Dataset Information

Deconstructing knowledge brokering for commissioned rapid reviews: an observational study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Knowledge brokers are increasingly used by policy agencies, yet little is known about how they engage with policy-makers and facilitate discussions with them about their research needs. This study examines knowledge brokers' behaviour in one-off interactions with policy-makers commissioning rapid reviews. It describes how knowledge brokers engage with policy-makers, build trust and gain agreement about the review's parameters. METHODS:We observed and transcribed 15 structured knowledge brokering sessions and used line-by-line analysis to derive, test and refine a coding schedule. The final coding schedule was applied to all transcripts. We assigned 35 codes to three tasks identified in the data, namely eliciting information, exploring the policy context and negotiating the content of reviews. RESULTS:The knowledge brokers we observed were skilled facilitators who built trust by their open stance, neutrality, and knowledge of research and policy contexts. Trust engendered an interplay of expertise in which review questions and scope were clarified and contextual factors evaluated. Negotiation about the content of the review focused on understanding how it would contribute to the policy process, comparing options and assessing feasibility. Key functions of knowledge brokers included eliciting and clarifying information, linking the review questions to the context and purpose, moving fluidly between policy and research perspectives, and weighing up review options against policy objectives. Four knowledge brokering roles were identified, namely diagnostic, facilitative, deliberative and interpretative. CONCLUSIONS:This study identified ways in which knowledge brokers established rapport with policy-makers who commissioned reviews, enabled disclosure of essential information and explored contextual factors that affected the review's purpose and intended use. Knowledge brokers were competent in the discourse and conventions of both policy and research and were skilled in negotiating complex policy and political environments, assisting policy-makers to evaluate options and craft a review proposal that was targeted, responsive and feasible. Mutuality, respect and an interplay of expertise were integral to the knowledge brokering process. Future research might usefully examine whether other rapid review programmes using knowledge brokers have similar results as well as the transferability of the four knowledge brokering roles to other contexts and settings.

SUBMITTER: Moore G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6292028 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Deconstructing knowledge brokering for commissioned rapid reviews: an observational study.

Moore G G Redman S S Butow P P Haynes A A

Health research policy and systems 20181212 1

<h4>Background</h4>Knowledge brokers are increasingly used by policy agencies, yet little is known about how they engage with policy-makers and facilitate discussions with them about their research needs. This study examines knowledge brokers' behaviour in one-off interactions with policy-makers commissioning rapid reviews. It describes how knowledge brokers engage with policy-makers, build trust and gain agreement about the review's parameters.<h4>Methods</h4>We observed and transcribed 15 stru ...[more]

PMID: 30541561

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRapid reviews are increasingly used by policy agencies to access relevant research in short timeframes. Despite the growing number of programmes, little is known about how rapid reviews are used by health policy agencies. This study examined whether and how rapid reviews commissioned using a knowledge brokering programme were used by Australian policy-makers.MethodsThis study used interview data to examine the use of 139 rapid reviews by health policy agencies that were commissioned between 2006 and 2015. Transcripts were coded to identify how rapid reviews were used, the type of policy processes in which they were used, what evidence of use was provided and what reasons were given when rapid reviews were not used. Fisher's exact test was used to assess variation between types of agencies.ResultsOverall, 89% of commissioned rapid reviews were used by the commissioning agencies and 338 separate instances of use were identified, namely, on average, three uses per review. Policy-makers used reviews primarily to determine the details of a policy or programme, identify priorities for future action or investment, negotiate interjurisdictional decisions, evaluate alternative solutions for a policy problem, and communicate information to stakeholders. Some variation in use was observed across agencies. Reasons for non-use were related to changes in organisational structures, resources or key personnel in the commissioning agencies, or changes in the broader political environment.ConclusionsThis study found that almost all rapid reviews had been used by the agencies who commissioned them, primarily in policy and programme development, agenda-setting, and to communicate information to stakeholders. Reviews were used mostly in instrumental and conceptual ways and there was little evidence of symbolic use. Variations in use were identified across agencies. The findings suggest that commissioned rapid reviews are an effective means of providing timely relevant research for use in policy processes and that review findings may be applied in a variety of ways.

Project description:BackgroundKnowledge brokering is a knowledge translation strategy used in healthcare settings to facilitate the implementation of evidence into practice. How healthcare providers perceive and respond to various knowledge translation approaches is not well understood. This qualitative study used the Theoretical Domains Framework to examine healthcare providers' experiences with receiving one of two knowledge translation strategies: a remote knowledge broker (rKB); or monthly emails, for encouraging delivery of mood management interventions to patients enrolled in a smoking cessation program.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 healthcare providers recruited from primary care teams. We used stratified purposeful sampling to recruit participants who were allocated to receive either the rKB, or a monthly email-based knowledge translation strategy as part of a cluster randomized controlled trial. Interviews were structured around domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to explore determinants influencing practice change. Data were coded into relevant domains.ResultsBoth knowledge translation strategies were considered helpful prompts to remind participants to deliver mood interventions to patients presenting depressive symptoms. Neither strategy appeared to have influenced the health care providers on the domains we probed. The domains pertaining to knowledge and professional identity were perceived as facilitators to implementation, while domains related to beliefs about consequences, emotion, and environmental context acted as barriers and/or facilitators to healthcare providers implementing mood management interventions.ConclusionBoth strategies served as reminders and reinforced providers' knowledge regarding the connection between smoking and depressed mood. The TDF can help researchers better understand the influence of specific knowledge translation strategies on healthcare provider behavior change, as well as potential barriers and facilitators to implementation of evidence-informed interventions. Environmental context should be considered to address challenges and facilitate the movement of knowledge into clinical practice.

Project description:BackgroundAppropriate 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsThe 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).ConclusionsThis 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 registrationThe study was prospectively registered at the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/ga9pt/ ).

Project description:BackgroundA knowledge brokering (KB) intervention was implemented in Burkina Faso. By creating partnerships with health system actors in one district, the broker was expected to assess their knowledge needs, survey the literature to provide the most recent research evidence, produce various knowledge translation tools, and support them in using research to improve their actions. The purpose of this study was to analyze the key factors that influenced the KB project and to make recommendations for future initiatives.MethodsThe qualitative design involved a single case study in which the KB intervention implementation was evaluated retrospectively. Data came from interviews with the intervention team (n = 4) and with various actors involved in the intervention (n = 16). Data from formative evaluations conducted during the KB implementation and observation data from a two-month field mission were also used. Two conceptual frameworks were combined to guide the analysis: the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (Damschroder et al., 2009) and the Ecological Framework (Durlak & DuPre, 2008).ResultsVarious KB activities were conducted during the first two years of implementation at the local level. The project came to an early end following vain efforts to relocate the intervention at the central level in order to further influence the policy process. Certain shortcomings in the implementation team negatively influenced the implementation: inadequate leadership, no shared vision regarding the reorientation of the intervention, challenges related to the KB role, and lack of frank communications internally. Other impediments to the intervention's deployment included local actors' lack of decision-making authority, the unavailability of resources and of organizational incentives for involvement in the KB intervention, and contextual challenges in accessing the central level. However, the KB strategy presented several strengths: collaborative development, support provided to local partners by the broker, and training opportunities and support provided to the broker.ConclusionsMore attention must be paid to intervention planning, partners' engagement, human, financial and technical resources availability, continuous development of skills and of communications within the KB team, and periodic assessment of potential obstacles related to the complexity of the system within which the intervention has been implemented. Using implementation science frameworks when developing KB strategies in the West African context should be promoted.

Project description:BackgroundPolicy makers and others often require synthesis of knowledge in an area within six months or less. Traditional systematic reviews typically take at least 12 months to conduct. Rapid reviews streamline traditional systematic review methods in order to synthesize evidence within a shortened timeframe. There is great variation in the process of conducting rapid reviews. This review sought to examine methods used for rapid reviews, as well as implications of methodological streamlining in terms of rigour, bias, and results.MethodsA comprehensive search strategy--including five electronic databases, grey literature, hand searching of relevant journals, and contacting key informants--was undertaken. All titles and abstracts (n = 1,989) were reviewed independently by two reviewers. Relevance criteria included articles published between 1995 and 2009 about conducting rapid reviews or addressing comparisons of rapid reviews versus traditional reviews. Full articles were retrieved for any titles deemed relevant by either reviewer (n = 70). Data were extracted from all relevant methodological articles (n = 45) and from exemplars of rapid review methods (n = 25).ResultsRapid reviews varied from three weeks to six months; various methods for speeding up the process were employed. Some limited searching by years, databases, language, and sources beyond electronic searches. Several employed one reviewer for title and abstract reviewing, full text review, methodological quality assessment, and/or data extraction phases. Within rapid review studies, accelerating the data extraction process may lead to missing some relevant information. Biases may be introduced due to shortened timeframes for literature searching, article retrieval, and appraisal.ConclusionsThis review examined the continuum between diverse rapid review methods and traditional systematic reviews. It also examines potential implications of streamlined review methods. More of these rapid reviews need to be published in the peer-reviewed literature with an emphasis on articulating methods employed. While one consistent methodological approach may not be optimal or appropriate, it is important that researchers undertaking reviews within the rapid to systematic continuum provide detailed descriptions of methods used and discuss the implications of their chosen methods in terms of potential bias introduced. Further research comparing full systematic reviews with rapid reviews will enhance understanding of the limitations of these methods.

Dataset Information

Deconstructing knowledge brokering for commissioned rapid reviews: an observational study.

Publications

Deconstructing knowledge brokering for commissioned rapid reviews: an observational study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets