Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1332/174426420X16079614941921
G. Lowery, M. Flinders, B. Gibson
Background: Tooth extractions are the most common cause of hospital admissions for children in England. Water fluoridation has the potential to reduce this number by 60%, is backed by the scientific and public health communities, and yet is currently consumed by only 10% of the population.Aims and objectives: This ‘evidence-policy gap’ is explored through Kingdon’s ‘multi-streams approach’ which provides insights into the circumstances under which water fluoridation has made it onto the political agenda, the rationale underpinning opponent and advocate policy positions, and the role of the political arena in fostering or hindering policy action.Methods: Over 100 primary documents were reviewed to develop an understanding of the scientific and ethical arguments for and against water fluoridation, as well as to identify how they have all historically sought to mobilise their policy preferences. Eleven consultations were also conducted with stakeholders as part of the knowledge exchange process.Findings: The key finding of this research is that evidence is only likely to trigger policy change if it emerges into a receptive sociopolitical context. In substantiating this claim we identify evidence not of an ‘evidence-policy gap’ but of a more complex and multidimensional ‘evidence-policy-politics gap’.Discussion and conclusions: The findings contribute to a range of debates in relation to: (1) the apparent irreconcilability of background ideas about what ought to form the basis of public health policymaking; (2) the presence of differing evidential standards that create an uneven playing field; and (3) the central underpinning role of politics in public health policymaking.
{"title":"When evidence alone is not enough: the problem, policy and politics of water fluoridation in England","authors":"G. Lowery, M. Flinders, B. Gibson","doi":"10.1332/174426420X16079614941921","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426420X16079614941921","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Tooth extractions are the most common cause of hospital admissions for children in England. Water fluoridation has the potential to reduce this number by 60%, is backed by the scientific and public health communities, and yet is currently consumed by only 10% of the population.Aims and objectives: This ‘evidence-policy gap’ is explored through Kingdon’s ‘multi-streams approach’ which provides insights into the circumstances under which water fluoridation has made it onto the political agenda, the rationale underpinning opponent and advocate policy positions, and the role of the political arena in fostering or hindering policy action.Methods: Over 100 primary documents were reviewed to develop an understanding of the scientific and ethical arguments for and against water fluoridation, as well as to identify how they have all historically sought to mobilise their policy preferences. Eleven consultations were also conducted with stakeholders as part of the knowledge exchange process.Findings: The key finding of this research is that evidence is only likely to trigger policy change if it emerges into a receptive sociopolitical context. In substantiating this claim we identify evidence not of an ‘evidence-policy gap’ but of a more complex and multidimensional ‘evidence-policy-politics gap’.Discussion and conclusions: The findings contribute to a range of debates in relation to: (1) the apparent irreconcilability of background ideas about what ought to form the basis of public health policymaking; (2) the presence of differing evidential standards that create an uneven playing field; and (3) the central underpinning role of politics in public health policymaking.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66285163","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1332/174426421X16146827140135
M. Prince
Background: While governments draw on survey data to inform policy choices, the design, application, and interpretation of surveys can generate certain images of disability and ignore many others. Aims and objectives: This article draws attention to social circumstances of people with disabilities often unacknowledged in research evidence: hidden figures of disability. Methods: Selected results from the Canadian Survey on Disability are examined with a focus on working-age youth and adults (aged 15 to 64) with a range of disabilities. Findings: Five figures of disability and corresponding conceptual models are identified. These hidden figures of disability are the uncounted, those with needs unsupported, youth in multiple transitions, potential workers, and what may be called 'the fearful'. Several models of disability are identified intersecting with the evidence. These are the absent citizen, biomedical model and charitable model, social and economic integration model, human rights and full citizenship, and psycho-emotional model of affective disablism and ableism. Discussion: Hidden figures of disability are more than statistical tests and texts;more than calculations derived from quantitative research where people become a data point.The function of drawing hidden figures is to disclose and describe the bodily experiences of people with disabilities in their social positions and structural contexts. Conclusion: We need to see the production of evidence for policy not as painting a portrait but as portraits in the plural, and appreciate not only what is in the frame but also what faces and forms of knowledge get glossed over or brushed aside.
{"title":"Drawing hidden figures of disability: youth and adults with disabilities in Canada","authors":"M. Prince","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16146827140135","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16146827140135","url":null,"abstract":"Background: While governments draw on survey data to inform policy choices, the design, application, and interpretation of surveys can generate certain images of disability and ignore many others. Aims and objectives: This article draws attention to social circumstances of people with disabilities often unacknowledged in research evidence: hidden figures of disability. Methods: Selected results from the Canadian Survey on Disability are examined with a focus on working-age youth and adults (aged 15 to 64) with a range of disabilities. Findings: Five figures of disability and corresponding conceptual models are identified. These hidden figures of disability are the uncounted, those with needs unsupported, youth in multiple transitions, potential workers, and what may be called 'the fearful'. Several models of disability are identified intersecting with the evidence. These are the absent citizen, biomedical model and charitable model, social and economic integration model, human rights and full citizenship, and psycho-emotional model of affective disablism and ableism. Discussion: Hidden figures of disability are more than statistical tests and texts;more than calculations derived from quantitative research where people become a data point.The function of drawing hidden figures is to disclose and describe the bodily experiences of people with disabilities in their social positions and structural contexts. Conclusion: We need to see the production of evidence for policy not as painting a portrait but as portraits in the plural, and appreciate not only what is in the frame but also what faces and forms of knowledge get glossed over or brushed aside.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66285904","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Backround: An inter-institutional task force was brought together in 2018 to evaluate the irregular institutionalisation of Guarani and Kaiowá Indigenous children with disabilities in Dourados, in central-western Brazil.Aims and objectives: We draw on this case study to undertake a ‘situational analysis’ on the existence/absence and the use/non-use of evidence in the evaluation of public policies regarding Indigenous children with disabilities. By critically analysing concrete practices in the context of multilevel intersectoral dialogue and joint action of state bodies and civil society, we aim to highlight the effective and potential gains from using Culturally Appropriate Evidence (CAE) at the intersection of policies on children, Indigenous peoples and people with disabilities.Methods: We used a case study approach to analyse the precedents, development and ramifications of the task force, examine the legal framework regulating the rights of Indigenous children with disabilities, and describe the process of institutionalisation of Indigenous children in the Dourados region in the first two decades of the 21st century.Findings: We identified that inter-institutional and intersectoral collaboration enhances the development of CAE and the instrumentalisation of intersectoral alternatives.Discussion and conclusions: Although entrenched institutional bureaucratic culture, and the absence of mechanisms for participation and consultation with Indigenous peoples, can create obstacles to the formulation and use of these kinds of evidence in public policies, the production of evidence through the articulated and collaborative effort of agents can offer, when there are political conditions for it, the necessary conditions to develop culturally appropriate solutions for complex scenarios.
{"title":"Ignoring evidence, producing inequities: public policies, disability and the case of Kaiowá and Guarani Indigenous children with disabilities in Brazil","authors":"Rayanne de Sales Lima, Andréa Borghi Moreira Jacinto, Rodrigo Arthuso Arantes Faria","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16147039138899","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16147039138899","url":null,"abstract":"Backround: An inter-institutional task force was brought together in 2018 to evaluate the irregular institutionalisation of Guarani and Kaiowá Indigenous children with disabilities in Dourados, in central-western Brazil.Aims and objectives: We draw on this case study to undertake a ‘situational analysis’ on the existence/absence and the use/non-use of evidence in the evaluation of public policies regarding Indigenous children with disabilities. By critically analysing concrete practices in the context of multilevel intersectoral dialogue and joint action of state bodies and civil society, we aim to highlight the effective and potential gains from using Culturally Appropriate Evidence (CAE) at the intersection of policies on children, Indigenous peoples and people with disabilities.Methods: We used a case study approach to analyse the precedents, development and ramifications of the task force, examine the legal framework regulating the rights of Indigenous children with disabilities, and describe the process of institutionalisation of Indigenous children in the Dourados region in the first two decades of the 21st century.Findings: We identified that inter-institutional and intersectoral collaboration enhances the development of CAE and the instrumentalisation of intersectoral alternatives.Discussion and conclusions: Although entrenched institutional bureaucratic culture, and the absence of mechanisms for participation and consultation with Indigenous peoples, can create obstacles to the formulation and use of these kinds of evidence in public policies, the production of evidence through the articulated and collaborative effort of agents can offer, when there are political conditions for it, the necessary conditions to develop culturally appropriate solutions for complex scenarios.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66286108","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1332/174426421X16161715996124
F. Hoekstra, H. Gainforth
Background: Conducting and/or disseminating research in partnership with potential research users is a popular approach to conducting useful and relevant research. Despite calls for guidance to support these research partnerships, evidence-based tools and resources remain limited.Aims and objectives: This study aimed to explore principles and related strategies for conducting and/or disseminating spinal cord injury (SCI) research in partnership with the SCI community, in order to gain insight into ways to support SCI research partnerships.This qualitative study included ten semi-structured interviews with SCI research partnership champions. The interviews focused on participants’ experiences with SCI research projects that are conducted or disseminated in partnership, and related principles and strategies to work in research partnerships.Participants mainly talked about principles related to: (1) the relationship between researchers and research users (for example, respect each other, avoid tokenism); (2) co-production of knowledge (for example, research user engagement early and throughout); and (3) meaningful engagement (for example, allowing flexibility). Examples of related strategies included attending collaborative conferences, research user engagement in refinement of research questions, training in research methods, and hiring people with SCI as part of the research team.Key conclusions: This qualitative study presents research partnership principles (norms) and related strategies (observable actions). This study can provide guidance for other researchers and research users who want to engage in (SCI) research partnerships. The findings of this study could be used to inform the development of evidence-based tools and resources to support future research partnerships.Key messagesWe provide guidance for researchers and research users to engage in research partnerships;The guidance includes research partnership principles (norms) and related strategies (observable actions);Linking strategies to principles may help researchers and their partners to engage in research partnerships;This study can support the use of research partnership principles within a research system.
{"title":"Principles and related strategies for spinal cord injury research partnership approaches: a qualitative study","authors":"F. Hoekstra, H. Gainforth","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16161715996124","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16161715996124","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Conducting and/or disseminating research in partnership with potential research users is a popular approach to conducting useful and relevant research. Despite calls for guidance to support these research partnerships, evidence-based tools and resources remain limited.Aims and objectives: This study aimed to explore principles and related strategies for conducting and/or disseminating spinal cord injury (SCI) research in partnership with the SCI community, in order to gain insight into ways to support SCI research partnerships.This qualitative study included ten semi-structured interviews with SCI research partnership champions. The interviews focused on participants’ experiences with SCI research projects that are conducted or disseminated in partnership, and related principles and strategies to work in research partnerships.Participants mainly talked about principles related to: (1) the relationship between researchers and research users (for example, respect each other, avoid tokenism); (2) co-production of knowledge (for example, research user engagement early and throughout); and (3) meaningful engagement (for example, allowing flexibility). Examples of related strategies included attending collaborative conferences, research user engagement in refinement of research questions, training in research methods, and hiring people with SCI as part of the research team.Key conclusions: This qualitative study presents research partnership principles (norms) and related strategies (observable actions). This study can provide guidance for other researchers and research users who want to engage in (SCI) research partnerships. The findings of this study could be used to inform the development of evidence-based tools and resources to support future research partnerships.Key messagesWe provide guidance for researchers and research users to engage in research partnerships;The guidance includes research partnership principles (norms) and related strategies (observable actions);Linking strategies to principles may help researchers and their partners to engage in research partnerships;This study can support the use of research partnership principles within a research system.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66286359","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1332/174426421x16323393555059
T. Lamont, E. Maxwell
Background: There has been little applied learning from organisations engaged in making evidence useful for decision makers. More focus has been given either to the work of individuals as knowledge brokers or to theoretical frameworks on embedding evidence. More intelligence is needed on the practice of knowledge intermediation.Aims and objectives: This paper describes the evolution of approaches by one UK Centre to promote and embed evidence in health and care services. This is not a formal evaluation, given the lack of critical distance by authors who led work at the Centre, but a reflective analysis which may be helpful for other evidence intermediary bodies.Conclusions: We analyse the founding conditions and theoretical context at the start of our activity and describe four activities we developed over time. These were filter (screening research for relevance and quality); forge (engaging stakeholders in interpreting evidence); fuse (knowledge brokering with hybrid teams); and fulfil (sustained interaction with implementation partners). We reflect on the tensions between rigour and relevance in the evidence we shared and the way in which our approaches evolved from a programme of evidence outputs to greater focus on sustained engagement and deliberative activities to make sense of evidence and reach wider audiences. Over the lifetime of the Centre, we moved from linear and relational modes towards systems type approaches to embed and mobilise evidence.Key messagesThere is little shared learning on the practice of evidence use by knowledge intermediaries.Our account of a national evidence centre for health decision makers shows the shift towards more engaged and embedded approaches.We identify four central activities – filter, forge, fuse and fulfil – and how they evolved over time.We note the value of sustained engagement with stakeholders in shaping new evidence narratives relevant to practice.
{"title":"From dissemination to engagement: learning over time from a national research intermediary centre (Four Fs)","authors":"T. Lamont, E. Maxwell","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16323393555059","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16323393555059","url":null,"abstract":"Background: There has been little applied learning from organisations engaged in making evidence useful for decision makers. More focus has been given either to the work of individuals as knowledge brokers or to theoretical frameworks on embedding evidence. More intelligence is needed on the practice of knowledge intermediation.Aims and objectives: This paper describes the evolution of approaches by one UK Centre to promote and embed evidence in health and care services. This is not a formal evaluation, given the lack of critical distance by authors who led work at the Centre, but a reflective analysis which may be helpful for other evidence intermediary bodies.Conclusions: We analyse the founding conditions and theoretical context at the start of our activity and describe four activities we developed over time. These were filter (screening research for relevance and quality); forge (engaging stakeholders in interpreting evidence); fuse (knowledge brokering with hybrid teams); and fulfil (sustained interaction with implementation partners). We reflect on the tensions between rigour and relevance in the evidence we shared and the way in which our approaches evolved from a programme of evidence outputs to greater focus on sustained engagement and deliberative activities to make sense of evidence and reach wider audiences. Over the lifetime of the Centre, we moved from linear and relational modes towards systems type approaches to embed and mobilise evidence.Key messagesThere is little shared learning on the practice of evidence use by knowledge intermediaries.Our account of a national evidence centre for health decision makers shows the shift towards more engaged and embedded approaches.We identify four central activities – filter, forge, fuse and fulfil – and how they evolved over time.We note the value of sustained engagement with stakeholders in shaping new evidence narratives relevant to practice.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66286671","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1332/174426421x16328403229964
Pei Kuan Lai, S. Nalliah, C. Teng, Nlp Chen
Background: Impact in research encompasses health, economic, and cultural benefits beyond adding to the knowledge base. Funders are under immense pressure to be accountable for the paybacks from funded research.Aims and objectives: The aim of this study was to look into the impact of funded biomedical research between the years 2005 and 2015 in Malaysia from the aspects of knowledge production, research targeting and capacity building, as well as health system policy and decision making.Methods: This study employed a convergent parallel mixed-methods research design. Biomedical projects related to breast cancer, coronary heart disease, and dengue, funded by the Ministry of Health (MOH), Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE), and Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation (MOSTI) between the years 2005 and 2015, were included.Findings: From the questionnaire responses (n=58), on average each funded project managed to produce two outputs and one higher degree student. More than half (61.4%) of the funded projects led to subsequent future research. However, low citations in systematic reviews (10.3%), health policies (6.9%), and clinical practice guidelines (5.2%) were reported. In-depth interviews with the key opinion leaders also saw that most of the local research findings were found to be irrelevant to be adopted into policies by the policymakers.Discussion and conclusions: Paybacks on knowledge production as well as research targeting and capacity building had been achieved, but impact on health system policy and decision making had not been well attained, due to the lack of relevant research findings needed by the policymakers.Key messagesPayback on knowledge production was achieved, as there had been a lot of new knowledge generated as captured in academic publications, conference proceedings, policy briefs, technical reports, and research highlights, which is important to advance the frontiers of knowledge.Payback on research targeting was achieved, with the current research leading to future study with identification of the knowledge gap and generation of new ideas for new research.Payback on capacity building was achieved with the training of researchers, building up research capacity and competencies, production of MSc and PhD graduates, promotion of lecturers, and development of new partnerships and networks.Impact on health system policy and decision making was not well attained. There had been a lack of relevant research data and findings being incorporated into policymaking, due to the basic and fundamental nature of most of the funded biomedical research in Malaysia.
{"title":"Impact and paybacks of biomedical research findings in Malaysia 2005–2015","authors":"Pei Kuan Lai, S. Nalliah, C. Teng, Nlp Chen","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16328403229964","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16328403229964","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Impact in research encompasses health, economic, and cultural benefits beyond adding to the knowledge base. Funders are under immense pressure to be accountable for the paybacks from funded research.Aims and objectives: The aim of this study was to look into the impact of funded biomedical research between the years 2005 and 2015 in Malaysia from the aspects of knowledge production, research targeting and capacity building, as well as health system policy and decision making.Methods: This study employed a convergent parallel mixed-methods research design. Biomedical projects related to breast cancer, coronary heart disease, and dengue, funded by the Ministry of Health (MOH), Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE), and Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation (MOSTI) between the years 2005 and 2015, were included.Findings: From the questionnaire responses (n=58), on average each funded project managed to produce two outputs and one higher degree student. More than half (61.4%) of the funded projects led to subsequent future research. However, low citations in systematic reviews (10.3%), health policies (6.9%), and clinical practice guidelines (5.2%) were reported. In-depth interviews with the key opinion leaders also saw that most of the local research findings were found to be irrelevant to be adopted into policies by the policymakers.Discussion and conclusions: Paybacks on knowledge production as well as research targeting and capacity building had been achieved, but impact on health system policy and decision making had not been well attained, due to the lack of relevant research findings needed by the policymakers.Key messagesPayback on knowledge production was achieved, as there had been a lot of new knowledge generated as captured in academic publications, conference proceedings, policy briefs, technical reports, and research highlights, which is important to advance the frontiers of knowledge.Payback on research targeting was achieved, with the current research leading to future study with identification of the knowledge gap and generation of new ideas for new research.Payback on capacity building was achieved with the training of researchers, building up research capacity and competencies, production of MSc and PhD graduates, promotion of lecturers, and development of new partnerships and networks.Impact on health system policy and decision making was not well attained. There had been a lack of relevant research data and findings being incorporated into policymaking, due to the basic and fundamental nature of most of the funded biomedical research in Malaysia.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"58 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66286698","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1332/174426421X16141831484350
Natalie Kennie-Kaulbach, Sarah Kehoe, A. Whelan, E. Reeve, Isaac Bai, S. Burgess, Olga Kits, J. Isenor
Background: Deprescribing, the process of dose reduction or stopping of medication(s) that may no longer be required, may improve medication use and patient outcomes. A collaborative interprofessional deprescribing research team was formed in 2017 in Nova Scotia (NS), Canada with the goal of investigating potential deprescribing initiatives which could be translated to primary healthcare in NS. The knowledge-to-action framework, which includes knowledge exchange, was used to guide the work of this team. Preliminary work involved knowledge inquiry and synthesis through a scoping review of deprescribing strategies in primary healthcare, a qualitative study to understand influences on deprescribing by local practitioners, and an analysis that combined the two.Aims and objectives: To describe and reflect on how an interactive knowledge exchange event strategy was used to (1) share the results, including knowledge tools, of previously conducted deprescribing research with stakeholders; (2) identify priorities for the development and implementation of collaborative deprescribing strategies in primary healthcare in NS.Key conclusions: The knowledge exchange event strategy utilised in this project achieved the planned objectives of sharing research results, raising awareness about deprescribing, and providing direction for future initiatives. The successful implementation of the knowledge exchange event hinged on many factors such as hiring a research coordinator; limiting the in-person event to one half-day; and using a variety of strategies for participant engagement both before and after the event. Other research teams could adopt a similar knowledge exchange event process as an approach for sharing research results and identifying future research and translation priorities.Key messagesThe knowledge exchange event provides an example of multiple methods of stakeholder engagement.A World Café approach provided an opportunity for diverse stakeholder input.Provision of knowledge tools in advance decreased event time which may have improved attendance.Key priorities for future deprescribing initiatives were developed through stakeholder engagement.
{"title":"Use of a knowledge exchange event strategy to identify key priorities for implementing deprescribing in primary healthcare in Nova Scotia, Canada","authors":"Natalie Kennie-Kaulbach, Sarah Kehoe, A. Whelan, E. Reeve, Isaac Bai, S. Burgess, Olga Kits, J. Isenor","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16141831484350","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16141831484350","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Deprescribing, the process of dose reduction or stopping of medication(s) that may no longer be required, may improve medication use and patient outcomes. A collaborative interprofessional deprescribing research team was formed in 2017 in Nova Scotia (NS), Canada with the goal of investigating potential deprescribing initiatives which could be translated to primary healthcare in NS. The knowledge-to-action framework, which includes knowledge exchange, was used to guide the work of this team. Preliminary work involved knowledge inquiry and synthesis through a scoping review of deprescribing strategies in primary healthcare, a qualitative study to understand influences on deprescribing by local practitioners, and an analysis that combined the two.Aims and objectives: To describe and reflect on how an interactive knowledge exchange event strategy was used to (1) share the results, including knowledge tools, of previously conducted deprescribing research with stakeholders; (2) identify priorities for the development and implementation of collaborative deprescribing strategies in primary healthcare in NS.Key conclusions: The knowledge exchange event strategy utilised in this project achieved the planned objectives of sharing research results, raising awareness about deprescribing, and providing direction for future initiatives. The successful implementation of the knowledge exchange event hinged on many factors such as hiring a research coordinator; limiting the in-person event to one half-day; and using a variety of strategies for participant engagement both before and after the event. Other research teams could adopt a similar knowledge exchange event process as an approach for sharing research results and identifying future research and translation priorities.Key messagesThe knowledge exchange event provides an example of multiple methods of stakeholder engagement.A World Café approach provided an opportunity for diverse stakeholder input.Provision of knowledge tools in advance decreased event time which may have improved attendance.Key priorities for future deprescribing initiatives were developed through stakeholder engagement.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66285681","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1332/174426421X16149619754826
S. Worton, E. Furman
Background: Continued evolution of knowledge-to-action (KTA) theories requires increased attention to dynamics of power and ways to integrate multiple forms of knowledge. Peer learning – a process through which knowledge users interact with other learners – is a valuable but largely unexamined strategy for integrating practice-based knowledge in the KTA process.Aims and objectives: This study undertakes a scoping review to examine how peer-learning strategies have been used to advance knowledge users’ capacity for implementing evidence-based practices.Methods: A search of ten online databases and a manual search of five journals was conducted to identify studies published between 2001 and 2018. Selected publications included 26 studies conducted in Canada, the US, the UK, Australia, and the Netherlands. Studies utilised peer learning as a capacity-building strategy to advance the uptake or implementation of evidence-based practices among professionals in social services, education, or health/mental health sectors.Findings: Links between peer-learning strategies and multiple individual and/or collective capacities for implementing evidence-based practices were identified from selected studies. Individual capacities linked to peer learning include knowledge of the practice, attitudes (for example, motivation and ‘buy-in’), and practical skills. Collective capacities supported through peer learning included knowledge exchange, knowledge generation, relationship development, networking, and resource/tool sharing. Peer learning was often paired with didactic or expert-led activities.Discussion and conclusions: This scoping review identifies how peer learning has been used as a capacity-building strategy in implementation initiatives. Peer-learning activities provide a means to help integrate multiple forms of knowledge in the KTA process.Key messagesIn this review, we examined peer learning strategies that build capacity among knowledge users in implementation;Peer learning strategies are often used in combination with didactic instruction and/or expert facilitation;Peer learning has been used to advance knowledge users’ individual and collective capacity for implementation;Evaluative research is needed to better understand how peer learning influences implementation capacity.
{"title":"Examining peer learning as a strategy for advancing uptake of evidence-based practices: a scoping review","authors":"S. Worton, E. Furman","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16149619754826","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16149619754826","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Continued evolution of knowledge-to-action (KTA) theories requires increased attention to dynamics of power and ways to integrate multiple forms of knowledge. Peer learning – a process through which knowledge users interact with other learners – is a valuable but largely unexamined strategy for integrating practice-based knowledge in the KTA process.Aims and objectives: This study undertakes a scoping review to examine how peer-learning strategies have been used to advance knowledge users’ capacity for implementing evidence-based practices.Methods: A search of ten online databases and a manual search of five journals was conducted to identify studies published between 2001 and 2018. Selected publications included 26 studies conducted in Canada, the US, the UK, Australia, and the Netherlands. Studies utilised peer learning as a capacity-building strategy to advance the uptake or implementation of evidence-based practices among professionals in social services, education, or health/mental health sectors.Findings: Links between peer-learning strategies and multiple individual and/or collective capacities for implementing evidence-based practices were identified from selected studies. Individual capacities linked to peer learning include knowledge of the practice, attitudes (for example, motivation and ‘buy-in’), and practical skills. Collective capacities supported through peer learning included knowledge exchange, knowledge generation, relationship development, networking, and resource/tool sharing. Peer learning was often paired with didactic or expert-led activities.Discussion and conclusions: This scoping review identifies how peer learning has been used as a capacity-building strategy in implementation initiatives. Peer-learning activities provide a means to help integrate multiple forms of knowledge in the KTA process.Key messagesIn this review, we examined peer learning strategies that build capacity among knowledge users in implementation;Peer learning strategies are often used in combination with didactic instruction and/or expert facilitation;Peer learning has been used to advance knowledge users’ individual and collective capacity for implementation;Evaluative research is needed to better understand how peer learning influences implementation capacity.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66286286","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1332/174426421x16366418828079
F. Hollands, Yilin Pan, Michael J. Kieffer, Venita R. Holmes, Yixin Wang, Maya Escueta, Laura Head, Atsuko Muroga
Background: Education decision makers are increasingly expected to use evidence to inform their actions. However, the majority of educational interventions have not yet been studied and it is challenging to produce high quality research evidence quickly enough to influence policy questions.Aims and objectives: We set out to gather evidence on the efficacy of reading resources implemented at 23 struggling elementary schools in a large, urban district in the US. The schools were at risk of closure by the state.Methods: For each reading resource, we searched for existing effectiveness studies and collected professional judgements by surveying practitioners. We also used an expert survey to collect judgements from three reading experts. We compared the ratings among experts and between practitioners and experts. We also compared practitioner and expert judgements to evidence summaries from research repositories.Findings: We found evidence summaries in research repositories for only five of 23 reading resources used in the 23 schools. Experts showed poor to good agreement on ten questions about each resource. Agreement between practitioners and experts was low with practitioners generally rating resources more positively than reading experts.Discussion and conclusions: Practitioners may be overly optimistic about the efficacy of educational materials while experts have difficulty assessing how well the materials serve an unfamiliar population. In the absence of rigorous evaluations of locally-implemented programmes, district decision makers can review the consistency of evidence collected from practitioners and experts, along with external research evidence, to inform actions towards supporting and guiding struggling schools.Key messagesRigorous research evidence is lacking for many of the programmes and practices implemented in schools.Districts can produce internal evidence on the effectiveness of reading resources by surveying practitioners.Expert ratings of the same resources are generally less optimistic about their efficacy.Decision makers should consider consistency across sources of evidence and relevance to local context.
{"title":"Comparing evidence on the effectiveness of reading resources from expert ratings, practitioner judgements, and research repositories","authors":"F. Hollands, Yilin Pan, Michael J. Kieffer, Venita R. Holmes, Yixin Wang, Maya Escueta, Laura Head, Atsuko Muroga","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16366418828079","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16366418828079","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Education decision makers are increasingly expected to use evidence to inform their actions. However, the majority of educational interventions have not yet been studied and it is challenging to produce high quality research evidence quickly enough to influence policy questions.Aims and objectives: We set out to gather evidence on the efficacy of reading resources implemented at 23 struggling elementary schools in a large, urban district in the US. The schools were at risk of closure by the state.Methods: For each reading resource, we searched for existing effectiveness studies and collected professional judgements by surveying practitioners. We also used an expert survey to collect judgements from three reading experts. We compared the ratings among experts and between practitioners and experts. We also compared practitioner and expert judgements to evidence summaries from research repositories.Findings: We found evidence summaries in research repositories for only five of 23 reading resources used in the 23 schools. Experts showed poor to good agreement on ten questions about each resource. Agreement between practitioners and experts was low with practitioners generally rating resources more positively than reading experts.Discussion and conclusions: Practitioners may be overly optimistic about the efficacy of educational materials while experts have difficulty assessing how well the materials serve an unfamiliar population. In the absence of rigorous evaluations of locally-implemented programmes, district decision makers can review the consistency of evidence collected from practitioners and experts, along with external research evidence, to inform actions towards supporting and guiding struggling schools.Key messagesRigorous research evidence is lacking for many of the programmes and practices implemented in schools.Districts can produce internal evidence on the effectiveness of reading resources by surveying practitioners.Expert ratings of the same resources are generally less optimistic about their efficacy.Decision makers should consider consistency across sources of evidence and relevance to local context.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66286589","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1332/174426421x16353477842207
D. Gough, C. Maidment, J. Sharples
Target audience: What Works Centres; other intermediary brokerage agencies; their funders and users; and researchers of research use.Background: Knowledge brokerage and knowledge mobilisation (KM) are generic terms used to describe activities to enable the use of research evidence to inform policy, practice and individual decision making. Knowledge brokerage intermediary (KBI) initiatives facilitate such use of research evidence. This debate paper argues that although the work of KBIs is to enable evidence-informed decision making (EIDM), they may not always be overt and consistent in how they follow the principles of EIDM in their own practice.Key points for discussion: Drawing on examples from existing brokerage initiatives, four areas are suggested where KBIs could be more evidence-informed in their work: (1) needs analysis: evidence-informed in their analysis of where and how the KBI can best contribute to the existing evidence ecosystem; (2) methods and theories of change: evidence-informed in the methods that the KBI uses to achieve its goals; (3) evidence standards: credible standards for making evidence claims; and (4) evaluation and monitoring: evidence-informed evaluation of their own activities and contribution to the knowledge base on evidence use. For each of these areas, questions are suggested for considering the extent that the principles are being followed in practice.Conclusions and implications: KBIs work with evidence but they may not always be evidence-informed in their practice. KBIs could benefit from more overtly attending to the extent that they apply the logic of EIDM to how they work. In doing so, KBIs can advance both the study, and practice, of using research evidence to inform decision making.
目标受众:What Works Centres;其他中介经纪机构;他们的资助者和使用者;以及研究人员的研究用途。背景:知识中介和知识动员(KM)是用来描述能够利用研究证据为政策、实践和个人决策提供信息的活动的通用术语。知识经纪中介(KBI)倡议促进了这种研究证据的使用。这篇辩论论文认为，尽管kbi的工作是实现循证决策(EIDM)，但他们在自己的实践中如何遵循EIDM原则方面可能并不总是公开和一致的。讨论要点:借鉴现有的经纪倡议的例子，建议在四个方面，KBI可以在他们的工作中更多地以证据为依据:(1)需求分析:在分析KBI在哪里以及如何才能最好地为现有的证据生态系统做出贡献时，以证据为依据;(2)变革的方法和理论:基于证据的KBI实现其目标的方法;(三)证据标准:提出证据主张的可信标准;(4)评价和监测:对自己的活动和对证据使用知识库的贡献进行循证评价。对于每一个领域，都提出了一些问题，以考虑在实践中遵守这些原则的程度。结论和启示:kbi的工作有证据，但他们在实践中可能并不总是循证的。kbi可以从更公开地关注将EIDM逻辑应用于其工作方式的程度中获益。这样做，kbi可以推进研究和实践，利用研究证据为决策提供信息。
{"title":"Enabling knowledge brokerage intermediaries to be evidence-informed","authors":"D. Gough, C. Maidment, J. Sharples","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16353477842207","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16353477842207","url":null,"abstract":"Target audience: What Works Centres; other intermediary brokerage agencies; their funders and users; and researchers of research use.Background: Knowledge brokerage and knowledge mobilisation (KM) are generic terms used to describe activities to enable the use of research evidence to inform policy, practice and individual decision making. Knowledge brokerage intermediary (KBI) initiatives facilitate such use of research evidence. This debate paper argues that although the work of KBIs is to enable evidence-informed decision making (EIDM), they may not always be overt and consistent in how they follow the principles of EIDM in their own practice.Key points for discussion: Drawing on examples from existing brokerage initiatives, four areas are suggested where KBIs could be more evidence-informed in their work: (1) needs analysis: evidence-informed in their analysis of where and how the KBI can best contribute to the existing evidence ecosystem; (2) methods and theories of change: evidence-informed in the methods that the KBI uses to achieve its goals; (3) evidence standards: credible standards for making evidence claims; and (4) evaluation and monitoring: evidence-informed evaluation of their own activities and contribution to the knowledge base on evidence use. For each of these areas, questions are suggested for considering the extent that the principles are being followed in practice.Conclusions and implications: KBIs work with evidence but they may not always be evidence-informed in their practice. KBIs could benefit from more overtly attending to the extent that they apply the logic of EIDM to how they work. In doing so, KBIs can advance both the study, and practice, of using research evidence to inform decision making.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66287015","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：