What is context in knowledge translation? Results of a systematic scoping review

Knowledge Translation (KT) aims to convey novel ideas to relevant stakeholders, motivating their response or action to improve people's health. Initially, the KT literature focused on evidence-based medicine, applying findings from laboratory and clinical research to disease diagnosis and treatment. Since the early 2000s, the scope of KT has expanded to include decision-making with health policy implications.This systematic scoping review aims to assess the evolving knowledge-to-policy concepts, that is, macro-level KT theories, models and frameworks (KT TMFs). While significant attention has been devoted to transferring knowledge to healthcare settings (i.e. implementing health policies, programmes or measures at the meso-level), the definition of 'context' in the realm of health policymaking at the macro-level remains underexplored in the KT literature. This study aims to close the gap.A total of 32 macro-level KT TMFs were identified, with only a limited subset of them offering detailed insights into contextual factors that matter in health policymaking. Notably, the majority of these studies prompt policy changes in low- and middle-income countries and received support from international organisations, the European Union, development agencies or philanthropic entities.

Faculty members as academic knowledge brokers in Iran's health sector: a social network analysis study

BACKGROUND

Interaction between researchers and policymakers is an essential factor to facilitate the evidence-informed policymaking. One of the effective ways to establish this relationship and promote evidence-informed policymaking is to employ people or organizations that can play the role of knowledge brokers. This study aims to analyze the communication network and interactions between researchers and policymakers in Iran's health sector and identify key people serving as academic knowledge brokers.

METHODS

This study was a survey research. Using a census approach, we administered a sociometric survey to faculty members in the health field in top ten Iranian medical universities to construct academic-policymaker network using social network analysis method. Network maps were generated using UCINET and NetDraw software. We used Indegree Centrality, Outdegree Centrality, and Betweenness Centrality indicators to determine knowledge brokers in the network.

RESULTS

The drawn network had a total of 188 nodes consisting of 94 university faculty members and 94 policymakers at three national, provincial, and university levels. The network comprised a total of 177 links, with 125 connecting to policymakers and 52 to peers. Of 56 faculty members, we identified four knowledge brokers. Six policymakers were identified as key policymakers in the network, too.

CONCLUSIONS

It seems that the flow of knowledge produced by research in the health field in Iran is not accomplished well from the producers of research evidence to the users of knowledge. Therefore, it seems necessary to consider incentive and support mechanisms to strengthen the interaction between researchers and policymakers in Iran's health sector.

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.

Strengthening health system governance in Germany: looking back, planning ahead

Health system governance has been receiving increasing attention in health system research since the 1980s. The contemporary challenges that the German health system is faced with are often closely linked to governance issues. Although Germany has the highest health expenditure as a share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the European Union (EU), the spending on healthcare is out of proportion to the health outcomes of the population. The reason for this lies mainly in the complexity of the German health system which is hard to steer due to several administrative levels in the country and numerous policy actors to whom the decision-making power on healthcare provision is delegated. In this paper, we present the results of focus group discussions on governance and build upon the insights gained through the Neustart project of the Robert Bosch Foundation. Based on an internationally recognised health governance framework from the World Health Organization (WHO), experts who work in, on or for the German health system addressed health governance challenges. They provided evidence-based recommendations for the new legislative period (2021-2025) on transparency, accountability, participation, integrity and capacity of the German health system.

Understanding global health policy engagements with qualitative research: Qualitative evidence syntheses and the OptimizeMNH guidelines

Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence-or 'qualitative evidence syntheses' (QES)-have recently become an important form of knowledge production within the broader projects of 'evidence-based medicine' (EBM) and 'evidence-informed policymaking' in global health. Proponents of QES argue that these reviews offer a way to promote 'health systems thinking' and build a better understanding of local process and context in global health policy- and decision-making. EBM's detailed technical procedures for evidence synthesis, however, do not necessarily fit well with conventional qualitative research paradigms and there are concerns that subjecting qualitative research to EBM's logics and practices might fatally compromise both its epistemological integrity and political impact. This article addresses these concerns via a reflective case study of the use of qualitative evidence in the World Health Organization's (WHO) OptimizeMNH guidelines for task shifting in maternal and newborn health programs. When I first joined the team developing the evidence base for these health systems-oriented guidelines, I wondered whether the inclusion of qualitative research would result in a broadening of the forms of reason, experience and judgment that informed global health policy, or instead, be another disheartening example of how modern bureaucratic systems coopt, standardize, and complexity-reduce the alternative logics they encounter. While the integration of qualitative evidence did come at some cost to the depth and critical insights of the evidence we were reviewing, there were also important ways in which the technical procedures of evidence-based medicine were open to adaptation and transformation. The formal inclusion of qualitative evidence syntheses in these global guidelines did not represent-or produce-a dramatic about-turn in global health policy's hegemonic discourses and practices. It did reveal, however, that powerful systems of health governance like the WHO and evidence-based medicine are not inevitably closed, but in fact open to change, in often unpredictable ways.

Public opinion about evidence-informed health policy development in U.S. Congress

Promoting evidence-informed health policymaking is a priority of the Society of Behavioral Medicine and other professional societies. However, politics often impede the translation of research into policy. Public opinion is an important feature of political context that influences policymakers' behaviors, but prior research has not examined public opinion about evidence-informed health policy development. This exploratory study sought to characterize public opinion about the influence that evidence should, and does, have on health policy development in U.S. Congress relative to other factors and examine differences by political party affiliation. A public opinion survey was conducted in 2018 using the SSRS Probability Panel (N = 532). Respondents separately rated the extent to which six factors (e.g., evidence, budget impact, industry interests) "should have" and "currently have" influence on U.S. congresspersons' health policy decisions. Evidence (59%) was the most frequently identified factor that should have "a lot of influence" on health policy development, but only 11% of respondents thought that evidence currently has "a lot of influence" (p < .001). Opinions about evidence did not vary significantly by political party. The interests of insurance and pharmaceutical companies were identified as factors that should have the least influence on policy development, but were perceived as having the most influence (p < .001). There is strong bipartisan public support for evidence to have much more influence on health policy development in U.S. Congress. Efforts that aim to improve evidence-informed health policymaking should consider harnessing the power of public opinion to change elected policymakers' behaviors.

Population health monitoring: an essential public health field in motion

BACKGROUND

Population health monitoring, the regular and institutionalized production and dissemination of information and knowledge about the health status of a population, is an essential element of public health. Nevertheless, while epidemiology and biostatistics, for example, are well-recognized disciplines, this does not (yet) apply to population health monitoring. Over the past decade, however, it has matured as a distinct field of expertise.

OBJECTIVES

This paper presents a comprehensive model for population health monitoring and describes its current status as a field of expertise. It concludes with an overview of the most important developments that are likely to shape the health information systems and population health monitoring practices of the future.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Combining the information pyramid (an application of the data-information-knowledge-wisdom hierarchy), describing outputs, and a so-called monitoring chain, describing activities, results in a comprehensive model for population health monitoring. The steps of the activity chain can be viewed as a stairway by which the information pyramid is climbed, reaching evidence-informed policymaking at the top. Population health monitoring has several inherent strengths, such as its high societal relevance; its integrative, comprehensive, and structured approach; and the fact that it makes use of routinely collected data. In practice, however, secondary use of routine data is often hampered by technical, motivational, economic, political, ethical, and legal barriers. Important developments that will shape health information systems and population health monitoring practices of the future include digitalization and data-driven technology, citizen science, and the growing need for intersectoral approaches. Population health monitoring practice will need to adapt in order to counteract the risks and reap the benefits that these developments hold.

Capacity for evidence-informed policymaking across Europe: development and piloting of a multistakeholder survey

OBJECTIVES

Evidence-informed policymaking (EIP) is increasingly viewed as a complex endeavour that requires integration of research evidence with available resources and the preferences of those affected by the policy. The first technical expert meeting to enhance EIP in the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region identified the scope to develop and conduct a survey to gather insights into the generation, translation and application of research evidence across the region. This article describes the process of developing and piloting a multistakeholder survey (promoted and technically supported by WHO/Europe) on the topic of capacity for EIP.

STUDY DESIGN

Rapid review and pilot cross-sectional survey.

METHODS

A survey instrument was developed based on findings from the published literature and refined with input from EIP experts/champions. The online survey was then piloted using various recruitment strategies designed to maximise its reach among the key target groups (senior researchers, knowledge brokers and members of civil society).

RESULTS

The rapid review revealed a clear gap in the evidence base in relation to broader surveys of capacity for EIP, as opposed to evidence-based practice at an individual level. Thirteen responses to the pilot survey were received from individuals in 10 European countries. Reported barriers to EIP included a lack of understanding among policymakers and a lack of interaction with researchers. There were examples of efforts to enhance capacity for EIP, both at region or country level and through membership of international networks and collaborations. However, few examples were given of the application and impact of research evidence on the policymaking process.

CONCLUSION

This research has demonstrated the feasibility of developing and piloting a multicountry, multistakeholder survey to generate better understanding of evidence use in health policymaking. Next steps include incorporating the lessons learned into a revised version of the survey to be implemented with all 53 WHO/Europe Member States.

The SPARK Tool to prioritise questions for systematic reviews in health policy and systems research: development and initial validation

Background

Groups or institutions funding or conducting systematic reviews in health policy and systems research (HPSR) should prioritise topics according to the needs of policymakers and stakeholders. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a tool to prioritise questions for systematic reviews in HPSR.

Methods

We developed the tool following a four-step approach consisting of (1) the definition of the purpose and scope of tool, (2) item generation and reduction, (3) testing for content and face validity, (4) and pilot testing of the tool. The research team involved international experts in HPSR, systematic review methodology and tool development, led by the Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK). We followed an inclusive approach in determining the final selection of items to allow customisation to the user’s needs.

Results

The purpose of the SPARK tool was to prioritise questions in HPSR in order to address them in systematic reviews. In the item generation and reduction phase, an extensive literature search yielded 40 relevant articles, which were reviewed by the research team to create a preliminary list of 19 candidate items for inclusion in the tool. As part of testing for content and face validity, input from international experts led to the refining, changing, merging and addition of new items, and to organisation of the tool into two modules. Following pilot testing, we finalised the tool, with 22 items organised in two modules – the first module including 13 items to be rated by policymakers and stakeholders, and the second including 9 items to be rated by systematic review teams. Users can customise the tool to their needs, by omitting items that may not be applicable to their settings. We also developed a user manual that provides guidance on how to use the SPARK tool, along with signaling questions.

Conclusion

We have developed and conducted initial validation of the SPARK tool to prioritise questions for systematic reviews in HPSR, along with a user manual. By aligning systematic review production to policy priorities, the tool will help support evidence-informed policymaking and reduce research waste. We invite others to contribute with additional real-life implementation of the tool.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-017-0242-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A retrospective health policy analysis of the development and implementation of the voluntary health insurance system in Lebanon: learning from failure

Public policymaking is complex and suffers from limited uptake of research evidence, particularly in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR). In-depth case studies examining health policymaking in the EMR are lacking. This retrospective policy analysis aims at generating insights about how policies are being made, identifying factors influencing policymaking and assessing to what extent evidence is used in this process by using the Lebanese Voluntary Health Insurance policy as a case study. The study examined the policymaking process through a policy tracing technique that covered a period of 12 years. The study employed a qualitative research design using a case study approach and was conducted in two phases over the course of two years. Data was collected using multiple sources including: 1) a comprehensive and chronological media review; 2) twenty-two key informant interviews with policymakers, stakeholders, and journalists; and 3) a document review of legislations, minutes of meetings, actuarial studies, and official documents. Data was analyzed and validated using thematic analysis. Findings showed that the voluntary health insurance policy was a political decision taken by the government to tackle an urgent political problem. Evidence was not used to guide policy development and implementation and policy implementers and other stakeholders were not involved in policy development. Factors influencing policymaking were political interests, sectarianism, urgency, and values of policymakers. Barriers to the use of evidence were lack of policy-relevant research evidence, political context, personal interests, and resource constraints. Findings suggest that policymakers should be made more aware of the important role of evidence in informing public policymaking and the need for building capacity to develop, implement and evaluate policies. Study findings are likely to matter in light of the changes that are unfolding in some Arab countries and the looming opportunities for policy reforms.