Dataset Information

Policy-makers' views on translating burden of disease estimates in health policies: bridging the gap through data visualization.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Knowledge Translation (KT) and data visualization play a vital role in the dissemination of data and information to improve healthcare systems. A better understanding of KT and its utility requires examining its processes, and how these interact with available data tools and platforms and various users. In this context, the aim of this paper is to understand how relevant users interact with data visualization tools, in particular Global Burden of Disease (GBD) visualizations, while also examining KT processes related to data visualization.

Methods

A qualitative case-study consisting of semi-structured interviews with eight policy officers. Interviewees were selected by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) from three countries: Canada, Kenya and New Zealand. Data were analyzed through framework coding, using qualitative analysis software.

Results

Policy officers' responses indicated that data can prompt action by engaging users, and effective delivery and translation of data was enhanced by data visualization tools. GBD was considered valuable for use in policy (e.g., planning and prioritizing health policy; facilitating accountability; and tracking and monitoring progress and trends over time and between countries). Using GBD and data visualization tools, participants quickly and easily accessed key information and turned it into actionable messages; engaging visuals captured decision-makers' attention while providing information in a digestible, time-saving manner. However, participants emphasized an overall disconnect between research and public health. Functionality and technical issues, e.g., absence of tool guides and tool complexity, as well as lacking buy-in and awareness of certain tools from those less familiar with GBD, were named as major barriers. In order to address this "know-do" gap, user-friendly knowledge translation tools were stated as crucial, as was the importance of collaboration and leveraging different insights from data generators and users to inform health policy.

Conclusions

Policy officers aware of KT are willing to utilize data visualization tools as they value them as an engaging and important mechanism to foster the use of GBD data in policy-making. To further facilitate policy officers' efforts to effectively use GBD data in policy and practice, further research is required into how users perceive and interact with data visualization and other KT tools.

SUBMITTER: Lundkvist A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7863500 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Policy-makers' views on translating burden of disease estimates in health policies: bridging the gap through data visualization.

Lundkvist Amelia A El-Khatib Ziad Z Kalra Nikhila N Pantoja Tomas T Leach-Kemon Katherine K Gapp Christian C Kuchenmüller Tanja T

Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique 20210204 1

<h4>Background</h4>Knowledge Translation (KT) and data visualization play a vital role in the dissemination of data and information to improve healthcare systems. A better understanding of KT and its utility requires examining its processes, and how these interact with available data tools and platforms and various users. In this context, the aim of this paper is to understand how relevant users interact with data visualization tools, in particular Global Burden of Disease (GBD) visualizations, ...[more]

PMID: 33541416

Similar Datasets

Project description:Bridging the gap between science and policy is an important task in evidence-informed policy making. The objective of this study is to prioritize ways to bridge the gap.The study was based on an online survey of high-ranking scientists and policy makers who have a senior position in universities and governments in the health sector in China and Canada. The sampling frame comprised of universities with schools of public health and medicine and various levels of government in health and public health. Participants included university presidents and professors, and government deputy ministers, directors general and directors working in the health field. Fourteen strategies were presented to the participants for ranking as current ways and ideal ways in the future to bridge the gap between science and policy.Over a 3-month survey period, there were 121 participants in China and 86 in Canada with response rates of 30.0 and 15.9 %, respectively. The top strategies selected by respondents included focus on policy (conducting research that focuses on policy questions), science-policy forums, and policy briefs, both as current ways and ideal ways to bridge the gap between science and policy. Conferences were considered a priority strategy as a current way, but not an ideal way in the future. Canadian participants were more in favor of using information technology (web-based portals and email updates) than their Chinese counterparts. Among Canadian participants, two strategies that were ranked low as current ways (collaboration in study design and collaboration in analysis) became a priority as ideal ways. This could signal a change in thinking in shifting the focus from the "back end" or "downstream" (knowledge dissemination) of the knowledge transfer process to the "front end" or "upstream" (knowledge generation).Our international study has confirmed a number of previously reported priority strategies to bridge the gap between science and policy. More importantly, our study has contributed to the future work on evidence-based policy making by comparing the responses from China and Canada and the current and ideal way for the future. Our study shows that the concept and strategies of bridging the gap between science and policy are not static but varying in space and evolving over time.

Project description:BackgroundCurrently, little is known about the types of evidence used by policy makers. This study aimed to investigate how policy makers in the health domain use and evaluate evidence and how this differs from academic epidemiologists. By having a better understanding of how policy makers select, evaluate, and use evidence, academics can tailor the way in which that evidence is produced, potentially leading to more effective knowledge translation.MethodsAn exploratory mixed-methods study design was used. Quantitative measures were collected via an anonymous online survey (n?=?28), with sampling from three health-related government and non-government organizations. Semi-structured interviews with policy makers (n?=?20) and epidemiologists (n?=?6) were conducted to gather qualitative data.ResultsPolicy makers indicated systematic reviews were the preferred research resource (19%), followed closely by qualitative research (16%). Neither policy makers nor epidemiologists used grading instruments to evaluate evidence. In the web survey, policy makers reported that consistency and strength of evidence (93%), the quality of data (93%), bias in the evidence (79%), and recency of evidence (79%) were the most important factors taken into consideration when evaluating the available evidence. The same results were found in the qualitative interviews. Epidemiologists focused on the methodology used in the study. The most cited barriers to using robust evidence, according to policy makers, were political considerations (60%), time limitations (55%), funding (50%), and research not being applicable to current policies (50%).ConclusionThe policy maker's investigation did not report a systematic approach to evaluating evidence. Although there was some overlap between what policy makers and epidemiologists identified as high-quality evidence, there was also some important differences. This suggests that the best scientific evidence may not routinely be used in the development of policy. In essence, the policy-making process relied on other jurisdictions' policies and the opinions of internal staff members as primary evidence sources to inform policy decisions. Findings of this study suggest that efforts should be directed toward making scientific information more systematically available to policy makers.

Project description:BackgroundCommunity engagement is key to developing local and context-specific strategies for the prevention and control of COVID-19. However, expedited research design and approval in the early days of the pandemic may have limited the opportunities for community members to influence pandemic-related research. In this study, we sought to understand how a Community Engagement Group (CEG) could impact a large longitudinal COVID-19 research project (Optimise), when involved solely in the interpretation and knowledge translation phases of the research.MethodsSeven community members were recruited for the CEG, representing a diverse range of groups. Each month, Optimise data of topical importance were compiled into a draft report. The CEG discussed the draft report at their monthly meeting and members' contributions were incorporated into the final report for distribution to policy-makers. In this study, a document analysis was undertaken of ten consecutive reports produced between February and November 2021. Each report was compared pre- and post- the inclusion of CEG contributions, which were then analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsCommunity engagement in the interpretation and knowledge translation phases of Optimise had positive impacts on reports for policy-makers, including grounding the empirical findings in broader community perspectives, identifying policy issues affecting different groups and contributing unique insights beyond the empirical findings. Overall, the CEG contributions demonstrated the complexity of lived experience lying beneath the empirical data.ConclusionCommunity engagement in the translation of the Optimise findings resulted in research reports to policy-makers that were reflective of a broader range of community perspectives, and that provided potential solutions to emerging policy issues related to COVID-19. This study adds to the evidence base about the impact of community engagement in the later interpretation and knowledge translation phases of research, particularly in the context of reporting to policy-makers during a public health emergency.

Project description:BackgroundConsiderable research shows that women experience gendered disparities in healthcare access and quality. Patient-centred care (PCC) could reduce inequities by addressing the patient's clinical and personal needs. Healthcare policies can influence service delivery to optimise patient outcomes. This study assessed whether and how government policies recognise and promote PCC for women (PCCW).MethodsWe analysed the content of English-language policies published in Canada from 2010 to 2018 on depression and cardiac rehabilitation - conditions featuring known gendered inequities - that were identified on government websites. We extracted data and used summary statistics to enumerate mentions of PCC and women's health.ResultsWe included 30 policies (20 depression, 10 cardiac rehabilitation). Of those, 20 (66.7%) included any content related to PCC (median 1.0, range 0.0 to 5.0), most often exchanging information (14, 46.7%) and making decisions (13, 43.3%). Less frequent domains were enabling self-management (8, 26.7%), addressing emotions (6, 20.0%) and fostering the relationship (4, 13.3%). No policies included content for the domain of managing uncertainty. A higher proportion of cardiac rehabilitation guidelines included PCC content. Among the 30 policies, 7 (23.3%) included content related to at least one women's health domain (median 0.0, range 0.0 to 3.0). Most frequently included were social determinants of health (4, 13.3%). Fewer policies mentioned any issues to consider for women (2, 28.6%), issues specific to subgroups of women (2, 28.6%) or distinguished care for women from men (2, 28.6%). No policies included mention of abuse or violence, or discrimination or stigma. The policies largely pertained to depression. Despite mention of PCC or women's health, policies offered brief, vague guidance on how to achieve PCCW; for example, "Patients value being involved in decision-making" and "Women want care that is collaborative, woman- and family-centered, and culturally sensitive."ConclusionsDespite considerable evidence of need and international recommendations, most policies failed to recognise gendered disparities or promote PCC as a mitigating strategy. These identified gaps represent opportunities by which government policies could be developed or strengthened to support PCCW. Future research should investigate complementary strategies such as equipping policy-makers with the evidence and tools required to develop PCCW-informed policies.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Providing healthcare professionals with health surveillance data aims to support professional and organisational behaviour change. The UK Five Year Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) Strategy 2013 to 2018 identified better access to and use of surveillance data as a key component. Our aim was to determine the extent to which data on antimicrobial use and resistance met the perceived needs of health care professionals and policy-makers at national, regional and local levels, and how provision could be improved. METHODS:We conducted 41 semi-structured interviews with national policy makers in the four Devolved Administrations and 71 interviews with health care professionals in six locations across the United Kingdom selected to achieve maximum variation in terms of population and health system characteristics. Transcripts were analysed thematically using a mix of a priori reasoning guided by the main topics in the interview guide together with themes emerging inductively from the data. Views were considered at three levels - primary care, secondary care and national - and in terms of availability of data, current uses, benefits, gaps and potential improvements. RESULTS:Respondents described a range of uses for prescribing and resistance data. The principal gaps identified were prescribing in private practice, internet prescribing and secondary care (where some hospitals did not have electronic prescribing systems). Some respondents under-estimated the range of data available. There was a perception that the responsibility for collecting and analysing data often rests with a few individuals who may lack sufficient time and appropriate skills. CONCLUSIONS:There is a need to raise awareness of data availability and the potential value of these data, and to ensure that data systems are more accessible. Any skills gap at local level in how to process and use data needs to be addressed. This requires an identification of the best methods to improve support and education relating to AMR data systems.

Project description:IntroductionMost studies have reported barriers to guideline usage mainly from doctors' perspective; few have reported the perspective of other stakeholders. This study aimed to determine the views and barriers to adherence of a national clinical practice guideline (CPG) on management of hypertension from the perspectives of policymakers, doctors and allied healthcare professionals.MethodsThis study used a qualitative approach with purposive sampling. Seven in depth interviews and six focus group discussions were conducted with 35 healthcare professionals (policy makers, doctors, pharmacists and nurses) at a teaching hospital in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, between February and June 2013. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and checked. Thematic approach was used to analyse the data.ResultsTwo main themes and three sub-themes emerged from this study. The main themes were (1) variation in the use of CPG and (2) barriers to adherence to CPG. The three sub-themes for barriers were issues inherent to the CPG, systems and policy that is not supportive of CPG use, and attitudes and behaviour of stakeholders. The main users of the CPG were the primary care doctors. Pharmacists only partially use the guidelines, while nurses and policy makers were not using the CPG at all. Participants had suggested few strategies to improve usage and adherence to CPG. First, update the CPG regularly and keep its content simple with specific sections for allied health workers. Second, use technology to facilitate CPG accessibility and provide protected time for implementation of CPG recommendations. Third, incorporate local CPG in professional training, link CPG adherence to key performance indicators and provide incentives for its use.ConclusionsBarriers to the use of CPG hypertension management span across all stakeholders. The development and implementation of CPG focused mainly on doctors with lack of involvement of other healthcare stakeholders. Guidelines should be made simple, current, reliable, accessible, inclusive of all stakeholders and with good policy support.

Dataset Information

Policy-makers' views on translating burden of disease estimates in health policies: bridging the gap through data visualization.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Policy-makers' views on translating burden of disease estimates in health policies: bridging the gap through data visualization.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets