A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers

Preterm birth in low-middle income Countries

Preterm birth (PTB), remains a major cause of significant morbidity and mortality world-wide with about 12-15million preterm births occurring every year. Although the overall trend is decreasing, this is mainly in high-income countries (HIC). The rate remains high in low-and middle-income countries (LMIC) varying on average between 10 and 12% compared to 9% in HIC. The pathogenesis of PTB is complex and multifactorial. Attempts to reduce rates that have focused on PTB as a single condition have in general been unsuccessful. However, more recent attempts to phenotype PTB have resulted in targeted preventative approaches which are yielding better results. Prevention (primary or secondary) is the only approach that has been shown to make a difference to rates of PTB. These include identifying risk factors pre-pregnancy and during pregnancy and instituting appropriate measures to address these. In LMIC, although some approaches that have been shown to be effective in some HIC are adaptable, there is a need to involve stakeholders at all levels in utilizing evidence preferrably generated in LMIC to implement strategies that are likely to reduce the rate of PTB. In this review, we focus on prevention and how to involve policy makers in the process of applying evidence into policy that would reduce PTB in LMIC.

Evidence-based decision-making in a climate of political expediency: insights from local government

AIMS

Local authorities in England are responsible for public health and health promotion. This article sought to explore how research and decision-making co-exist in a local authority in England.

METHODS

An Embedded Researcher was based within the local authority and used qualitative methodology to address the research aim. Interviews and focus groups were employed to ascertain a range of stakeholder views in the local authority. All transcripts were coded on NVivo 12 by the Embedded Researcher and two members of the research team cross-checked a sample for coding accuracy. Data were analysed using framework analysis.

RESULTS

The data suggest several barriers to using research to inform decision-making in health promotion and public health. The study shows that research is valued in local authorities, but not always privileged - this is due to cultural factors and practical political reasons which often means that decisions need to be made expediently. Participants outlined a juxtaposition between academic credibility; timeliness to complete the research and the financial cost associated with it; against the independence and credibility that independent academics could bring.

CONCLUSION

Policy formulation and delivery is an integral aspect of health promotion and critical to achieving improved population health and reductions in health inequalities. However, there exists tensions between gathering research evidence and making research-informed decisions. The article concludes by advocating the use of Embedded Researchers to fully understand how research is gathered and used to support public health and health promotion policymaking.

Barriers to and facilitators for creating, disseminating, implementing, monitoring and evaluating oral health policies in the WHO African region: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To advance oral health policies (OHPs) in the World Health Organization (WHO) African region, barriers to and facilitators for creating, disseminating, implementing, monitoring and evaluating OHPs in the region were examined.

METHODS

Global Health, Embase, PubMed, Public Affairs Information Service Index, ABI/Inform, Web of Science, Academic Search Complete, Scopus, Dissertations Global, Google Scholar, WHO's Institutional Repository for Information Sharing (IRIS), the WHO Noncommunicable Diseases Document Repository and the Regional African Index Medicus and African Journals Online were searched. Technical officers at the WHO Regional Office for Africa were contacted. Research studies and policy documents reporting barriers to and facilitators for OHP in the 47 Member States in the WHO African region published between January 2002 and March 2024 in English, French or Portuguese were included. Frequencies were used to summarize quantitative data, and descriptive content analysis was used to code and classify barrier and facilitator statements.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight reports, including 55 research articles and 33 policy documents, were included. The vast majority of the research articles and policy documents were country-specific, but they were lacking for most countries. Frequently mentioned barriers across policy at all stages included financial constraints, a limited and poorly organized workforce, deprioritization of oral health, the absence of health information systems, inadequate integration of oral health services within the overarching health system and limited oral health literacy. Facilitators included a renewed commitment to establishing national OHPs, recognition of a need to diversify the oral health workforce, and an increased understanding of the influence of social determinants of health among oral health care providers.

CONCLUSIONS

Most countries lack a country-specific body of evidence to assist policymakers in anticipating barriers to and facilitators for OHPs. The barriers and facilitators relevant to disparate subnational, national, and regional conditions and circumstances must be considered to advance the creation, dissemination, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of OHPs in the WHO African region.

The Power of Rapid Reviews for Bridging the Knowledge-to-Action Gap in Evidence-Based Virtual Health Care

Despite the surge in popularity of virtual health care services as a means of delivering health care through technology, the integration of research evidence into practice remains a challenge. Rapid reviews, a type of time-efficient evidence synthesis, offer a potential solution to bridge the gap between knowledge and action. This paper aims to highlight the experiences of the Fraser Health Authority's Virtual Health team in conducting rapid reviews. This paper discusses the experiences of the Virtual Health team in conducting 15 rapid reviews over the course of 1.5 years and the benefit of involving diverse stakeholders including researchers, project and clinical leads, and students for the creation of user-friendly knowledge products to summarize results. The Virtual Health team found rapid reviews to be a valuable tool for evidence-informed decision-making in virtual health care. Involving stakeholders and focusing on implementation considerations are crucial for maximizing the impact of rapid reviews. Health care decision makers are encouraged to consider implementing rapid review processes to improve the translation of research evidence into practice, ultimately enhancing patient outcomes and promoting a culture of evidence-informed care.

Exploring evidence use and capacity for health services management and planning in Swiss health administrations: A mixed-method interview study

BACKGROUND

Health administrations require evidence, meaning robust information, data, and research, on health services and systems. Little is known about the resources and processes available within administrations to support evidence-informed policymaking. This study assessed Swiss health administrations' capacity for evidence use and investigated civil servants' needs and perspectives regarding the role and use of evidence in health services management and planning.

METHODS

In this mixed-method study, we interviewed civil servants from Swiss German-speaking cantonal health administrations. We quantitatively assessed administrations' organization-level capacity by applying six structured interviews using an existing measurement tool (ORACLe). Individual-level needs and perspectives regarding evidence use and capacity were qualitatively explored with twelve in-depth interviews that were analyzed using the framework method.

FINDINGS

Respondents indicated moderate evidence-use capacity in all administrations. Administrations displayed a similar pattern of high and low capacity in specific capacity areas, generally with considerable variation within administrations. Most administrations indicated high capacity for producing or commissioning evidence and close relationships with research. They showed limited capacity in the documentation of processes and availability of tools, programs, or training opportunities. Administrations place the responsibility for engagement with evidence at the level of individual civil servants rather than at the organizational level. Although administrations highly value evidence-informed policymaking and consider it vital to effective health services management and planning, they face significant constraints in accessing evidence-specific resources and receive little organizational support. Administrations rely on external capacity to compensate for these limitations and engage with evidence pragmatically.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate moderate and improvable capacity for evidence use in Swiss health administrations that place limited value on organizational support. Besides strengthening organizational support, leadership buy-in, particular staff needs, and balancing the implementation of specific measures with the provision of more general resources should be considered to unlock the potential of strengthened engagement with evidence.

Evidence-informed stakeholder consultations to promote rights-based approaches for children with disabilities

Purpose

To strengthen the translation of evidence to actionable policy, stakeholder engagement is necessary to synthesize, prioritize and contextualize the academic research content into accessible language. In this manuscript we describe a multi-level evidence-based stakeholder consultation process and related outcomes proposed to promote awareness of and foster cross-sectorial collaborations towards human rights-based approaches for children with disabilities.

Methods

Mixed-methods participatory action research done in three steps: (1) A literature review of peer-reviewed evidence on rights-based approaches in childhood disabilities; (2) Consultation with researchers in diverse fields, grassroot organizations, caregivers, and youth with disabilities; (3) A constructive dialogue with decision makers at federal and provincial levels in Canada to discuss consultations results.

Results

Stakeholders value human rights approaches that can have a direct impact on practical aspects of their daily living. Organizations give high importance to adopting rights-based approaches to measure policy outcomes, while parents value service provision and youth emphasize accessibility.

Conclusion

The implementation of rights-based approaches in childhood disabilities can support policy, services, and daily lives of children with disabilities and the ecosystems around them. It can also guide research priorities, and create a common language to foster collaborations across sectors and interested parties.

From bench to policy: a critical analysis of models for evidence-informed policymaking in healthcare

Background

The use of research evidence in policy making is a complex and challenging process that has a long history in various fields, especially in healthcare. Different terms and concepts have been used to describe the relationship between research and policy, but they often lack clarity and consensus. To address this gap, several strategies and models have been proposed to facilitate evidence informed policy making and to identify the key factors and mechanisms involved. This study aims to critically review the existing models of evidence informed policy making (EIPM) in healthcare and to assess their strengths and limitations.

Method

A systematic search and review conducted to identify and critically assess EIPM models in healthcare. We searched PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases as major electronic databases and applied predefined inclusion criteria to select the models. We also checked the citations of the included models to find other scholars' perspectives. Each model was described and critiqued each model in detail and discussed their features and limitations.

Result

Nine models of EIPM in healthcare were identified. While models had some strengths in comprehension, flexibility and theoretical foundations, analysis also identified limitations including: presupposing rational policymaking; lacking alternatives for time-sensitive situations; not capturing policy complexity; neglecting unintended effects; limited context considerations; inadequate complexity concepts; limited collaboration guidance; and unspecified evidence adaptations.

Conclusion

The reviewed models provide useful frameworks for EIPM but need further improvement to address their limitations. Concepts from sociology of knowledge, change theory and complexity science can enrich the models. Future EIPM models should better account for the complexity of research-policy relationships and provide tailored strategies based on the policy context.

"Going into the black box": a policy analysis of how the World Health Organization uses evidence to inform guideline recommendations

Background

The World Health Organization (WHO) plays a crucial role in producing global guidelines. In response to previous criticism, WHO has made efforts to enhance the process of guideline development, aiming for greater systematicity and transparency. However, it remains unclear whether these changes have effectively addressed these earlier critiques. This paper examines the policy process employed by WHO to inform guideline recommendations, using the update of the WHO Consolidated HIV Testing Services (HTS) Guidelines as a case study.

Methods

We observed guideline development meetings and conducted semi-structured interviews with key participants involved in the WHO guideline-making process. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically. The data were deductively coded and analysed in line with the main themes from a published conceptual framework for context-based evidence-based decision making: introduction, interpretation, and application of evidence.

Results

The HTS guideline update was characterized by an inclusive and transparent process, involving a wide range of stakeholders. However, it was noted that not all stakeholders could participate equally due to gaps in training and preparation, particularly regarding the complexity of the Grading Recommendations Assessment Development Evaluation (GRADE) framework. We also found that WHO does not set priorities for which or how many guidelines should be produced each year and does not systematically evaluate the implementation of their recommendations. Our interviews revealed disconnects in the evidence synthesis process, starting from the development of systematic review protocols. While GRADE prioritizes evidence from RCTs, the Guideline Development Group (GDG) heavily emphasized "other" GRADE domains for which little or no evidence was available from the systematic reviews. As a result, expert judgements and opinions played a role in making recommendations. Finally, the role of donors and their presence as observers during GDG meetings was not clearly defined.

Conclusion

We found a need for a different approach to evidence synthesis due to the diverse range of global guidelines produced by WHO. Ideally, the evidence synthesis should be broad enough to capture evidence from different types of studies for all domains in the GRADE framework. Greater structure is required in formulating GDGs and clarifying the role of donors through the process.

Shifting the paradigm of research-to-policy impact: Infrastructure for improving researcher engagement and collective action

The body of scientific knowledge accumulated by the scholarly disciplines such as Developmental Psychopathology can achieve meaningful public impact if wielded and used in policy decision-making. Scientific study of how policymakers use research evidence underscores the need for researchers' policy engagement; however, barriers in the academy create conditions in which there is a need for infrastructure that increases the feasibility of researchers' partnership with policymakers. This need led to the development of the Research-to-Policy Collaboration model, a systematic approach for developing "boundary spanning" infrastructure, which has been experimentally tested and shown to improve policymakers' use of research evidence and bolster researchers' policy skills and engagement. This paper presents original research regarding the optimization of the RPC model, which sought to better serve and engage scholars across the globe. Trial findings shed light on ways to improve conditions that make good use of researchers' time for policy engagement via a virtual platform and enhanced e-communications. Future directions, implications, and practical guidelines for how scientists can engage in the political process and improve the impact of a collective discipline are also discussed.

Barriers to and facilitators for the creation, dissemination, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of oral health policies in the WHO Africa region: A scoping review protocol

Background

Evidence-informed oral health policies (OHP) can be instrumental in ending the neglect of oral health globally. When appropriately developed and implemented, OHP can improve the efficiency of healthcare systems and the quality of health outcomes. However, more than half of the countries in the World Health Organization (WHO) African region do not have an oral health policy or even the existence of a policy in need of additional and more national-specific OHP as part of non-communicable diseases and universal health coverage agendas. The objective of this protocol's study is to determine the barriers to and facilitators for the creation, dissemination, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of OHP in the WHO Africa region.

Methods

We will conduct a systematic search in Global Health, Embase, PubMed, PAIS, ABI/Inform, Web of Science, Academic Search Complete, Scopus, databases that index gray literature, and the WHO policy repositories. We will include qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods research studies and OHP documents published since January 1, 2002, which address stakeholders' perceptions and experiences regarding barriers to and facilitators for the creation, dissemination, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of OHP in countries part of the WHO African region. We will produce descriptive statistics (frequencies and proportions) for quantitative data and conduct descriptive content analysis for qualitative data.

Discussion

To effectively establish evidence-based OHP in the WHO African region, it is crucial to recognize existing challenges and opportunities for progress. The findings of this review will be relevant for Chief Dental Officers at ministries of health, administrators of dental schools, or academic institutions in the WHO African region and will inform a stakeholder dialogue meeting in Kenya in November of 2023.

Registration

Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9KMWR.

Effectively communicating with local policymakers: a randomized trial of policy brief dissemination to address obesity

Introduction

Evidence-based policies are a powerful tool for impacting health and addressing obesity. Effectively communicating evidence to policymakers is critical to ensure evidence is incorporated into policies. While all public health is local, limited knowledge exists regarding effective approaches for improving local policymakers' uptake of evidence-based policies.

Methods

Local policymakers were randomized to view one of four versions of a policy brief (usual care, narrative, risk-framing, and narrative/risk-framing combination). They then answered a brief survey including questions about their impressions of the brief, their likelihood of using it, and how they determine legislative priorities.

Results

Responses from 331 participants indicated that a majority rated local data (92%), constituent needs/opinions (92%), and cost-effectiveness data (89%) as important or very important in determining what issues they work on. The majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that briefs were understandable (87%), believable (77%), and held their attention (74%) with no brief version rated significantly higher than the others. Across the four types of briefs, 42% indicated they were likely to use the brief. Logistic regression models showed that those indicating that local data were important in determining what they work on were over seven times more likely to use the policy brief than those indicating that local data were less important in determining what they work on (aOR = 7.39, 95% CI = 1.86,52.57).

Discussion

Among local policymakers in this study there was no dominant format or type of policy brief; all brief types were rated similarly highly. This highlights the importance of carefully crafting clear, succinct, credible, and understandable policy briefs, using different formats depending on communication objectives. Participants indicated a strong preference for receiving materials incorporating local data. To ensure maximum effect, every effort should be made to include data relevant to a policymaker's local area in policy communications.

Considerations for Research Funders and Managers to Facilitate the Translation of Scientific Knowledge into Practice

Research funders and managers can play a critical role in supporting the translation of knowledge into action by facilitating the brokering of knowledge and partnerships. We use semi-structured interviews with a research funding agency, the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), to explore (i) ways that funders can facilitate knowledge brokering, the (ii) barriers to, and (iii) enablers for, facilitating knowledge brokering, and (iv) the individual skills and attributes for research program funders and managers to be effective brokers. Based on these findings, we generate three considerations for research funders elsewhere, in particular R4D funders, seeking to build capacity for knowledge brokering: (i) formalise the process and practice, (ii) develop shared language and understanding, and (iii) build individual competencies and capabilities. Our findings complement the existing literature with a context specific analysis of how research funders can facilitate knowledge brokering, and by identifying the barriers and enablers in doing so.

Activities used by evidence networks to promote evidence-informed decision-making in the health sector- a rapid evidence review

BACKGROUND

Evidence networks facilitate the exchange of information and foster international relationships among researchers and stakeholders. These networks are instrumental in enabling the integration of scientific evidence into decision-making processes. While there is a global emphasis on evidence-based decision-making at policy and organisational levels, there exists a significant gap in our understanding of the most effective activities to exchange scientific knowledge and use it in practice. The objective of this rapid review was to explore the strategies employed by evidence networks to facilitate the translation of evidence into decision-making processes. This review makes a contribution to global health policymaking by mapping the landscape of knowledge translation in this context and identifying the evidence translation activities that evidence networks have found effective.

METHODS

The review was guided by standardised techniques for conducting rapid evidence reviews. Document searching was based on a phased approach, commencing with a comprehensive initial search strategy and progressively refining it with each subsequent search iterations. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement was followed.

RESULTS

The review identified 143 articles, after screening 1135 articles. Out of these, 35 articles were included in the review. The studies encompassed a diverse range of countries, with the majority originating from the United States (n = 14), followed by Canada (n = 5), Sweden (n = 2), and various other single locations (n = 14). These studies presented a varied set of implementation strategies such as research-related activities, the creation of teams/task forces/partnerships, meetings/consultations, mobilising/working with communities, influencing policy, activity evaluation, training, trust-building, and regular meetings, as well as community-academic-policymaker engagement.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence networks play a crucial role in developing, sharing, and implementing high-quality research for policy. These networks face challenges like coordinating diverse stakeholders, international collaboration, language barriers, research consistency, knowledge dissemination, capacity building, evaluation, and funding. To enhance their impact, sharing network efforts with wider audiences, including local, national, and international agencies, is essential for evidence-based decision-making to shape evidence-informed policies and programmes effectively.

Bridging research-policy gaps: An integrated approach

It is often difficult for policymakers to make informed decisions without evidence-based support, resulting in potentially ineffective policies. The purpose of this article is to advocate for collaboration and communication between researchers and policymakers to enhance evidence-based policymaking. The workshop hosted by the International Society of Environmental Epidemiology-Eastern Mediterranean Chapter further explores the challenges of connecting researchers and policymakers. The article highlights the gap between researchers and policymakers, attributed to different visions and objectives, time constraints, and communication issues. To strengthen the research-policy interface, strategies such as enhanced communication skills and early involvement of policymakers in research are suggested. The article proposes an integrated model combining the Collaborative Knowledge Model and the policy entrepreneurship mindset, emphasizing the co-creation of knowledge and evidence-based policy solutions. The use of this model can lead to the development of evidence-based policies that effectively address societal needs.

Bridging the gap between pregnancy loss research and policy and practice: insights from a qualitative survey with knowledge users

BACKGROUND

The loss of a pregnancy or the death of baby around the time of their birth can have profound impacts on parents, families and staff involved. There is much opportunity to enhance the systematic uptake of evidence-based interventions to enhance service provision, lived experiences and outcomes. Challenges exist to translating pregnancy loss research evidence into policy and practice, however. Pregnancy loss remains a neglected area of research and resourcing and is steeped in stigma. While barriers and facilitators to the use of research evidence by decision-makers in public health and health services are well documented, we aimed to better understand the factors that influence the translation of pregnancy loss research into practice and policy.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative online survey of pregnancy loss research knowledge users in Ireland, identified through our clinical and academic networks, between January and March 2022. The survey comprised ten questions, with three closed questions, informed by the Knowledge Translation Planning Template©. Questions included who could benefit from pregnancy loss research, perceived barriers and facilitators to the use of research evidence and preferred knowledge translation strategies. We analysed data using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We included data from 46 participants in our analysis, from which we generated two central themes. The first-'End the silence; stigma and inequality around pregnancy loss to enhance awareness and understanding, public health and services and supports'-addresses issues related to the stigma, sensitivities and silence, lack of awareness and understanding, and lack of relevance or priority afforded to pregnancy loss. The second theme-'Use a range of tailored, accessible approaches to engage a large, diverse range of knowledge users'-highlights the need to use relevant, accessible, and engaging information, resources or materials in knowledge translation efforts, and a variety of tailored approaches to suit different audiences, including materials, workshops/webinars, media, knowledge brokers and champions or opinion leaders.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis provides rich insights into the barriers and facilitators to knowledge translation in the field of pregnancy loss research. We identified key strategies that can be used to inform knowledge translation planning in Ireland, and which have international applicability.

Evaluation of the use of modelling in resource allocation decisions for HIV and TB

INTRODUCTION

Globally, resources for health spending, including HIV and tuberculosis (TB), are constrained, and a substantial gap exists between spending and estimated needs. Optima is an allocative efficiency modelling tool that has been used since 2010 in over 50 settings to generate evidence for country-level HIV and TB resource allocation decisions. This evaluation assessed the utilisation of modelling to inform financing priorities from the perspective of country stakeholders and their international partners.

METHODS

In October to December 2021, the World Bank and Burnet Institute led 16 semi-structured small-group virtual interviews with 54 representatives from national governments and international health and funding organisations. Interviews probed participants' roles and satisfaction with Optima analyses and how model findings have had been used and impacted resource allocation. Interviewed stakeholders represented nine countries and 11 different disease programme-country contexts with prior Optima modelling analyses. Interview notes were thematically analysed to assess factors influencing the utilisation of modelling evidence in health policy and outcomes.

RESULTS

Common influences on utilisation of Optima findings encompassed the perceived validity of findings, health system financing mechanisms, the extent of stakeholder participation in the modelling process-including engagement of funding organisations, sociopolitical context and timeliness of the analysis. Using workshops can facilitate effective stakeholder engagement and collaboration. Model findings were often used conceptually to localise global evidence and facilitate discussion. Secondary outputs included informing strategic and financial planning, funding advocacy, grant proposals and influencing investment shifts.

CONCLUSION

Allocative efficiency modelling has supported evidence-informed decision-making in numerous contexts and enhanced the conceptual and practical understanding of allocative efficiency. Most immediately, greater involvement of country stakeholders in modelling studies and timing studies to key strategic and financial planning decisions may increase the impact on decision-making. Better consideration for integrated disease modelling, equity goals and financing constraints may improve relevance and utilisation of modelling findings.

A scoping review of theories, models and frameworks used or proposed to evaluate knowledge mobilization strategies

BACKGROUND

Evaluating knowledge mobilization strategies (KMb) presents challenges for organizations seeking to understand their impact to improve KMb effectiveness. Moreover, the large number of theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) available can be confusing for users. Therefore, the purpose of this scoping review was to identify and describe the characteristics of TMFs that have been used or proposed in the literature to evaluate KMb strategies.

METHODS

A scoping review methodology was used. Articles were identified through searches in electronic databases, previous reviews and reference lists of included articles. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened in duplicate. Data were charted using a piloted data charting form. Data extracted included study characteristics, KMb characteristics, and TMFs used or proposed for KMb evaluation. An adapted version of Nilsen (Implement Sci 10:53, 2015) taxonomy and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy (Powell et al. in Implement Sci 10:21, 2015) guided data synthesis.

RESULTS

Of the 4763 search results, 505 were retrieved, and 88 articles were eligible for review. These consisted of 40 theoretical articles (45.5%), 44 empirical studies (50.0%) and four protocols (4.5%). The majority were published after 2010 (n = 70, 79.5%) and were health related (n = 71, 80.7%). Half of the studied KMb strategies were implemented in only four countries: Canada, Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom (n = 42, 47.7%). One-third used existing TMFs (n = 28, 31.8%). According to the adapted Nilsen taxonomy, process models (n = 34, 38.6%) and evaluation frameworks (n = 28, 31.8%) were the two most frequent types of TMFs used or proposed to evaluate KMb. According to the ERIC taxonomy, activities to "train and educate stakeholders" (n = 46, 52.3%) were the most common, followed by activities to "develop stakeholder interrelationships" (n = 23, 26.1%). Analysis of the TMFs identified revealed relevant factors of interest for the evaluation of KMb strategies, classified into four dimensions: context, process, effects and impacts.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review provides an overview of the many KMb TMFs used or proposed. The results provide insight into potential dimensions and components to be considered when assessing KMb strategies.

Assessing unConventional Evidence (ACE) tool: development and content of a tool to assess the strengths and limitations of 'unconventional' source materials

BACKGROUND

When deciding whether to implement an intervention, decision-makers typically have questions on feasibility and acceptability and on factors affecting implementation. Descriptions of programme implementation and of policies and systems are rich sources of information for these questions. However, this information is often not based on empirical data collected using explicit methods. To use the information in unconventional source materials in syntheses or other decision support products, we need methods of assessing their strengths and limitations. This paper describes the development and content of the Assessing unConventional Evidence (ACE) tool, a new tool to assess the strengths and limitations of these sources.

METHODS

We developed the ACE tool in four stages: first, we examined existing tools to identify potentially relevant assessment criteria. Second, we drew on these criteria and team discussions to create a first draft of the tool. Third, we obtained feedback on the draft from potential users and methodologists, and through piloting the tool in evidence syntheses. Finally, we used this feedback to iteratively refine the assessment criteria and to improve our guidance for undertaking the assessment.

RESULTS

The tool is made up of 11 criteria including the purpose and context of the source; the completeness of the information presented; and the extent to which evidence is provided to support the findings made. Users are asked to indicate whether each of the criteria have been addressed. On the basis of their judgements for each criterion, users then make an overall assessment of the limitations of the source, ranging from no or very minor concerns to serious concerns. These assessments can then facilitate appropriate use of the evidence in decision support products.

CONCLUSIONS

Through focussing on unconventional source materials, the ACE tool fills an important gap in the range of tools for assessing the strengths and limitations of policy-relevant evidence and supporting evidence-informed decision-making.

What are the best methods for rapid reviews of the research evidence? A systematic review of reviews and primary studies

Rapid review methodology aims to facilitate faster conduct of systematic reviews to meet the needs of the decision-maker, while also maintaining quality and credibility. This systematic review aimed to determine the impact of different methodological shortcuts for undertaking rapid reviews on the risk of bias (RoB) of the results of the review. Review stages for which reviews and primary studies were sought included the preparation of a protocol, question formulation, inclusion criteria, searching, selection, data extraction, RoB assessment, synthesis, and reporting. We searched 11 electronic databases in April 2022, and conducted some supplementary searching. Reviewers worked in pairs to screen, select, extract data, and assess the RoB of included reviews and studies. We included 15 systematic reviews, 7 scoping reviews, and 65 primary studies. We found that several commonly used shortcuts in rapid reviews are likely to increase the RoB in the results. These include restrictions based on publication date, use of a single electronic database as a source of studies, and use of a single reviewer for screening titles and abstracts, selecting studies based on the full-text, and for extracting data. Authors of rapid reviews should be transparent in reporting their use of these shortcuts and acknowledge the possibility of them causing bias in the results. This review also highlights shortcuts that can save time without increasing the risk of bias. Further research is needed for both systematic and rapid reviews on faster methods for accurate data extraction and RoB assessment, and on development of more precise search strategies.

Research-to-Policy Partnerships for Evidence-Informed Resource Allocation in Health Systems in Africa: An Example Using the Thanzi Programme

OBJECTIVES

Empirical data on the impact of research-to-policy interventions are scant, with the few attempts mainly focusing on ensuring policymakers' timely access to evidence and evidence-informed dialogs.

METHODS

This article reflects on how the Thanzi Programme cultivates an approach of research-to-policy engagement in health economics. The program is structured around 3 interrelated pillars comprising research evidence generation, capacity and capability building, and research-and-policy engagement. Each pillar is described and examples from the Thanzi Programme are given, including illustrating how each pillar informs the other. Limitations and challenges of the approach are discussed, with examples of a way forward.

RESULTS

This program supports health system strengthening through addressing gaps identified by program partners. This includes providing health economics training and research and strengthened partnerships between in-country researchers and health policymakers, as well as between national and international researchers. Platforms bringing together researchers and policymakers to shape the research agenda, disseminate evidence, and foster an evidence-based dialog are institutionalized at country and regional levels. Health Economics and Policy Units have been established, which sit between the Ministries of Health and Universities, to augment policymakers and health economics researchers' engagements on priority health policy matters and determine researchable policy questions. The establishment of the Health Economics Community of Practice as a substantive expert committee under the East Central and Southern Africa Health Community bolsters the contribution of health economics evidence in policy processes at the regional level.

CONCLUSIONS

The Thanzi Programme is an example of how a research-and-policy partnership framework is being used to support evidence-informed health resource allocation decisions in Africa. It uses a combination of high-quality multidisciplinary research, sustained research and policymakers' engagement and capacity strengthening to use research evidence to guide and support policy makers more effectively.

Roadblocks at every turn: What reproductive health experts say about barriers to legislative abortion advocacy

OBJECTIVES

Advocacy is an important part of the reproductive health care profession, but barriers to participating in the legislative process are not well understood. This study examines the barriers experts in reproductive health experience to testifying at state legislative committee hearings regarding abortion.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted in-depth semistructured interviews with 40 experts in reproductive health, including obstetrician gynecologists (OBGYNs), midwives, pediatricians, nurses, primary care providers, and professional advocates. We analyzed the interview transcripts using an inductive coding process.

RESULTS

We identified four barriers to testifying at state legislative committee hearings regarding abortion. First, our interviewees described a tension between claiming expertise and stigma: those without direct experience in abortion care often felt too unqualified to testify, but representing oneself as an abortion provider came with stigma that made communicating with legislators difficult. Second, issues of power and identity informed interactions in committee chambers, as well as the structure of advocacy work more broadly. Third, institutional constraints shaped what experts could say and whether they could rely on their professional affiliations for support. Finally, fear of harassment and violence kept many of our interviewees from testifying, especially those who were active abortion providers.

CONCLUSIONS

These barriers appear unique to testifying on abortion and represent a complex web of hurdles that experts in reproductive health must navigate to participate in this part of the policymaking process.

IMPLICATIONS

Our findings suggest multiple strategies for improving the state of expert involvement in abortion policymaking, including expanding the pool of testifiers to include nonabortion providers and experts with a range of backgrounds, as well as supporting organizations that link experts to training and advocacy networks.

Assessing the impact of an evidence- and consensus-based guideline for controlling SARS-CoV-2 transmission in German schools on decision-making processes: a multi-component qualitative analysis

INTRODUCTION

During the COVID-19 pandemic, decision-making on measures to reduce or prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in schools was rendered difficult by a rapidly evolving and uncertain evidence base regarding their effectiveness and unintended consequences. To support decision-makers, an interdisciplinary panel of scientific experts, public health and school authorities as well as those directly affected by school measures, was convened in an unprecedented effort to develop an evidence- and consensus-based public health guideline for German schools. This study sought to assess whether and how this guideline impacted decision-making processes.

METHODS

This study comprised three components: (1) we sent inquiries according to the Freedom of Information Acts of each Federal State to ministries of education, family, and health. (2) We conducted semi-structured interviews with individuals involved in decision-making regarding school measures in two Federal States, and (3) we undertook semi-structured interviews with members of the guideline panel. The content of response letters in component 1 was analysed descriptively; data for components 2 and 3 were analysed using deductive-inductive thematic qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz.

RESULTS

Responses to the Freedom of Information Act inquiries showed that the guideline was recognised as a relevant source of information by ministries of education in nine out of 16 Federal States and used as a reference to check existing directives for school measures in five Federal States. All participants (20 interviews) emphasised the value of the guideline given its evidence- and consensus-based development process but also noted limitations in its usability and usefulness, e.g., lack of context-specificity. It was consulted by participants who advised policy-makers (5 interviews) alongside other sources of evidence. Overall, perceptions regarding the guideline's impact were mixed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that the guideline was relatively well-known in Federal States' decision-making bodies and that it was considered alongside other forms of evidence in some of these. We suggest that further research to evaluate the impact of public health guidelines on (political) decision-making is warranted. Guideline development processes may need to be adapted to account for the realities of decision-making during public health emergencies and beyond.

Prioritising and incentivising productivity within indicator-based approaches to Research Impact Assessment: a commentary

Research Impact Assessment (RIA) represents one of a suite of policies intended to improve the impact generated from investment in health and medical research (HMR). Positivist indicator-based approaches to RIA are widely implemented but increasingly criticised as theoretically problematic, unfair, and burdensome. This commentary proposes there are useful outcomes that emerge from the process of applying an indicator-based RIA framework, separate from those encapsulated in the metrics themselves. The aim for this commentary is to demonstrate how the act of conducting an indicator-based approach to RIA can serve to optimise the productive gains from the investment in HMR. Prior research found that the issues regarding RIA are less about the choice of indicators/metrics, and more about the discussions prompted and activities incentivised by the process. This insight provides an opportunity to utilise indicator-based methods to purposely optimise the research impact. An indicator-based RIA framework specifically designed to optimise research impacts should: focus on researchers and the research process, rather than institution-level measures; utilise a project level unit of analysis that provides control to researchers and supports collaboration and accountability; provide for prospective implementation of RIA and the prospective orientation of research; establish a line of sight to the ultimate anticipated beneficiaries and impacts; Include process metrics/indicators to acknowledge interim steps on the pathway to final impacts; integrate 'next' users and prioritise the utilisation of research outputs as a critical measure; Integrate and align the incentives for researchers/research projects arising from RIA, with those existing within the prevailing research system; integrate with existing peer-review processes; and, adopt a system-wide approach where incremental improvements in the probability of translation from individual research projects, yields higher impact across the whole funding portfolio.Optimisation of the impacts from HMR investment represents the primary purpose of Research Impact policy. The process of conducting an indicator-based approach to RIA, which engages the researcher during the inception and planning phase, can directly contribute to this goal through improvements in the probability that an individual project will generate interim impacts. The research project funding process represents a promising forum to integrate this approach within the existing research system.

Leveraging collaborative research networks against antimicrobial resistance in Asia

Background

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global health security threat requiring research collaboration globally and regionally. Despite repeated calls for international research collaboration in Asia, literature analyzing the nature of collaborative AMR research in Asia has been sparse. This study aims to describe the characteristics of the AMR research network in Asia and investigate the factors influencing collaborative tie formation between organizations.

Methods

We carried out a mixed-methods study by combining social network analysis (SNA) and in-depth interviews. SNA was first conducted on primary data to describe the characteristics of the AMR research network in Asia. Exponential random graph models (ERGMs) were then used to examine the influence of factors such as organization type, country affluence levels, regional proximity and One Health research on collaborative tie formation among organizations. In-depth interviews were conducted with network participants to provide contextual insights to the quantitative data.

Results

The results reveal that the research network exhibits a core-periphery structure, where a minority of organizations have a significantly higher number of collaborations with others. The most influential organizations in the network are academic institutions from high-income countries within and outside Asia. The ERGM results demonstrate that organizations prefer to collaborate with others of similar organization types, country-based affluence levels and One Health domains of focus, but also with others across different World Health Organization regions. The qualitative analysis identified three main themes: the challenges that impede collaboration, the central role of academic institutions, and the nature of collaborations across One Health domains, giving rise to important empirical milestones in understanding AMR research in Asia.

Conclusion

We thus recommend leveraging academic institutions as "integrators" to bridge differences, increasing funds channelled towards research capacity building to alleviate structural barriers to collaboration, streamlining collaborative mechanisms to overcome cumbersome administrative hurdles, and increasing efforts to establish trust between all organizations.

Challenges for research uptake for health policymaking and practice in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

An estimated 85% of research resources are wasted worldwide, while there is growing demand for context-based evidence-informed health policymaking. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), research uptake for health policymaking and practice is even lower, while little is known about the barriers to the translation of health evidence to policy and local implementation. We aimed to compile the current evidence on barriers to uptake of research in health policy and practice in LMICs using scoping review.

METHODS

The scoping review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses-extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Both published evidence and grey literature on research uptake were systematically searched from major databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL (EBSCO), Global Health (Ovid)) and direct Google Scholar. Literature exploring barriers to uptake of research evidence in health policy and practice in LMICs were included and their key findings were synthesized using thematic areas to address the review question.

RESULTS

A total of 4291 publications were retrieved in the initial search, of which 142 were included meeting the eligibility criteria. Overall, research uptake for policymaking and practice in LMICs was very low. The challenges to research uptake were related to lack of understanding of the local contexts, low political priority, poor stakeholder engagement and partnership, resource and capacity constraints, low system response for accountability and lack of communication and dissemination platforms.

CONCLUSION

Important barriers to research uptake, mainly limited contextual understanding and low participation of key stakeholders and ownership, have been identified. Understanding the local research and policy context and participatory evidence production and dissemination may promote research uptake for policy and practice. Institutions that bridge the chasm between knowledge formation, evidence synthesis and translation may play critical role in the translation process.

A systematic review of population and patient perspectives and experiences as measured in Latin American and Caribbean surveys

High-quality health systems must provide accessible, people-centred care to both improve health and maintain population trust in health services. Furthermore, accurate measurement of population perspectives is vital to hold health systems accountable and to inform improvement efforts. To describe the current state of such measures in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), we conducted a systematic review of facility and population-based assessments that included patient-reported experience and satisfaction measures. Five databases were searched for publications on quantitative surveys assessing healthcare quality in Spanish- or Portuguese-speaking LAC countries, focusing on the domains of processes of care and quality impacts. We included articles published since 2011 with a national sampling frame or inclusion of multiple subnational regions. We tabulated and described these articles, identifying, classifying and summarizing the items used to assess healthcare quality into the domains mentioned earlier. Of the 5584 publications reviewed, 58 articles met our inclusion criteria. Most studies were cross-sectional (95%), assessed all levels of healthcare (57%) and were secondary analyses of existing surveys (86%). The articles yielded 33 unique surveys spanning 12 LAC countries; only eight of them are regularly administered surveys. The most common quality domains assessed were satisfaction (in 33 out of 58 articles, 57%), evidence-based/effective care (34%), waiting times (33%), clear communication (33%) and ease of use (31%). Items and reported ratings varied widely among instruments used, time points and geographical settings. Assessment of patient-reported quality measures through population- and facility-based surveys is present but heterogeneous in LAC countries. Satisfaction was measured frequently, although its use in accountability or informing quality improvement is limited. Measurement of healthcare quality in LAC needs to be more systematic, regular, comprehensive and to be led collaboratively by researchers, governments and policymakers to enable comparison of results across countries and to effectively inform policy implementation.

Disseminating health research to public health policy-makers and practitioners: a survey of source, message content and delivery modality preferences

BACKGROUND

Understanding the views of policy-makers and practitioners regarding how best to communicate research evidence is important to support research use in their decision-making.

AIM

To quantify and describe public health policy-makers and practitioners' views regarding the source, content and form of messages describing public health research findings to inform their decision-making. We also sought to examine differences in preferences between public health policy-makers and practitioners.

METHODS

A cross sectional, value-weighting survey of policy-makers and practitioners was conducted. Participants were asked to allocate a proportion of 100 points across different (i) sources of research evidence, (ii) message content and (iii) the form in which evidence is presented. Points were allocated based on their rating of influence, usefulness and preference when making decisions about health policy or practice.

RESULTS

A total of 186 survey responses were received from 90 policy-makers and 96 practitioners. Researchers and government department agencies were the most influential source of research evidence based on mean allocation of points, followed by knowledge brokers, professional peers and associations. Mean point allocation for perceived usefulness of message content was highest for simple summary of key findings and implications, and then evidence-based recommendations and data and statistical summaries. Finally, based on mean scores, policy-makers and practitioners preferred to receive research evidence in the form of peer-reviewed publications, reports, evidence briefs and plain language summaries. There were few differences in scores between policy-makers and practitioners across source, message content or form assessments or those with experience in different behavioural areas.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings should provide a basis for the future development and optimization of dissemination strategies to this important stakeholder group.

Connections between health research systems and decision-making spaces: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic in the province of Québec, Canada

The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic allowed for exceptional decision-making power to be placed in the hands of public health departments. Data and information were widely disseminated in the media and on websites. While the improvement of pandemic management is still a learning curve, the ecosystem perspective - that is, the interconnection of academic health research systems and decision-making spaces - has received little attention. In this commentary, we look at the mechanisms in place, or not, in Canada for ensuring decision-making spheres can "speak" to academic research systems. We look at the thick walls that are still in place between health research systems and decision-making spaces. More precisely, we discuss three organizational flaws that we identified in the evidence-informed decision-making ecosystem of Québec and, more broadly, Canada. We introduce some inspiring measures that other countries have implemented to better link evidence and public health decision-making during health crises. The observed flaws and options are related to the vitality of early information sharing relays, the cross-sectional capacity to issue opinions, and the collection and integration of hard and soft data.

An audit of the dissemination strategies and plan included in international food-based dietary guidelines

OBJECTIVE

Food-based dietary guidelines (FBDG) are an important resource to improve population health; however, little is known about the types of strategies to disseminate them. This study sought to describe dissemination strategies and content of dissemination plans that were available for FBDG.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional audit of FBDG with a published English-language version sourced from the United Nations FAO repository. We searched for publicly available dissemination strategies and any corresponding plans available in English language. Two authors extracted data on strategies, which were grouped according to the Model for Dissemination Research Framework (including source, audience, channel and message). For guidelines with a dissemination plan, we described goals, audience, strategies and expertise and resources according to the Canadian Institute for Health Research guidance.

SETTING

FBDG from fifty-three countries mostly from high-income (n 28, 52·8 %), and upper-middle income (n 18, 34 %) areas were included.

PARTICIPANTS

n/a.

RESULTS

The source of guidelines was most frequently health departments (79·2 %). The message included quantities and types of foods, physical activity recommendations and 88·7 % included summarised versions of main messages. The most common channels were infographics and information booklets, and the main end-users were the public. For twelve countries (22·6 %), we were able to source an English-language dissemination plan, where none met all recommendations outlined by the Canadian Institute for Health Research.

CONCLUSIONS

The public was the most frequently identified end-user and thus most dissemination strategies and plans focused on this group. Few FBDG had formal dissemination plans and of those there was limited detailed provided.

Knowledge management tools and mechanisms for evidence-informed decision-making in the WHO European Region: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Knowledge management (KM) emerged as a strategy to promote evidence-informed decision-making. This scoping review aims to map existing KM tools and mechanisms used to promote evidence-informed health decision-making in the WHO European Region and identify knowledge gaps.

METHODS

Following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidance for conducting scoping reviews, we searched Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, and Open Grey. We conducted a descriptive analysis of the general characteristics of the included papers and conducted narrative analysis of the included studies and categorized studies according to KM type and phase.

RESULTS

Out of 9541 citations identified, we included 141 studies. The KM tools mostly assessed are evidence networks, surveillance tools, observatories, data platforms and registries, with most examining KM tools in high-income countries of the WHO European region. Findings suggest that KM tools can identify health problems, inform health planning and resource allocation, increase the use of evidence by policymakers and stimulate policy discussion.

CONCLUSION

Policymakers and funding agencies are called to support capacity-building activities, and future studies to strengthen KM in the WHO European region particularly in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. An updated over-arching strategy to coordinate KM activities in the WHO European region will be useful in these efforts.

Assessing the quality and completeness of reporting in health systems guidance for pandemics using the AGREE-HS tool

Background

During health emergencies, leading healthcare organisations, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (ECDC), and the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), provide guidance for public health response. Previous studies have evaluated clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) produced in response to epidemics or pandemics, yet few have focused on public health guidelines and recommendations. To address this gap, we assessed health systems guidance (HSG) produced by the WHO, the ECDC, and the CDC for the 2009 H1N1 and COVID-19 pandemics.

Methods

We extracted HSG for the H1N1 and COVID-19 pandemics from the organisations' dedicated repositories and websites. After screening the retrieved documents for eligibility, five assessors evaluated them using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research & Evaluation - Health Systems (AGREE-HS) tool to assess the completeness and transparency of reporting according to the five AGREE-HS domains: "Topic", "Participants", "Methods", "Recommendations", and "Implementability".

Results

Following the screening process, we included 108 HSG in the analysis. We observed statistically significant differences between the H1N1 and COVID-19 pandemics, with HSG issued during COVID-19 receiving higher AGREE-HS scores. The HSG produced by the CDC had significantly lower overall scores and single-domain scores compared to the WHO and ECDC. However, all HSG scored relatively low, under the median of 40 total points (range = 10-70), indicating incomplete reporting. The HSG produced by all three organisations received a median score <4 (range = 1-7) for the "Participants", "Methods", and "Implementability" domains.

Conclusions

There is still significant progress to be made in the quality and completeness of reporting in HSG issued during pandemics, especially regarding methodological approaches and the composition of the guidance development team. Due to their significant impact and importance for healthcare systems globally, HSG issued during future healthcare crises should adhere to best reporting practices to increase uptake by stakeholders and ensure public trust in healthcare organisations.

Global issues, local action: exploring local governments use of research in "tackling climate change and its impacts on health" in Victoria, Australia

BACKGROUND

Local government plays an important role in addressing complex public health challenges. While the use of research in this work is important, it is often poorly understood. This study aimed to build knowledge about how research is used by investigating its use by local government authorities (LGAs) in Victoria, Australia in responding to a new legislative requirement to prioritise climate and health in public health planning. The role of collaboration was also explored.

METHODS

Informed by Normalization Process Theory (NPT), this study adopted multiple research methods, combining data from an online survey and face-to-face interviews. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics; thematic analysis was used to analyse qualitative data.

RESULTS

Participants comprised 15 interviewees, and 46 survey respondents from 40 different LGAs. Research was most commonly accessed via evidence synthesis, and largely used to inform understanding about climate and health. When and how research was used was shaped by contextual factors including legislation, community values and practical limitations of how research needed to be communicated to decision-makers. Collaboration was more commonly associated with research access than use.

CONCLUSIONS

Greater investment in the production and dissemination of localised research, that identifies local issues (e.g. climate risk factors) and is tailored to the communication needs of local audiences is needed to foster more impactful research use in local public health policy.

An evidence-informed policymaking (EIPM) competency profile for the Brazilian Health System developed through consensus: process and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Evidence-informed policymaking (EIPM) requires a set of individual and organizational knowledge, skills and attitudes that should be articulated with background factors and needs. In this regard, the development of an EIPM competency profile is important to support the diagnosis, planning and implementation of EIPM.

PURPOSE

To present the process and outcomes of the development of an EIPM competency profile by an expert committee, to be applied in different contexts of the Brazilian Health System.

METHODS

A committee of experts in EIPM shared different views, experiences and opinions to develop an EIPM competency profile for Brazil. In six consensus workshops mediated by facilitators, the committee defined from macro problems to key actions and performances essential for the competency profile. The development steps consisted of: (1) Constitution of the committee, including researchers, professionals with practical experience, managers, and educators; (2) Development of a rapid review on EIPM competency profiles; (3) Agreement on commitments and responsibilities in the processes; (4) Identification and definition of macro problems relating to the scope of the competency profile; and (5) Outlining of general and specific capacities, to be incorporated into the competency profile, categorized by key actions.

RESULTS

The development of the EIPM competency profile was guided by the following macro problems: (1) lack of systematic and transparent decision-making processes in health policy management; (2) underdeveloped institutional capacity for knowledge management and translation; and (3) incipient use of scientific evidence in the formulation and implementation of health policies. A general framework of key actions and performances of the EIPM Competency Profile for Brazil was developed, including 42 specific and general key actions distributed by area of activity (Health Management, Scientific Research, Civil Society, Knowledge Translation, and Cross-sectional areas).

CONCLUSIONS

The competency profile presented in this article can be used in different contexts as a key tool for the institutionalization of EIPM.

Dissemination of public health research evidence and guidelines to Australian Early Childhood Education and Care staff: Views about source, content and format

ISSUE ADDRESSED

Effective dissemination of public health research and evidence-based guidelines to Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) staff is critical for promoting research transfer and uptake and achieving positive outcomes for children.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted during August 2021 to March 2022, with a sub-sample of Australian ECEC services participating in a larger survey completed online and via Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview. Survey items assessed: influential source for receiving research, type of content that would influence decisions to adopt research and preferred formats for receiving research.

RESULTS

Overall, 993 service managers or staff from 1984 (50.0%) invited and eligible services completed the larger survey. Of these, 463 randomly allocated services (46.7%) had staff complete the dissemination items. The Australian Children's Education and Care Quality Authority, ECEC agencies and Government Departments were most frequently selected as influential sources of research evidence. Staff were most interested in content providing evidence-based recommendations for future actions and descriptions of health issues addressed. Workshops or conferences and webinars were the preferred format for receiving research.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings highlight the importance of tailoring dissemination strategies to meet ECEC staff needs and engaging influential sources to disseminate research evidence. SO WHAT?: Understanding dissemination preferences of ECEC staff is crucial for supporting uptake of evidence-based health promotion in this setting. By developing tailored strategies based on ECEC preferences, research transfer and evidence-based decision making can be supported more effectively. These findings contribute to bridging the evidence-practice gap and improving the quality of care and health outcomes for children in ECEC settings.

The who, what, where, when and why of engaging with policymakers: A critical reflection

Improving relationships between researchers and policymakers is one element of knowledge mobilisation that has proven to increase the translation of research into policy. However, researchers report they find it difficult to engage policymakers with research. In this article, a personal narrative approach was used to analyse my experience, as a PhD candidate, when engaging policymakers to participate in a qualitative research study. A total of 93 contacts were made in an attempt to recruit policymakers; these contacts consisted of both policymakers and knowledge brokers. The experience of contacting and engaging with policymakers identified barriers other researchers may experience and offers enablers to assist when engaging policymakers. This reflective approach resulted in the development of the five following themes: who you know, what ifs, when is it enough, where is the research going and why value is important. These five themes can act as a guide for researchers when preparing to engage policymakers into research.

Exploring the definition and methodology of "best practice" in the health care literature: a scoping review protocol

OBJECTIVE

This review will map and define the terminology used in health care literature for "best practice" as well as its underpinning framework/methodology.

INTRODUCTION

Numerous international organizations and institutions have sought to develop models or frameworks to guide health care providers to integrate the best evidence into clinical practice. However, different concepts related to best practice have been used, both in the biomedical literature and by public institutions, leading to a lack of consistency in definitions of the term. This poses a potential difficulty for clinical professionals in applying evidence effectively to achieve desired patient outcomes.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This review will adopt the following inclusion criteria: i) the study must contain a definition of the term "best practice" or its related concepts; ii) the concept of best practice must refer to clinical activities and not have organizational features; and iii) any study design can be included. Studies will be excluded if they describe a definition of best practice that is not directly related to clinical practice (eg, business).

METHODS

The review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. An initial search of MEDLINE identified keywords and MeSH terms. MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and Google Scholar will be searched from 2001 until the present, the year in which the first definition of best practice appeared in the literature. Four pairs of reviewers will independently select studies and perform data extraction and data synthesis. Data will be presented in figures or tables, accompanied by a narrative summary. Searches will be limited to articles in English, Italian, German, French, and Spanish.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/52vxe/.

Developing, implementing, and monitoring tailored strategies for integrated knowledge translation in five sub-Saharan African countries

BACKGROUND

Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) through strategic, continuous engagement with decision-makers represents an approach to bridge research, policy and practice. The Collaboration for Evidence-based Healthcare and Public Health in Africa (CEBHA +), comprising research institutions in Ethiopia, Malawi, Rwanda, South Africa, Uganda and Germany, developed and implemented tailored IKT strategies as part of its multifaceted research on prevention and care of non-communicable diseases and road traffic injuries. The objective of this article is to describe the CEBHA + IKT approach and report on the development, implementation and monitoring of site-specific IKT strategies.

METHODS

We draw on findings derived from the mixed method IKT evaluation (conducted in 2020-2021), and undertook document analyses and a reflective survey among IKT implementers. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively and qualitative data were analysed using content analysis. The authors used the TIDieR checklist to report results in a structured manner.

RESULTS

Preliminary IKT evaluation data (33 interviews with researchers and stakeholders from policy and practice, and 31 survey responses), 49 documents, and eight responses to the reflective survey informed this article. In each of the five African CEBHA + countries, a site-specific IKT strategy guided IKT implementation, tailored to the respective national context, engagement aims, research tasks, and individuals involved. IKT implementers undertook a variety of IKT activities at varying levels of engagement that targeted a broad range of decision-makers and other stakeholders, particularly during project planning, data interpretation, and output dissemination. Throughout the project, the IKT teams continued to tailor IKT strategies informally and modified the IKT approach by responding to ad hoc engagements and involving non-governmental organisations, universities, and communities. Challenges to using systematic, formalised IKT strategies arose in particular with respect to the demand on time and resources, leading to the modification of monitoring processes.

CONCLUSION

Tailoring of the CEBHA + IKT approach led to the inclusion of some atypical IKT partners and to greater responsiveness to unexpected opportunities for decision-maker engagement. Benefits of using systematic IKT strategies included clarity on engagement aims, balancing of existing and new strategic partnerships, and an enhanced understanding of research context, including site-specific structures for evidence-informed decision-making.

Advancing the Actionability of Mental Health Information: Identifying Online, Evidence-Based Mental Health Resources

To improve the dissemination and actionability of mental health research, many mental health professionals have developed online informational resources to increase the general public's awareness of mental health difficulties and available treatments. Yet, limited information exists on the quality and scope of these resources. This study aimed to explore the scope and quantity of online, free, evidence-based mental health resources. Fifty-two mental health professionals nominated 178 resources, which predominantly consisted of homepages and links to more information. When reviewing the original nominations, our team identified an additional 290 resources (e.g., fact sheets linked from a nominated homepage). Of the 468 total nominated resources, 72 were screened out due to not meeting the inclusion criteria of being free (inter-screener reliability = 95%), evidence-based (inter-screener reliability = 94%), and online (inter-screener reliability = 96%). Nominated resources most commonly covered anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder (n = 67) and suicide (n = 60). Resources providing information about the mental health problem were most common (n = 210) and resources providing information about immediate help (e.g., hotline) were least common (n = 57). Our findings indicate many free, online, evidence-based resources are available and raise questions of whether efforts to disseminate mental health research are recreating the issue of information overload. Other considerations and future directions for improving the utilization and synthesizing of available resources are discussed.

Rapid Reviews to Support Practice: A Guide for Professional Organization Practice Networks

Background. Occupational Therapists, among other healthcare decision makers, often need to make decisions within limited timeframes and cannot wait for the completion of large rigorous systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Rapid reviews are one method to increase the integration of research evidence into clinical decision making. Rapid reviews streamline the systematic review process to allow for the timely synthesis of evidence; however, there does not exist a single agreed upon guide for the methodology and reporting of rapid reviews. Purpose. This paper proposes a rapid review methodology that is customized to a professional organization practice which can feasibly be used by practice networks such as those of the Canadian Association for Occupational Therapy to conduct reviews. Implications. Practice networks provide a sustainable mechanism to integrate research evidence and foster communication amongst practitioners. This guide for conducting and reporting rapid reviews can be used across Occupational Therapy practice networks and similar groups to support the consistent and timely synthesis of evidence necessary to improve evidence-informed clinical decision making.

Economic evaluation of fluoride varnish application in preschoolers: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Fluoride varnish (FV) is a convenient way of professionally applying fluoride in preschoolers. However, its modest anticaries effect highlights the need for economic evaluations.

AIM

To assess economic evaluations reporting applications of FV to reduce caries incidence in preschoolers.

DESIGN

We included full economic evaluations with preschool participants, in which the intervention was FV and the outcome was related to dentin caries. We searched in CENTRAL; MEDLINE via PubMed; WEB OF SCIENCE; EMBASE; SCOPUS; LILACS; BBO; and BVS Economia em saúde, OpenGrey, and EconoLit. Clinical trial registers, thesis and dissertations, and meeting abstracts were hand searched, as well as 11 dental journals. Risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using the Philips' and Drummond's (full and simplified) tools.

RESULTS

Titles and abstracts of 2871 articles were evaluated, and 200 were read in full. Eight cost-effectiveness studies were included: five modeling and three within-trial evaluations. None of the studies gave sufficient information to allow a thorough assessment using the bias tools. We did not combine the results of the studies due to the great heterogeneity among them. Four studies reported that FV in preschool children was a cost-effective measure, but in one of these studies, sealants and fluoride toothpaste were more cost-effective measures than the varnish, and three studies used limited data that compromised the generalizability of their results. The other four studies showed a large increase in costs due to the application of varnish and/or low cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

We did not find convincing overall evidence that applying FV in preschoolers is an anticaries cost-effective measure. The protocol of this systematic review is available at Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/xw5va/).

Factors influencing the utilization of doctoral research findings at a university in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: Views of academic leaders

BACKGROUND

Translation of health research findings into policy remains a challenge in sub-Saharan Africa. Factors influencing health research utilization are poorly described in literature. Therefore, identifying factors that influence the utilization of research findings for policy formulation is essential to facilitate implementation of evidence-based interventions. The purpose of this study was to explore the views of academic leaders as to why doctoral research is not adequately used in policymaking.

METHODS

In-depth interviews were held with purposively selected key informants from the College of Health Sciences. An open-ended interview guide aimed at exploring college leadership views on factors influencing utilization of PhD generated knowledge into policy was used. Data was analysed thematically using NVivo 12 software. Thematic analysis was used to generate themes around the factors influencing utilization of doctoral research into policy.

RESULTS

Factors such as inaccessibility of research results, lack of funding, poor quality of research, lack of continuity in translating research into policy, lack of timeliness of research results and lack of collaboration between researchers and policymakers hindered the utilization of PhD generated knowledge. Participants recommended engagement with the Department of Health/policymakers, collaboration with Department of Health/policymakers, increasing enrolment of South African citizens into PhD program, making final research products available to Department of Health/policymakers, and provision of funding for dissemination of research results.

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrated that final doctoral research results are mainly disseminated through journal articles and theses. Participants cited inaccessibility of research findings, lack of funding and poor-quality research as the most common factors hindering utilization of doctoral research findings. The study also recommended availing adequate funding for dissemination of research results, collaboration between researchers and policymakers, facilitation of policymaker-researcher engagement to find best ways of using research findings to influence policy and making final research products accessible to policymakers. Further research to gain the perspective of policymakers as to why doctoral research is not adequately used in policy formulation is recommended.

Assessing Use, Usefulness, and Application of the High Impact Practices in Family Planning Briefs and Strategic Planning Guides

BACKGROUND

In global health, persistent barriers and challenges to bridging the gap between research and practice remain critical to address in most health areas. The High Impact Practices (HIPs) briefs and strategic planning guides aim to bridge the know-do gap in family planning (FP) by facilitating research utilization and knowledge sharing and also providing a summary of experiential knowledge from experts. The purpose of this qualitative study was to assess the use, usefulness, and application of these 2 knowledge products developed by the HIP Partnership for decision-makers and implementers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

METHODS

This research used in-depth interviews with FP stakeholders from various LMICs to assess the use, usefulness, and application of 2 HIP products for FP decision-makers and implementers. The analysis was shaped by an adapted logic model framework to assess HIP product reach, engagement, usefulness, learning, and action.

RESULTS

We interviewed 35 FP professionals from January to March 2021. Participants reported that HIP products have a wide reach, have garnered positive engagement, and were useful. Participants generally liked the current format of the HIP products and reported using them to inform program design, guide discussions with partners, enhance personal knowledge, support advocacy work, and strengthen the guidance they provide to colleagues in the field. The participants shared important feedback to improve the development and dissemination of HIP products, particularly a need to enhance local access and use.

CONCLUSION

The study highlighted the importance of knowledge products, such as the HIP briefs and strategic planning guides, to make evidence and experiential knowledge accessible to a wide audience. These can be valuable tools for policymakers and program implementers to ensure public health practices are evidence-based and integrate experiential knowledge.

Strategies for knowledge exchange for action to address place-based determinants of health inequalities: an umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Place-based health inequalities persist despite decades of academics and other stakeholders generating ideas and evidence on how to reduce them. This may in part reflect a failure in effective knowledge exchange (KE). We aim to understand what KE strategies are effective in supporting actions on place-based determinants and the barriers and facilitators to this KE.

METHODS

An umbrella review was undertaken to identify relevant KE strategies. Systematic reviews were identified by searching academic databases (Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science) and handsearching. Synthesis involved charting and thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Fourteen systematic reviews were included comprising 105 unique, relevant studies. Four approaches to KE were identified: improving access to knowledge, collaborative approaches, participatory models and KE as part of advocacy. While barriers and facilitators were reported, KE approaches were rarely evaluated for their effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these four approaches, our review produced a framework, which may support planning of future KE strategies. The findings also suggest the importance of attending to political context, including the ways in which this may impede a more upstream place-based focus in favour of behavioural interventions and the extent that researchers are willing to engage with politicized agendas.

From trials to communities: implementation and scale-up of health behaviour interventions

BACKGROUND

To maximise their potential benefits to communities, effective health behaviour interventions need to be implemented, ideally 'at scale', and are often adapted as part of this. To inform future implementation and scale-up efforts, this study broadly sought to understand (i) how often health behaviour interventions are implemented in communities, (ii) the adaptations that occur; (iii) how frequency it occurred 'at scale'; and (iv) factors associated with 'scale-up'.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted of corresponding authors of trials (randomised or non-randomised) assessing the effects of preventive health behaviour interventions. Included studies of relevant Cochrane reviews served as a sampling frame. Participants were asked to report on the implementation and scale-up (defined as investment in large scale delivery by a (non)government organisation) of their intervention in the community following trial completion, adaptations made, and any research dissemination strategies employed. Information was extracted from published reports of the trial including assessments of effectiveness and risk of bias.

RESULTS

Authors of 104 trials completed the survey. Almost half of the interventions were implemented following trial completion (taking on average 19 months), and 54% of those were adapted prior to doing so. The most common adaptations were adding intervention components, and adapting the intervention to fit within the local service setting. Scale-up occurred in 33% of all interventions. There were no significant associations between research trial characteristics such as intervention effectiveness, risk of bias, setting, involvement of end-user, and incidence of scale-up. However the number of research dissemination strategies was positively associated to the odds of an intervention being scaled-up (OR = 1.50; 95% CI: 1.19, 1.88; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Adaptation of implemented trials is often undertaken. Most health behaviour interventions are not implemented or scaled-up following trial completion. The use of a greater number of dissemination strategies may increase the likelihood of scaled up.

Effective communications strategies to increase the impact of environmental health research

BACKGROUND

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are the subject of a growing body of research with the potential to positively impact public and ecological health. However, to effect positive change, findings must be communicated beyond the scientific community.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to (a) evaluate the relationships between communications strategy, media attention, and scholarly citations of PFAS research and (b) offer guidance for researchers and communications professionals who would like to publicize future work and increase its impact.

METHODS

We analyzed 273 peer-reviewed epidemiological studies on PFAS human health impacts with publication years 2018-2020, as collected by a pre-existing database. We investigated whether a press release was issued, open-access status, abstract and press release readability, timing of publication and press release distribution, journal impact factor, study type and sample size, statistical significance of finding(s), number of scholarly citations, and the Altmetric Attention Score (a measure of media attention).

DISCUSSION

Of papers reporting a statistically significant association with health harm, those with a press release received 20 times more media attention (as assessed by Altmetric scores) than those that did not. However, only 6.2% of all papers and 7.8% of significant papers issued one. Among papers with a press release, media attention was positively correlated with better abstract and press release readability and speed in issuing the press release. Scholarly citations were positively correlated with media attention, presence of a press release, and open-access status.

CONCLUSION

Most papers with significant findings on PFAS are published without a press release and receive little or no media attention. This reduces the likelihood that important research is reaching the public and decisionmakers who can translate science into action. Issuing a press release and receiving media attention also appear to increase scholarly citations. We provide recommendations for authors to increase the reach and impact of future papers.

Dissemination of knowledge from Cochrane Public Health reviews: a bibliographic study

BACKGROUND

Appropriate dissemination of public health evidence is of high importance to ensure that scientific knowledge reaches potential stakeholders and relevant population groups. A wide distrust towards science and its findings indicates that communication thereof remains below its potential. Cochrane Public Health provides an important source of high-quality scientific evidence in the field of public health via reviews with systematic methodology. The aims of this study were to identify (1) dissemination strategies and (2) stakeholders of Cochrane Public Health reviews.

METHODS

This is a bibliographic study with a cross-sectional design. All 68 records (reviews or review protocols) listed on the Cochrane Public Health website ( https://ph.cochrane.org/cph-reviews-and-topics ) up to 8 March 2022 were included. Record characteristics, dissemination strategies, and potential stakeholder details were coded by one author, and 10% of records were checked by another author. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics or narratively into common themes.

RESULTS

The 68 records were published between 2010 and 2022 and included 15 review protocols and 53 reviews with systematic methodology (46 systematic, 6 rapid, and 1 scoping review). All 53 reviews were disseminated via open-access plain language summaries (PLS) in English with translations into 3-13 other languages. Other dissemination strategies included information on Cochrane websites (e.g., clinical answers or guidelines) available for 41/53 reviews and Cochrane news or blogs that mentioned 19/53 reviews. Overall, 23/68 records mentioned the actual stakeholder involvement in review production, protocol development, or formulation of dissemination plans. The potential stakeholders included several highly diverse groups, such as the general population or specific communities (e.g., racial minority groups), policy and decision makers, and researchers and professionals in various fields (e.g., nutrition, physical activity, education, or care).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that Cochrane Public Health reviews are disseminated predominantly via PLS in different languages and via review information on Cochrane websites. Planned dissemination strategies were rarely reported although actual stakeholders were involved in the planning and production of some reviews. The relevance of Cochrane Public Health reviews for non-academic stakeholders and the general population highlights the need for the dissemination of evidence from such reviews beyond academia.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

The study was prospectively registered at the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/ga9pt/ ).

Research evidence use in local government-led public health interventions: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Local governments play an important role in improving public health outcomes globally, critical to this work is applying the best-available research evidence. Despite considerable exploration of research use in knowledge translation literature, how research is practically applied by local governments remains poorly understood. This systematic review examined research evidence use in local government-led public health interventions. It focused on how research was used and the type of intervention being actioned.

METHODS

Quantitative and qualitative literature published between 2000 and 2020 was searched for studies that described research evidence use by local governments in public health interventions. Studies reporting interventions developed outside of local government, including knowledge translation interventions, were excluded. Studies were categorised by intervention type and their level of description of research evidence use (where 'level 1' was the highest and 'level 3' was the lowest level of detail).

FINDINGS

The search identified 5922 articles for screening. A final 34 studies across ten countries were included. Experiences of research use varied across different types of interventions. However, common themes emerged including the demand for localised research evidence, the legitimising role of research in framing public health issues, and the need for integration of different evidence sources.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in how research was used were observed across different local government public health interventions. Knowledge translation interventions aiming to increase research use in local government settings should consider known barriers and facilitators and consider contextual factors associated with different localities and interventions.

Evidence use in the UK's COVID-19 Free School Meals Policy: a thematic content analysis

Free School Meals (FSM) are a well-recognised intervention for tackling food insecurity among school children. National school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic meant that there was a need to rapidly adapt the delivery of FSM. A range of food-assistance policies were implemented, but it is not clear if they were evidence-based. This study aimed to determine the transparency of evidence use and identify other competing influences in the UK's FSM policy decisions. Thematic content analysis was used to review 50 publicly available policy documents and debate transcripts on FSM policy published between March 2020-2021. This period covered the first national school closures (March 2020-July 2020), school holidays and the second national school closures (January 2021- March 2021). The Evidence Transparency Framework was used to assess the transparency of evidence use in policy documents. We found that overall transparency of evidence use was poor but was better for the Holiday Activities and Food (HAF) programme. The Government showed preference for replacing FSM with food parcels, rather than more agentic modes of food assistance such as cash-vouchers. This preference appeared to be closely aligned with ideological views on the welfare state. With an absence of evidence, value-based reasoning took precedent and was polarised by social media. This paper highlights the need for a formal review into FSM, one which includes a comparison of low and high agentic food assistance policies. Such a review would address the evidence gap, improve food assistance policy, and aid policymakers in future periods of uncertainty.