Ten tips to improve the visibility and dissemination of research for policy makers and practitioners.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Tripathy JP
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5526489 | biostudies-other | 2017 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:How we communicate research is changing because of new (especially digital) possibilities. This article sets out 10 easy steps researchers can take to disseminate their work in novel and engaging ways, and hence increase the impact of their research on science and society.
| S-EPMC7161944 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The need for the public to take an active role in scientific research is becoming increasingly important, particularly in health-related research. However, the coexistence and alignment of scientific and citizen interests, needs, knowledge and timing is not straightforward, especially when involving migrant populations. To conduct impactful research, it becomes also essential to consider the perspectives of policymakers, thereby adding a layer of complexity to the processes.In this article we address the experience of a living lab created in a research institution and supported by the city council and a local foundation, in which we developed three experiences of patient and public involvement (PPI): (1) accessing to comprehensive care for people at risk of Chagas disease; (2) strategies towards improving access and quality of mental healthcare services in migrants; (3) promoting healthy and safe school environments in vulnerable urban settings.These three challenges provided an opportunity to delve into diverse strategies for involving key stakeholders, including migrant populations, expert researchers and political actors in health research. This article offers insights into the successes, challenges, and valuable lessons learnt from these endeavours, providing a vision that can be beneficial for future initiatives. Each living lab experience crafted its unique governance system and agenda tailored to specific challenge scenarios, giving rise to diverse methods and study designs.We have found that the management of the cocreation of the research question and the institutional support are key to building robust PPI processes with migrant groups.
| S-EPMC11367358 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding why research is conducted may help address the under-utilisation of research. This study examined the reasons for childhood obesity prevention knowledge production in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, and the factors influencing research choices from the perspective of the researchers and health policy agencies contributing to the research.MethodsA literature search of SCOPUS and ISI Web of Knowledge (affiliation and key word searches) was conducted to compile a database of NSW childhood obesity research outputs, published between 2000 and 2015 (n = 543). Descriptive statistics were used to quantify outputs by research type, differentiating measurement, descriptive, and intervention research, systematic reviews and other publications. Interviews were conducted with a sample of researchers drawn from the database (n = 13) and decision makers from health policy agencies who funded and contributed to childhood obesity research in NSW (n = 15). Researcher interviews examined views about societal impacts, why and under what circumstances the research was conducted. Decision-maker interviews examined policy agency research investment and how research was used in decision making. Content analysis and a thematic approach was used to analyse the interview transcripts.ResultsThe research in this case was conducted for mix of reasons including those traditionally associated with academic inquiry, as well as intentions to influence policy and practice. Differences in funding mechanisms, administrative and employment arrangements, and 'who' initiated the research, created differing incentives and perspectives for knowledge production. Factors associated with the characteristics and experience of the individuals involved also influenced goals, as did the type of research conducted. Policy agencies played a role in directing research to address policy needs.ConclusionsThe findings of this study confirm that researchers are strongly influenced by their working environment. Funding schemes and other incentives to support policy relevant knowledge production are important. Contextual factors such as policy priorities, policy-driven research funding and the embedded nature or strong connections between some researchers and the policy agencies involved, are likely to have influenced the extent to which policy goals were reported in this study.
| S-EPMC7945318 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:There is increasing interest in using systems thinking to tackle 'wicked' policy problems in preventive health, but this can be challenging for policy-makers because the literature is amorphous and often highly theoretical. Little is known about how best to support health policy-makers to gain skills in understanding and applying systems thinking for policy action. METHODS:In-depth interviews were conducted with 18 policy-makers who are participating in an Australian research collaboration that uses a systems approach. Our aim was to explore factors that support policy-makers to use systems approaches, and to identify any impacts of systems thinking on policy thinking or action, including the pathways through which these impacts occurred. RESULTS:All 18 policy-makers agreed that systems thinking has merit but some questioned its practical policy utility. A small minority were confused about what systems thinking is or which approaches were being used in the collaboration. The majority were engaged with systems thinking and this group identified concrete impacts on their work. They reported using systems-focused research, ideas, tools and resources in policy work that were contributing to the development of practical methodologies for policy design, scaling up, implementation and evaluation; and to new prevention narratives. Importantly, systems thinking was helping some policy-makers to reconceptualise health problems and contexts, goals, potential policy solutions and methods. In short, they were changing how they think about preventive health. CONCLUSION:These results show that researchers and policy-makers can put systems thinking into action as part of a research collaboration, and that this can result in discernible impacts on policy processes. In this case, action-oriented collaboration and capacity development over a 5-year period facilitated mutual learning and practical application. This indicates that policy-makers can get substantial applied value from systems thinking when they are involved in extended co-production processes that target policy impact and are supported by responsive capacity strategies.
| S-EPMC7054651 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe use of health policy and systems research (HPSR) to inform health policy-making is an international challenge. Incorporating HPSR into decision-making primarily involves two groups, namely researchers (knowledge producers) and policy-makers (knowledge users). The purpose of this study was to compare the perceptions of Israeli health systems and policy researchers and health services policy-makers regarding the role of HPSR, factors influencing its uses and potential facilitators and barriers to HPSR, and implementation of knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) activities.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was administered to researchers and policy-makers in Israel. The survey consisted of seven closed questions. Descriptive analyses were carried out for closed-ended questions and comparative analysis were conducted between groups using the χ2 test.ResultsA total of 37 researchers and 32 policy-makers responded to the survey. While some views were in alignment, others showed differences. More policy-makers than researchers perceived that the use of HPSR in policy was hindered by practical implementation constraints, whereas more researchers felt that its use was hindered by a lack of coordination between knowledge producers and users. A larger percentage of policy-makers, as compared to researchers, reported that facilitators to the KTE process are in place and a larger percentage of researchers perceived barriers within the KTE environment. A larger percentage of policy-makers perceived KTE activities were in place as compared to researchers. Results also showed large differences in the perceptions of the two groups regarding policy formulation and which organisations they perceived as exerting strong influence on policy-making.ConclusionsThis research demonstrated that there are differences in the perceptions of knowledge producers and users about the process of KTE. Future work should focus on minimising the challenges highlighted here and implementing new KTE activities. These activities could include making the researchers aware of the most effective manner in which to package their results, providing training to policy-makers and assuring that policy-makers have technical access to appropriate databases to search for HPSR. These results underscore the need for the groups to communicate and clarify to each other what they can offer and what they require.
| S-EPMC6053732 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The HIV/AIDS epidemic has evolved with an increasing burden in older adults. We assessed for knowledge about aging and HIV/AIDS, among clinicians in Kampala district, Uganda.A cross-sectional survey of 301 clinicians complemented by 9 key-informant interviews between May and October 2011. Data was analyzed by multivariable logistic regression for potential determinants of clinician knowledge about HIV/AIDS in older adults, estimating their adjusted Odds Ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) using Stata 11.2 software.Two-hundred and sixty-two questionnaires (87.7%) were returned. Respondents had a median age of 30 years (IQR 27-34) and 57.8% were general medical doctors. The mean knowledge score was 49% (range 8.8%-79.4%). Questions related to co-morbidities in HIV/AIDS (non-AIDS related cancers and systemic diseases) and chronic antiretroviral treatment toxicities (metabolic disorders) accounted for significantly lower scores (mean, 41.7%, 95% CI: 39.3%-44%) compared to HIV/AIDS epidemiology and prevention (mean, 65.7%, 95% CI: 63.7%-67.7%). Determinants of clinician knowledge in the multivariable analysis included (category, aOR, 95% CI): clinician age (30-39 years; 3.28?1.65-9.75), number of persons with HIV/AIDS seen in the past year (less than 50; 0.34?0.14-0.86) and clinical profession (clinical nurse practitioner; 0.31?0.11-0.83). Having diploma level education had a marginal association with lower knowledge about HIV and aging (p?=?0.09).Our study identified gaps and determinants of knowledge about HIV/AIDS in older adults among clinicians in Kampala district, Uganda. Clinicians in low and middle income countries could benefit from targeted training in chronic care for older adults with HIV/AIDS and long-term complications of antiretroviral treatment.
| S-EPMC3585272 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThe use of research evidence as an input for health decision-making is a need for most health systems. There are a number of approaches for promoting evidence use at different levels of the health system, but knowledge of their effectiveness is still scarce. The objective of this overview was to evaluate the effectiveness of knowledge communication and dissemination interventions, strategies or approaches targeting policy-makers and health managers.MethodsThis overview of systematic reviews used systematic review methods and was conducted according to a predefined and published protocol. A comprehensive electronic search of 13 databases and a manual search in four websites were conducted. Both published and unpublished reviews in English, Spanish or Portuguese were included. A narrative synthesis was undertaken, and effectiveness statements were developed, informed by the evidence identified.ResultsWe included 27 systematic reviews. Three studies included only a communication strategy, while eight only included dissemination strategies, and the remaining 16 included both. None of the selected reviews provided "sufficient evidence" for any of the strategies, while four provided some evidence for three communication and four dissemination strategies. Regarding communication strategies, the use of tailored and targeted messages seemed to successfully lead to changes in the decision-making practices of the target audience. Regarding dissemination strategies, interventions that aimed at improving only the reach of evidence did not have an impact on its use in decisions, while interventions aimed at enhancing users' ability to use and apply evidence had a positive effect on decision-making processes. Multifaceted dissemination strategies also demonstrated the potential for changing knowledge about evidence but not its implementation in decision-making.ConclusionsThere is limited evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions targeting health managers and policy-makers, as well as the mechanisms required for achieving impact. More studies are needed that are informed by theoretical frameworks or specific tools and using robust methods, standardized outcome measures and clear descriptions of the interventions. We found that passive communication increased access to evidence but had no effect on uptake. Some evidence indicated that the use of targeted messages, knowledge-brokering and user training was effective in promoting evidence use by managers and policy-makers.
| S-EPMC8645346 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As sequencing prices drop, genomic data accumulates-seemingly at a steadily increasing pace. Most genomic data potentially have value beyond the initial purpose-but only if shared with the scientific community. This, of course, is often easier said than done. Some of the challenges in sharing genomic data include data volume (raw file sizes and number of files), complexities, formats, nomenclatures, metadata descriptions, and the choice of a repository. In this paper, we describe 10 quick tips for sharing open genomic data.
| S-EPMC6307697 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC11270602 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5828139 | biostudies-literature