The role of researchers in disseminating evidence to public health practice settings: a cross-sectional study

Challenges of using evidence in managerial decision-making of the primary health care system

BACKGROUND

Managerial Evidence-Based Decision-Making [EBDM] in the primary is a systematic approach that directs the decision-maker in a conscientious, explicit, and judicious utilization of reliable and best evidence based on the professional experiences and preferences of stakeholders and patients from various sources. This study aimed to investigate the challenges primary healthcare managers encounter while undertaking decision-making processes.

METHOD

A systematic review was conducted in 2022 with the aim of identifying and collecting all qualitative articles pertaining to evidence-based decision-making in the primary healthcare system. To achieve this, a meticulous search was conducted using the relevant keywords, including primary health care and evidence-based decision making, as well as their corresponding synonyms, across the databases Web of Science, Scopus, and Pubmed. Importantly, there were no limitations imposed on the timeframe for the search. To carefully analyze and consolidate the findings of this systematic review, the meta-synthesis approach was employed.

RESULTS

A total of 22 articles were assessed in this systematic review study. The results revealed the main categories including evidence nature, EBDM barriers, utilizing evidence, decision-makers ability, organizational structure, evidence-based, EBDM support, communication for EBDM, evidence sides, EBDM skill development, public health promotion, and health system performance improvement.

CONCLUSION

The primary healthcare system is crucial in improving health outcomes and ensuring access to healthcare services for all individuals. This study explored the utilization of evidence-based EBDM within the primary healthcare system. We identified five key dimensions: causal, contextual, and intervening conditions, strategies, and consequences of EBDM as a core phenomenon. The findings will help policymakers and administrators comprehend the importance of evidence-based decision-making, ultimately leading to enhanced decision quality, community well-being, and efficiency within the healthcare system. EBDM entails considering the best reliable evidence, and incorporating community preferences while also exploiting the professional expertise and experiences of decision-makers. This systematic review has the potential to provide guidance for future reforms and enhance the quality of decision-making at the managerial level in primary healthcare.

Shaping Policy and Practice: Analyzing the Reach of Highly Cited and High Altmetrics Publications for Broader Impact on Physical Activity

BACKGROUND

A significant gap remains between the availability of physical activity (PA) evidence-based interventions and their application in real-world settings in policy and practice areas. This study aims to describe highly cited and high altmetrics publications in PA research and explore their impact on PA policy and practice.

METHODS

Mixed-methods sequential explanatory study including the identification and description of the top highly cited and high altmetrics PA publications from the last 10 years (including study design, population, type of PA study, number of citations, and altmetrics score), and interviews with key informants regarding research dissemination and implications on PA policy and practice.

RESULTS

When considering publication type, the most frequent highly cited publications were health consequences (40%, altmetrics = 42%), measurement/trends (23%, altmetrics = 10%), and correlates/determinants (21%, altmetrics = 26%) studies. They were predominantly cross-sectional (50%, altmetrics = 28%), systematic reviews (38%, altmetrics = 18%), and longitudinal studies (8%, altmetrics = 37%). All authors who participated in the interviews agreed that the most important factors in disseminating findings and influencing PA policy and practice were the published peer-reviewed manuscript itself, the reputation of the journal, the communication strategy, and the use of online platforms.

CONCLUSIONS

To have a real-world influence on PA policy and practice, it is not enough to publish the results in scientific journals and participate in media outreach. To successfully involve policymakers and communities in appropriating the evidence and evaluating the extent to which these findings affect policy and practice outcomes, it is critical to lead co-creation, co-dissemination, advocacy, and capacity building efforts.

Are public health researchers designing for dissemination? Findings from a national survey in China

BACKGROUND

Research findings are not always disseminated in ways preferred by audiences, and research dissemination is not always considered a priority by researchers. While designing for dissemination (D4D) provides an active process to facilitate effective dissemination, use of these practices in China is largely unknown. We aimed to describe the designing for dissemination activities and practices among public health researchers in China.

METHODS

In January 2022, we conducted a cross-sectional survey in 61 sub-committees of four national academic societies which include a wide range of health disciplines. The sample mainly involved researchers at universities or research institutions, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at national or regional levels, and hospitals. Participants completed a 42-item online questionnaire. Respondent characteristics, dissemination routes, dissemination barriers, organizational support, and personal practice of D4D were examined with descriptive analyses.

RESULTS

Of 956 respondents, 737 were researchers. Among these researchers, 58.1% had disseminated their research findings. Although there were some variation in the commonly used routes among different groups, academic journals (82.2%) and academic conferences (73.4%) were the most frequently used routes. Barriers to dissemination to non-research audiences existed at both organizational level (e.g., a lack of financial resources, platforms, and collaboration mechanisms) and individual level (e.g., a lack of time, knowledge, and skills, and uncertainty on how to disseminate). About a quarter of respondents (26.7%) had a dedicated person or team for dissemination in their unit or organization, with university researchers reporting a significantly higher proportion than their counterparts (P < 0.05). Only 14.2% of respondents always or usually used frameworks or theories to plan dissemination activities, 26.2% planned dissemination activities early, and 27.1% always or usually involved stakeholders in the research and dissemination process. Respondents with working experience in a practice or policy setting or dissemination and implementation training experience were more likely to apply these D4D strategies (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Considerable room exists for improvement in using impactful dissemination routes, tackling multiple barriers, providing organizational support, and applying D4D strategies among Chinese public health researchers. Our findings have implications for structural changes in academic incentive systems, collaborations and partnerships, funding priorities, and training opportunities.

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.

Dissemination of public health research to prevent non-communicable diseases: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Dissemination is a critical element of the knowledge translation pathway, and a necessary step to ensure research evidence is adopted and implemented by key end users in order to improve health outcomes. However, evidence-based guidance to inform dissemination activities in research is limited. This scoping review aimed to identify and describe the scientific literature examining strategies to disseminate public health evidence related to the prevention of non-communicable diseases.

METHODS

Medline, PsycInfo and EBSCO Search Ultimate were searched in May 2021 for studies published between January 2000 and the search date that reported on the dissemination of evidence to end users of public health evidence, within the context of the prevention of non-communicable diseases. Studies were synthesised according to the four components of Brownson and colleagues' Model for Dissemination of Research (source, message, channel and audience), as well as by study design.

RESULTS

Of the 107 included studies, only 14% (n = 15) directly tested dissemination strategies using experimental designs. The remainder primarily reported on dissemination preferences of different populations, or outcomes such as awareness, knowledge and intentions to adopt following evidence dissemination. Evidence related to diet, physical activity and/or obesity prevention was the most disseminated topic. Researchers were the source of disseminated evidence in over half the studies, and study findings/knowledge summaries were more frequently disseminated as the message compared to guidelines or an evidence-based program/intervention. A broad range of dissemination channels were utilised, although peer-reviewed publications/conferences and presentations/workshops predominated. Practitioners were the most commonly reported target audience.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a significant gap in the peer reviewed literature, with few experimental studies published that analyse and evaluate the effect of different sources, messages and target audiences on the determinants of uptake of public health evidence for prevention. Such studies are important as they can help inform and improve the effectiveness of current and future dissemination practices in public health contexts.

Disseminating Evidence-Based Interventions for Adolescent HIV Treatment and Prevention in Sub-Saharan Africa

Over two-thirds of adolescents living with HIV worldwide reside in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Despite widespread availability and access to evidence-based HIV prevention and treatment, dissemination has been inadequate. This commentary distinguishes between implementation and dissemination, reflecting on the unique barriers to dissemination of evidence-based programs in SSA. We present a seven-strategy blueprint developed by United States Agency for International Development (USAID) that emphasizes targeted communication about research findings. Two case studies from the Adolescent HIV Implementation Science Alliance are presented to illustrate the value of planning for dissemination. We propose recommendations to strengthen dissemination recognizing that these may not be possible or appropriate in all situations, including developing a plan early in the process, engaging a dissemination technical team for support, the application of methodological rigor and theory to inform dissemination, active involvement of youth voices and digital tools to maximize message reach, and a keen recognition of evolving contexts and shifting priorities in order to nimbly tailor messages as needed.

Advocacy, activism, and lobbying: How variations in interpretation affects ability for academia to engage with public policy

Research and teaching are considered core-responsibilities for academic researchers. "Practice" activities however are viewed as ancillary, despite university emphasis on their importance. As funders, governments, and academia address the role of research in social impact, the deliberations on researcher activism, advocacy and lobbying have seen a resurgence. This study explores the perceptions of 52 faculty and 24 government decisionmakers on the roles, responsibilities, and restrictions of an academic to proactively engage in efforts that can be interpreted under these three terms. Data was coded through inductive thematic analysis using Atlas.Ti and a framework approach. We found that discordant perceptions about how much activism, advocacy and lobbying faculty should be engaging in, results from how each term is defined, interpreted, supported and reported by the individuals, the School of Public Health (SPH), and government agencies. Influential faculty factors included: seniority, previous experiences, position within the institution, and being embedded in a research center with an advocacy focus. Faculty views on support for advocacy were often divergent. We surmise therefore, that for effective and mutually beneficial collaboration to occur, academic institutions need to align rhetoric with reality with respect to encouraging modes and support for government engagement. Similarly, government agencies need to provide more flexible modes of engagement. This will contribute to alleviating confusion as well as tension leading to more effective engagement and consequently opportunity for evidence-informed decision making in public health globally.

A mixed-methods study to test a tailored coaching program for health researchers to manage stress and achieve work-life balance

Dissemination and implementation (D&I) researchers serve critical scientific, practical, and personal roles in translating science to public health benefit. However, they face multifaceted barriers that may erode their capacity to plan, lead, and evaluate implementation. Individualized coaching focused on human flourishing is an unexplored approach to fully actualize D&I researchers' capacity to bridge the research-practice gap. The purpose of this exploratory pilot study was to investigate a tailored coaching program to support human flourishing among D&I researchers. A pragmatic, mixed-methods approach guided by the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) Framework was used to evaluate an individualized, nine session coaching program called FUEL (Focus, Unplug, Exercise, Love). Reach and Implementation were assessed through descriptive statistics and rapid qualitative analysis of surveys and coaching logs. Effectiveness and Maintenance were assessed through descriptive statistics and iterative content analysis of participant surveys, as well as iterative content analysis of proxy (e.g., colleague) semi-structured interviews. Reach results indicated that demand for coaching exceeded study enrollment capacity (n = 16 participants). Implementation results showed that the coach spent 12.96 ± 2.82 hr per participant over 3 months. Effectiveness and Maintenance results indicated that FUEL was well-received and provided participants with myriad psychological and professional benefits. Preliminary evidence suggests that the FUEL coaching program is a promising and feasible approach to enhance flourishing among D&I researchers. Future research is needed to evaluate Adoption and scalability. This pilot study may inform future D&I capacity-building initiatives that address researchers' holistic situatedness within the implementation process.

Reporting health services research to a broader public: An exploration of inconsistencies and reporting inadequacies in societal publications

Introduction

Little is known about the accuracy of societal publications (e.g. press releases, internet postings or professional journals) that are based on scientific work. This study investigates a) inconsistencies between scientific peer-reviewed health services research (HSR) publications and non-scientific societal publications and b) replication of reporting inadequacies from these scientific publications to corresponding societal publications.

Methods

A sample of HSR publications was drawn from 116 publications authored in 2016 by thirteen Dutch HSR institutions. Societal publications corresponding to scientific publications were identified through a systematic internet search. We conducted a qualitative, directed content analysis on societal publications derived from the scientific publications to assess both reporting inadequacies and determine inconsistencies. Descriptive frequencies were calculated for all variables. Odds ratios were used to investigate whether inconsistencies in societal publications were less likely when the first scientific author was involved.

Results

We identified 43 scientific and 156 societal publications. 94 societal publications (60.3%), (associated with 32 scientific publications (74.4%)) contained messages that were inconsistent with the scientific work. We found reporting inadequacies in 22 scientific publications (51.2%). In 45 societal publications (28.9%), we found replications of these reporting inadequacies. The likelihood of inconsistencies between scientific and societal publications did not differ when the latter explicitly involved the first scientific author, (OR = 1.44, CI: 0.76–2.74); were published on the institute’s or funder’s website, (OR = 1.32, CI: 0.57–3.06); published with no involvement of a scientific author, (OR = 0.52, CI: 0.25–1.07).

Conclusion

To improve societal publications, one should examine both the consistency with scientific research publications and ways to prevent replication of scientific reporting inadequacies. HSR institutions, funders, and scientific and societal publication platforms should invest in a supportive publication culture to further incentivise the responsible and skilled involvement of researchers in writing both scientific and societal publications.

Strategies for effective dissemination of research to United States policymakers: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Research has the potential to influence US social policy; however, existing research in this area lacks a coherent message. The Model for Dissemination of Research provides a framework through which to synthesize lessons learned from research to date on the process of translating research to US policymakers.

METHODS

The peer-reviewed and grey literature was systematically reviewed to understand common strategies for disseminating social policy research to policymakers in the United States. We searched Academic Search Premier, PolicyFile, SocINDEX, Social Work Abstracts, and Web of Science from January 1980 through December 2019. Articles were independently reviewed and thematically analyzed by two investigators and organized using the Model for Dissemination of Research.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 5225 titles and abstracts for inclusion consideration. 303 full-text articles were reviewed with 27 meeting inclusion criteria. Common sources of research dissemination included government, academic researchers, the peer reviewed literature, and independent organizations. The most frequently disseminated research topics were health-related, and legislators and executive branch administrators were the most common target audience. Print materials and personal communication were the most common channels for disseminating research to policymakers. There was variation in dissemination channels by level of government (e.g., a more formal legislative process at the federal level compared with other levesl). Findings from this work suggest that dissemination is most effective when it starts early, galvanizes support, uses champions and brokers, considers contextual factors, is timely, relevant, and accessible, and knows the players and process.

CONCLUSIONS

Effective dissemination of research to US policymakers exists; yet, rigorous quantitative evaluation is rare. A number of cross-cutting strategies appear to enhance the translation of research evidence into policy.

REGISTRATION

Not registered.

Midwives' use of best available evidence in practice: An integrative review

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To synthesise international research that relates to midwives' use of best available evidence in practice settings and identify key issues relating to the translation of latest evidence into everyday maternity care.

BACKGROUND

Midwifery is a research-informed profession. However, a gap persists in the translation of best available evidence into practice settings, compromising gold standard maternity care and delaying the translation of new knowledge into everyday practice.

DESIGN

A five-step integrative review approach, based on a series of articles published by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) for conducting systematic reviews, was used to facilitate development of a search strategy, selection criteria and quality appraisal process, and the extraction and synthesis of data to inform an integrative review.

METHODS

The databases CINAHL, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Implementation Science Journal and Scopus were searched for relevant articles. The screening and quality appraisal process complied with the PRISMA 2009 checklist. Narrative analysis was used to develop sub-categories and dimensions from the data, which were then synthesised to form two major categories that together answer the review question.

RESULTS

The six articles reviewed report on midwives' use of best available evidence in Australia, the UK and Asia. Two major categories emerged that confirm that although midwifery values evidence-based practice (EBP), evidence-informed maternity care is not always employed in clinical settings. Additionally, closure of the evidence-to-practice gap in maternity care requires a multidimensional approach.

CONCLUSION

Collaborative partnerships between midwives and researchers are necessary to initiate strategies that support midwives' efforts to facilitate the timely movement of best available evidence into practice.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Understanding midwives' use of best available evidence in practice will direct future efforts towards the development of mechanisms that facilitate the timely uptake of latest evidence by all maternity care providers working in clinical settings.

Getting the Word Out: New Approaches for Disseminating Public Health Science

The gap between discovery of public health knowledge and application in practice settings and policy development is due in part to ineffective dissemination. This article describes (1) lessons related to dissemination from related disciplines (eg, communication, agriculture, social marketing, political science), (2) current practices among researchers, (3) key audience characteristics, (4) available tools for dissemination, and (5) measures of impact. Dissemination efforts need to take into account the message, source, audience, and channel. Practitioners and policy makers can be more effectively reached via news media, social media, issue or policy briefs, one-on-one meetings, and workshops and seminars. Numerous “upstream” and “midstream” indicators of impact include changes in public perception or awareness, greater use of evidence-based interventions, and changes in policy. By employing ideas outlined in this article, scientific discoveries are more likely to be applied in public health agencies and policy-making bodies.

IMI - Industry Guidelines and Ethical Considerations for Myopia Control Report

Purpose

To discuss guidelines and ethical considerations associated with the development and prescription of treatments intended for myopia control (MC).

Methods

Critical review of published papers and guidance documents was undertaken, with a view to carefully considering the ethical standards associated with the investigation, development, registration, marketing, prescription, and use of MC treatments.

Results

The roles and responsibilities of regulatory bodies, manufacturers, academics, eye care practitioners, and patients in the use of MC treatments are explored. Particular attention is given to the ethical considerations for deciding whether to implement a MC strategy and how to implement this within a clinical trial or practice setting. Finally, the responsibilities in marketing, support, and education required to transfer required knowledge and skills to eye care practitioners and academics are discussed.

Conclusions

Undertaking MC treatment in minors creates an ethical challenge for a wide variety of stakeholders. Regulatory bodies, manufacturers, academics, and clinicians all share an ethical responsibility to ensure that the products used for MC are safe and efficacious and that patients understand the benefits and potential risks of such products. This International Myopia Institute report highlights these ethical challenges and provides stakeholders with recommendations and guidelines in the development, financial support, prescribing, and advertising of such treatments.

Engaging study participants in interpreting results: lessons from the TRIO study in Kenya and South Africa

Background: Women account for 56% of new HIV infections in sub-Saharan Africa. Multipurpose Prevention Technologies (MPTs) are promising interventions because they combine HIV prevention with a less stigmatizing indication, such as pregnancy. We conducted a study with three placebo-only MPT products in Kisumu, Kenya and Soshanguve, South Africa, to assess preferences for attributes of tablets, vaginal rings and injectable products for dual prevention of HIV and pregnancy (TRIO Study). Here, we present former TRIO participants' views on the study results. Methods: After study completion in 2017, we held five dissemination sessions (two in Kisumu and three in Soshanguve) and five one-on-one sharing sessions in Soshanguve. Key results were discussed, with a focus on why some study products were more popular than others, which findings were surprising and why some women changed products over time. A thematic approach was used for analysis. Results: All 277 TRIO participants were telephoned, 168 (60.6%) were reached and 117 (42.2%) attended the dissemination sessions: 71 in Kisumu and 46 in Soshanguve. Participants were engaged and interested in the TRIO findings and willingly shared their perspectives and views candidly. Ease of use, discretion and familiarity were highlighted as drivers of product choice whereas novelty presented a challenge. In explaining the discrepancy between preference ratings and choices, participants cited features such as tablets being easy to explain to a partner or to discontinue. In explaining why 20% of participants switched products after practical experience, issues related to relationships with partners and product attributes perceived as unfavorable were paramount. Conclusion: The dissemination sessions provided an important forum for study participants to interrogate and explain the results to minimize possible misinterpretation. This exercise helped give context to the results, ensured correct lessons were derived from those results and increased credibility of the findings reported by the investigators.

The complex nature of research dissemination practices among public health faculty researchers

Objective

This study explores the variety of information formats used and audiences targeted by public health faculty in the process of disseminating research.

Methods

The authors conducted semi-structured interviews with twelve faculty members in the School of Public Health at the University of Illinois at Chicago, asking them about their research practices, habits, and preferences.

Results

Faculty scholars disseminate their research findings in a variety of formats intended for multiple audiences, including not only their peers in academia, but also public health practitioners, policymakers, government and other agencies, and community partners.

Conclusion

Librarians who serve public health faculty should bear in mind the diversity of faculty's information needs when designing and improving library services and resources, particularly those related to research dissemination and knowledge translation. Promising areas for growth in health sciences libraries include supporting data visualization, measuring the impact of non-scholarly publications, and promoting institutional repositories for dissemination of research.

[Access to information for evidence-based decision-making from the perspective of Municipal Health Secretaries in the State of Paraná, Brazil, 2014]

The study aimed to identify information sources for decision-making and barriers to access in the use of scientific journals by Municipal Health Secretaries in the State of Paraná, Brazil. Study participants included Secretaries of Health from 181 municipalities in the year 2014. Interviews focused on the frequency of consultation of resources for obtaining evidence, including from scientific journals. 40.9% of the participants were 18 to 39 years of age (mean age was 43±10.2 years; median 42 years). More than two-thirds (69.1%) had held the office of health secretary for less than five years. The majority were males (56.4%), and only one in three had a graduate degree in public health. The main sources of information were "non-scientific periodicals" (76.2%), "print/online journals" (71.4%), and "Ministry of Health guidelines" (71.3%). The main barriers to use of scientific journals were "lack of time for reading" (72.9%), "periodical's high cost" (69.1%), and "difficulty in identifying the best periodicals" (63.5%). The main information sources were non-scientific periodicals and Ministry of Health guidelines. The use of scientific journals is hindered by lack of time and limited familiarity with scientific language. Access to scientific information should be facilitated by the use of more accessible sources and training for municipal administrators in the use of open-access periodicals. Such measures can foster knowledge of current evidence among municipal health secretaries.

Building Capacity for Evidence-Based Public Health: Reconciling the Pulls of Practice and the Push of Research

Timely implementation of principles of evidence-based public health (EBPH) is critical for bridging the gap between discovery of new knowledge and its application. Public health organizations need sufficient capacity (the availability of resources, structures, and workforce to plan, deliver, and evaluate the preventive dose of an evidence-based intervention) to move science to practice. We review principles of EBPH, the importance of capacity building to advance evidence-based approaches, promising approaches for capacity building, and future areas for research and practice. Although there is general agreement among practitioners and scientists on the importance of EBPH, there is less clarity on the definition of evidence, how to find it, and how, when, and where to use it. Capacity for EBPH is needed among both individuals and organizations. Capacity can be strengthened via training, use of tools, technical assistance, assessment and feedback, peer networking, and incentives. Modest investments in EBPH capacity building will foster more effective public health practice.

Improving interpretation of publically reported statistics on health and healthcare: the Figure Interpretation Assessment Tool (FIAT-Health)

BACKGROUND

Policy-makers, managers, scientists, patients and the general public are confronted daily with figures on health and healthcare through public reporting in newspapers, webpages and press releases. However, information on the key characteristics of these figures necessary for their correct interpretation is often not adequately communicated, which can lead to misinterpretation and misinformed decision-making. The objective of this research was to map the key characteristics relevant to the interpretation of figures on health and healthcare, and to develop a Figure Interpretation Assessment Tool-Health (FIAT-Health) through which figures on health and healthcare can be systematically assessed, allowing for a better interpretation of these figures.

METHODS

The abovementioned key characteristics of figures on health and healthcare were identified through systematic expert consultations in the Netherlands on four topic categories of figures, namely morbidity, healthcare expenditure, healthcare outcomes and lifestyle. The identified characteristics were used as a frame for the development of the FIAT-Health. Development of the tool and its content was supported and validated through regular review by a sounding board of potential users.

RESULTS

Identified characteristics relevant for the interpretation of figures in the four categories relate to the figures' origin, credibility, expression, subject matter, population and geographical focus, time period, and underlying data collection methods. The characteristics were translated into a set of 13 dichotomous and 4-point Likert scale questions constituting the FIAT-Health, and two final assessment statements. Users of the FIAT-Health were provided with a summary overview of their answers to support a final assessment of the correctness of a figure and the appropriateness of its reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

FIAT-Health can support policy-makers, managers, scientists, patients and the general public to systematically assess the quality of publicly reported figures on health and healthcare. It also has the potential to support the producers of health and healthcare data in clearly communicating their data to different audiences. Future research should focus on the further validation of the tool in practice.

"Now What?" Perceived Factors Influencing Knowledge Exchange in School Health Research

Increasing the uptake of school health research into practice is pivotal for improving adolescent health. COMPASS, a longitudinal study of Ontario and Alberta secondary students and schools (2012-2021), used a knowledge exchange process to enhance schools' use of research findings. Schools received annual summaries of their students' health behaviors and suggestions for action and were linked with a knowledge broker to support them in making changes to improve student health. The current research explored factors that influenced COMPASS knowledge exchange activities. Semistructured interviews were conducted with researchers (n = 13), school staff (n = 13), and public health stakeholders (n = 4). Interestingly, knowledge users focused more on factors that influenced their use of COMPASS findings than factors that influenced knowledge brokering. The factors identified by participants are similar to those that influence implementation of school health interventions (e.g., importance of school champions, competing priorities, inadequate resources). While knowledge exchange offers a way to reduce the gap between research and practice, schools that need the most support may not engage in knowledge exchange; hence, we must consider how to increase engagement of these schools to ultimately improve student health.