical students' access to new medical information.

METHOD

Cross-sectional survey of final year medical students at the University of Nairobi using anonymous, self-administered questionnaires.

RESULTS

Questionnaires were distributed to 85% of a possible 343 students and returned by 44% (152). Half reported having accessed some form of new medical information within the previous 12 months, most commonly from books and the internet. Few students reported regular access; and specific, new journal articles were rarely accessed. Absence of internet facilities, slow internet speed and cost impeded access to literature; and current training seems rarely to encourage students to seek new information.

CONCLUSION

Almost half the students had not accessed any new medical information in their final year in medical school. This means they are ill prepared for a career that may increasingly demand life-long, self-learning.

Development of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs): comparing approaches

BACKGROUND

While the potential of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to support implementation of evidence has been demonstrated, it is not currently being achieved. CPGs are both poorly developed and ineffectively implemented. To improve clinical practice and health outcomes, both well-developed CPGs and effective methods of CPG implementation are needed. We sought to establish whether there is agreement on the fundamental characteristics of an evidence-based CPG development process and to explore whether the level of guidance provided in CPG development handbooks is sufficient for people using these handbooks to be able to apply it.

METHODS

CPG development handbooks were identified through a broad search of published and grey literature. Documents published in English produced by national or international organisations purporting to support development of evidence-based CPGs were included. A list of 14 key elements of a CPG development process was developed. Two authors read each handbook. For each handbook a judgement was made as to how it addressed each element; assigned as: 'mentioned and clear guidance provided', 'mentioned but limited practical detail provided ', or 'not mentioned'.

RESULTS

Six CPG development handbooks were included. These were produced by the Council of Europe, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the UK, the New Zealand Guidelines Group, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network, and the World Health Organization (WHO).There was strong concordance between the handbooks on the key elements of an evidence-based CPG development process. All six of the handbooks require and provide guidance on establishment of a multidisciplinary guideline development group, involvement of consumers, identification of clinical questions or problems, systematic searches for and appraisal of research evidence, a process for drafting recommendations, consultation with others beyond the guideline development group, and ongoing review and updating of the CPG.

CONCLUSION

The key elements of an evidence-based CPG development process are addressed with strong concordance by existing CPG development handbooks. Further research is required to determine why these key elements are often not addressed by CPG developers.

Funding agencies in low- and middle-income countries: support for knowledge translation

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to describe how selected health research funding agencies active in low- and middle-income countries promote the translation of their funded research into policy and practice.

METHODS

We conducted inductive analysis of semi-structured interviews with key informants from a purposive sample of 23 national and international funding agencies that fund health research in Brazil, Colombia, India, the Philippines, South Africa and Thailand. We also surveyed web sites.

FINDINGS

We found a commitment to knowledge translation in the mandate of 18 of 23 agencies. However, there was a lack of common terminology. Most of the activities were traditional efforts to disseminate to a broad audience, for example using web sites and publications. In addition, more than half (13 of 23) of the agencies encouraged linkage/exchange between researchers and potential users, and 6 of 23 agencies described "pull" activities to generate interest in research from decision-makers. One-third (9 of 23) of funding agencies described a mandate to enhance health equity through improving knowledge translation. Only 3 of 23 agencies were able to describe evaluation of knowledge translation activities. Furthermore, we found national funding agencies made greater knowledge translation efforts when compared to international agencies.

CONCLUSION

Funding agencies are engaged in a wide range of creative knowledge translation activities. They might consider their role as knowledge brokers, with an ability to promote research syntheses and a focus on health equity. There is an urgent need to evaluate the knowledge translation activities of funding agencies.

Knowledge translation for research utilization: design of a knowledge translation model at Tehran University of Medical Sciences

INTRODUCTION

The present study aimed to generate a model that would provide a conceptual framework for linking disparate components of knowledge translation. A theoretical model of such would enable the organization and evaluation of attempts to analyze current conditions and to design interventions on the transfer and utilization of research knowledge.

METHODS

This research, performed in 2006-2007 at the Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS), utilized two distinct methodologies: a narrative review to identify existing knowledge transfer models and frameworks and focus group discussions to determine the views and opinions of researchers and decision makers regarding barriers to knowledge translation within the health system.

RESULTS

A knowledge translation cycle is described, with five domains: knowledge creation, knowledge transfer, research utilization, question transfer, and the context of organization.

DISCUSSION

The knowledge translation cycle offers a theoretical basis for identifying basic requirements and linking mechanisms in the translation of knowledge for research utilization.