Dataset Information

Optimizing the Impact of Public-Academic Partnerships in Fostering Policymakers' Use of Research Evidence: Proposal to Test a Conceptual Framework.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Previous research has reported that public-academic partnerships (PAPs) can effectively promote PAP leaders' use of research evidence in improving youth outcomes. However, the existing literature has not yet clarified whether and how PAP leaders' use of research evidence evolves along the PAP life cycle and whether PAP partners' concordant perceptions of usefulness of their PAP has an impact on PAP leaders' use of research evidence. Developing a conceptual framework that recognizes the PAP life cycle and empirically identifying contexts and mechanisms of PAPs that promote PAP leaders' use of research evidence from the PAP life cycle perspective are imperative to guide researchers and policymakers to successfully lead PAPs and foster policymakers' use of research evidence for improving youth outcomes. OBJECTIVE:Utilizing an integrated framework of organizational life cycle perspective, a social partnership perspective, and a realist evaluation, this study examines the extent to which PAP development and PAP leaders' use of research evidence can be characterized into life cycle stages and identifies PAP contexts and mechanisms that explain the progress of PAPs and PAP leaders' use of research evidence through life cycle stages. METHODS:Recruiting PAPs across the United States that aim to improve mental health and promote well-being of youth aged 12-25 years, the study conducts a document analysis and an online survey of PAPs to inform policymakers and academic researchers on the contexts and mechanisms to increase PAP sustainability and promote policymakers' use of research evidence in improving youth outcomes. RESULTS:Fifty-three PAPs that meet the recruitment criteria have been identified, and document review of PAPs and participant recruitment for the online survey of PAP experience have been conducted. CONCLUSIONS:This paper will help policymakers and researchers gain a deeper knowledge of the contexts and mechanisms for each PAP life cycle stage in order to optimize PAP leaders' use of research evidence in achieving positive youth outcomes. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID):DERR1-10.2196/14382.

SUBMITTER: Kang-Yi CD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6555116 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Optimizing the Impact of Public-Academic Partnerships in Fostering Policymakers' Use of Research Evidence: Proposal to Test a Conceptual Framework.

Kang-Yi Christina D CD

JMIR research protocols 20190524 5

<h4>Background</h4>Previous research has reported that public-academic partnerships (PAPs) can effectively promote PAP leaders' use of research evidence in improving youth outcomes. However, the existing literature has not yet clarified whether and how PAP leaders' use of research evidence evolves along the PAP life cycle and whether PAP partners' concordant perceptions of usefulness of their PAP has an impact on PAP leaders' use of research evidence. Developing a conceptual framework that recog ...[more]

PMID: 31127725

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHealth care databases contain a wealth of information that can be used to develop programs and mature health care systems. There is concern that the sensitive nature of health data (eg, ethnicity, reproductive health, sexually transmitted infections, and lifestyle information) can have significant impact on individuals if misused, particularly among vulnerable and marginalized populations. As academic institutions, nongovernmental organizations, and international agencies begin to collaborate with low- and middle-income countries to develop and deploy health information technology (HIT), it is important to understand the technical and practical security implications of these initiatives.ObjectiveOur aim is to develop a conceptual framework for risk stratification of global health data partnerships and HIT projects. In addition to identifying key conceptual domains, we map each domain to a variety of publicly available indices that could be used to inform a quantitative model.MethodsWe conducted an overview of the literature to identify relevant publications, position statements, white papers, and reports. The research team reviewed all sources and used the framework method and conceptual framework analysis to name and categorize key concepts, integrate them into domains, and synthesize them into an overarching conceptual framework. Once key domains were identified, public international data sources were searched for relevant structured indices to generate quantitative counterparts.ResultsWe identified 5 key domains to inform our conceptual framework: State of HIT, Economics of Health Care, Demographics and Equity, Societal Freedom and Safety, and Partnership and Trust. Each of these domains was mapped to a number of structured indices.ConclusionsThere is a complex relationship among the legal, economic, and social domains of health care, which affects the state of HIT in low- and middle-income countries and associated data security risks. The strength of partnership and trust among collaborating organizations is an important moderating factor. Additional work is needed to formalize the assessment of partnership and trust and to develop a quantitative model of the conceptual framework that can help support organizational decision-making.

Project description:BackgroundNumerous determinants have been linked to public mental health; however, they have not been brought together in a comprehensive conceptual framework. The goal of this work was to bring together academic research, practitioner expertise, and public perspectives to create a public mental health conceptual framework.MethodsThe development process proceeded in four stages. First, we identified a comprehensive list of potential determinants through a state-of-the-art academic literature review, grey literature review, and created mind maps created by peer researchers. Next, we conducted in-person workshops, consultations, and an online survey with academics, practitioners, policy makers, and members of the public to review the potential determinants, nominate additional determinants, and prioritise determinants by importance for understanding public mental health. This iterative process resulted in the final list of determinants contained in the framework. We then conducted rapid reviews to define each determinant and to identify key research, interventions, and resources. Finally, we worked with a design team to visualise the conceptual framework as an online tool and printable infographic.ResultsWe found substantial overlap between sources reflecting a shared understanding of the key drivers of public mental health. The unique determinants that emerged from each data source highlighted the importance of using multiple sources to create a comprehensive model. 72 potential determinants were prioritised through stakeholder consultations, resulting in a final list of 55 determinants and organised into four levels: individual, family, community, and structural.ConclusionsThis is the most complete conceptual framework for public mental health to date, bringing together academic research, policy and practitioner views, and lived experience perspectives. The co-production processes and tools we used provides a template for researchers looking to include multiple perspectives in their research. The conceptual framework draws together current knowledge on each determinant, but also highlights areas where further research is needed to better understand the relationship between each factor and mental health, which can inform the research agenda. This online tool and infographic can be used by practitioners to identify interventions for promoting mental health, and by the general public as a resource to increase awareness of the broad factors which shape public mental health.

Project description:Background Failing to account for the resources required to successfully implement public health interventions can lead to an underestimation of costs and budget impact, optimistic cost-effectiveness estimates, and ultimately a disconnect between published evidence and public health decision-making. Methods We developed a conceptual framework for assessing implementation costs. We illustrate the use of this framework with case studies involving interventions for tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS in resource-limited settings. Results Costs of implementing public health interventions may be conceptualized as occurring across three phases: design, initiation, and maintenance. In the design phase, activities include developing intervention components and establishing necessary infrastructure (e.g., technology, standard operating procedures). Initiation phase activities include training, initiation of supply chains and quality assurance procedures, and installation of equipment. Implementation costs in the maintenance phase include ongoing technical support, monitoring and evaluation, and troubleshooting unexpected obstacles. Within each phase, implementation costs can be incurred at the site of delivery (“site-specific” costs) or more centrally (“above-service” or “central” costs). For interventions evaluated in the context of research studies, implementation costs should be classified as programmatic, research-related, or shared research/program costs. Purely research-related costs are often excluded from analysis of programmatic implementation. Conclusions In evaluating public health interventions in resource-limited settings, accounting for implementation costs enables more realistic estimates of budget impact and cost-effectiveness and provides important insights into program feasibility, scale-up, and sustainability. Assessment of implementation costs should be planned prospectively and performed in a standardized manner to ensure generalizability.

Project description:Background: Participation of the public is an important and most effective approach for controlling the spread of novel coronavirus. However, considering its novel nature, it is important to create awareness among the public to be able to take timely preventive measures. On the contrary, misinformation and myths from online communities result in severe damages in mitigation of this novel disease. Objective: Focusing on these aspects, this manuscript reviews public awareness about COVID-19, myths surrounding it, its symptoms, treatment, transmission, importance of information sources, types of information to be considered in awareness campaigns, promotional channels, and their implications in Saudi Arabia. Methods: An online questionnaire-based survey was used for collecting data related to five major aspects related to COVID-19 and awareness creation process. The survey was accessed by 1,881 people, out of whom 741 people participated in the survey. However, 150 dropouts left the survey in between, as a result of which a final sample of 591 was achieved, indicating the response rate of 39.3% and a completion rate of 79.76%. Results: Awareness levels of the participants related to COVID-19, its means of transmission, preventive measures, symptoms, and treatment were identified to be moderate to high (60–80%). However, reliance on a few myths and violation of certain preventive measures were identified with majority of the participants (more than 60%). The Ministry of Health was identified to be the most reliable source of information followed by family and friends. Moreover, 15 types of information were identified to be highly relevant and important, which need to be effectively disseminated among the public through effective communication channels. Conclusions: Lack of awareness can result in serious outcomes in relation to COVID-19. Effective awareness campaigns including relevant information from reliable sources can improve the knowledge of people, and they must be effective in developing positive attitudes among the public toward adopting preventive measures.

Dataset Information

Optimizing the Impact of Public-Academic Partnerships in Fostering Policymakers' Use of Research Evidence: Proposal to Test a Conceptual Framework.

Publications

Optimizing the Impact of Public-Academic Partnerships in Fostering Policymakers' Use of Research Evidence: Proposal to Test a Conceptual Framework.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets