Using knowledge brokering to produce community-generated evidence

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Evidence & Policy Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1332/174426421x16190024737973
Janet Harris, J. Springett, Debbie Mathews, Guy Weston, Alexis Foster
{"title":"Using knowledge brokering to produce community-generated evidence","authors":"Janet Harris, J. Springett, Debbie Mathews, Guy Weston, Alexis Foster","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16190024737973","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Devolution and integration of health and social care have placed increasing pressure on local statutory services, with a corresponding shift of health and social care to community organisations. The voluntary and charitable sector (VCS) is expected to make the case for increased funding by providing evidence of value and impact.Aims and objectives: This paper explores the challenges of compiling evidence on health outcomes which do not reflect the holistic nature of VCS support. We document how knowledge brokering can be used to enable the VCS to generate evidence.Key conclusions: Knowledge brokering (KB) may be an effective approach for developing community-generated evidence. Brokering is also needed to change perspectives on what counts as good evidenceKey messagesHealth outcome measures are not seen to be appropriate by the voluntary sector for social prescribing services.A new evidence base is needed that reflects the social determinants of health.Knowledge brokering may be an effective approach for developing community-generated evidence.Brokering is also needed to change perspectives on what counts as good evidence.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16190024737973","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background: Devolution and integration of health and social care have placed increasing pressure on local statutory services, with a corresponding shift of health and social care to community organisations. The voluntary and charitable sector (VCS) is expected to make the case for increased funding by providing evidence of value and impact.Aims and objectives: This paper explores the challenges of compiling evidence on health outcomes which do not reflect the holistic nature of VCS support. We document how knowledge brokering can be used to enable the VCS to generate evidence.Key conclusions: Knowledge brokering (KB) may be an effective approach for developing community-generated evidence. Brokering is also needed to change perspectives on what counts as good evidenceKey messagesHealth outcome measures are not seen to be appropriate by the voluntary sector for social prescribing services.A new evidence base is needed that reflects the social determinants of health.Knowledge brokering may be an effective approach for developing community-generated evidence.Brokering is also needed to change perspectives on what counts as good evidence.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利用知识中介产生社区产生的证据
背景:卫生和社会保健的权力下放和一体化给地方法定服务机构带来了越来越大的压力,卫生和社会保健也相应地向社区组织转移。预计志愿和慈善部门(VCS)将通过提供价值和影响的证据来证明增加资金的必要性。目的和目标:本文探讨了收集健康结果证据的挑战,这些证据不能反映VCS支持的整体性质。我们记录了如何使用知识中介使VCS生成证据。关键结论:知识中介(Knowledge broker, KB)可能是开发社区生成证据的有效方法。还需要进行中介工作,以改变对什么是良好证据的看法。关键信息自愿部门认为,健康结果措施不适合用于社会处方服务。需要一个反映健康的社会决定因素的新证据基础。知识中介可能是开发社区产生的证据的一种有效方法。中介也需要改变人们对什么是好的证据的看法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Evidence & Policy
Evidence & Policy SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
53
期刊最新文献
Breaking the Overton Window: on the need for adversarial co-production Examining research systems and models for local government: a systematic review Experiences and perceptions of evidence use among senior health service decision makers in Ireland: a qualitative study The critical factors in producing high quality and policy-relevant research: insights from international behavioural science units Understanding brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners: a multi-sectoral review of strategies, skills, and outcomes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1