Overcoming Common Anxieties in Knowledge Translation: Advice for Scholarly Issue Advocates.

Policy Points Faced with urgent threats to human health and well-being such as climate change, calls among the academic community are getting louder to contribute more effectively to the implementation of the evidence generated by our research into public policy. As interest in knowledge translation (KT) surges, so have a number of anxieties about the field's shortcomings. Our paper is motivated by a call in the literature to render useful advice for those beginning in KT on how to advance impact at a policy level. By integrating knowledge from fields such as political science, moral psychology, and marketing, we suggest that thinking and acting like marketers, lobbyists, movements, and political scientists would help us advance on the quest to bridge the chasm between evidence and policy.

Open science at the science-policy interface: bringing in the evidence?

Part of the current enthusiasm about open science stems from its promises to reform scientific practice in service of the common good, to ensure that scientific outputs will be found and reused more easily, and to enhance scientific impact on policy and society. With this article, we question this optimism by analysing the potential for open science practices to enhance research uptake at the science-policy interface. Science advice is critical to help policy-makers make informed decisions. Likewise, some interpretations of open science hold that making research processes and outputs more transparent and accessible will also enhance the uptake of results by policy and society at large. However, we argue that this hope is based on an unjustifiably simplistic understanding of the science-policy interface that leaves key terms ("impact", "uptake") undefined. We show that this understanding-based upon linear models of research uptake-likewise grounds the influential "evidence-policy gap" diagnosis which holds that to improve research uptake, communication and interaction between researchers and policy-makers need to be improved. The overall normative stance of both discussions has sidelined empirical description of the science-policy interface, ignoring questions about the underlying differences between the policy domain and academia. Importantly, both open science and literature on closing the evidence-policy gap recommend improving communication (in terms of either the content or the means) as a viable strategy. To correct some of these views, we combine insights from policy theory with a narrative review of the literature on the evidence-policy gap in the health domain and find that removing barriers to access by itself will not be enough to foster research uptake.

An integrated assessment of the Good Environmental Status of Mediterranean Marine Protected Areas.

Local, regional and global targets have been set to halt marine biodiversity loss. Europe has set its own policy targets to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) of marine ecosystems by implementing the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) across member states. We combined an extensive dataset across five Mediterranean ecoregions including 26 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), their reference unprotected areas, and a no-trawl case study. Our aim was to assess if MPAs reach GES, if their effects are local or can be detected at ecoregion level or up to a Mediterranean scale, and which are the ecosystem components driving GES achievement. This was undertaken by using the analytical tool NEAT (Nested Environmental status Assessment Tool), which allows an integrated assessment of the status of marine systems. We adopted an ecosystem approach by integrating data from several ecosystem components: the seagrass Posidonia oceanica, macroalgae, sea urchins and fish. Thresholds to define the GES were set by dedicated workshops and literature review. In the Western Mediterranean, most MPAs are in good/high status, with P. oceanica and fish driving this result within MPAs. However, GES is achieved only at a local level, and the Mediterranean Sea, as a whole, results in a moderate environmental status. Macroalgal forests are overall in bad condition, confirming their status at risk. The results are significantly affected by the assumption that discrete observations over small spatial scales are representative of the total extension investigated. This calls for large-scale, dedicated assessments to realistically detect environmental status changes under different conditions. Understanding MPAs effectiveness in reaching GES is crucial to assess their role as sentinel observatories of marine systems. MPAs and trawling bans can locally contribute to the attainment of GES and to the fulfillment of the MSFD objectives. Building confidence in setting thresholds between GES and non-GES, investing in long-term monitoring, increasing the spatial extent of sampling areas, rethinking and broadening the scope of complementary tools of protection (e.g., Natura 2000 Sites), are indicated as solutions to ameliorate the status of the basin.

The north-south policy divide in transnational healthcare: a comparative review of policy research on medical tourism in source and destination countries.

Medical tourism occupies different spaces within national policy frameworks depending on which side of the transnational paradigm countries belong to, and how they seek to leverage it towards their developmental goals. This article draws attention to this policy divide in transnational healthcare through a comparative bibliometric review of policy research on medical tourism in select source (Canada, United States and United Kingdom) and destination countries (Mexico, India, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore), using a systematic search of the Web of Science (WoS) database and review of grey literature. We assess cross-national differences in policy and policy research on medical tourism against contextual policy landscapes and challenges, and examine the convergence between research and policy. Our findings indicate major disparities in development agendas and national policy concerns, both between and among source and destination countries. Further, we find that research on medical tourism does not always address prevailing policy challenges, just as the policy discourse oftentimes neglects relevant policy research on the subject. Based on our review, we highlight the limited application of theoretical policy paradigms in current medical tourism research and make the case for a comparative policy research agenda for the field.

Assessment of USDA-NRCS rangeland conservation programs: recommendation for an evidence-based conservation platform.

The Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) was created in response to a request from the Office of Management and Budget that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) document the societal benefits anticipated to accrue from a major increase in conservation funding authorized by the 2002 Farm Bill. A comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy of rangeland conservation practices cost-shared with private landowners was unable to evaluate conservation benefits because outcomes were seldom documented. Four interrelated suppositions are presented to examine the causes underlying minimal documentation of conservations outcomes. These suppositions are (1) the benefits of conservation practices are considered a certainty so that documentation in not required, (2) there is minimal knowledge exchange between the USDA-NRCS and research organizations, (3) and a paucity of conservation-relevant science, as well as (4) inadequate technical support for land owners following implementation of conservation practices. We then follow with recommendations to overcome potential barriers to documentation of conservation outcomes identified for each supposition. Collectively, this assessment indicates that the existing conservation practice standards are insufficient to effectively administer large conservation investments on rangelands and that modification of these standards alone will not achieve the goals explicitly stated by CEAP. We recommend that USDA-NRCS modify its conservation programs around a more comprehensive and integrative platform that is capable of implementing evidence-based conservation. Collaborative monitoring organized around landowner-agency-scientist partnerships would represent the focal point of a Conservation Program Assessment Network (CPAN). The primary network objective would be to establish missing information feedback loops between conservation practices and their agricultural and environmental outcomes to promote learning, adaptive management, and innovation. Network information would be archived and made available to guide other, related conservation programs in relevant ecoregions. Restructuring conservation programs as we recommend would (1) provide site specific information, learning, and accountability that has been requested by CEAP and (2) further advance balanced delivery of agricultural production and environmental quality goals.

A framework to guide the conservation of species hybrids based on ethical and ecological considerations.

Species hybrids have long been undervalued in conservation and are often perceived as a threat to pure species. Recently, the conservation value of hybrids, especially those of natural origin, has gained recognition; however, hybrid conservation remains controversial. We reviewed hybrid management policies, including laws, regulations, and management protocols, from a variety of organizations, primarily in Canada and the United States. We found that many policies are based on limited ethical and ecological considerations and provide little opportunity for hybrid conservation. In most policies, hybrids are either unrepresented or considered a threat to conservation goals. This is problematic because our review of the hybrid conservation literature identified many ethical and ecological considerations relevant to determining the conservation value of a hybrid, all of which are management-context specific. We also noted a lack of discussion of the ethical considerations regarding hybrid conservation. Based on these findings, we created a policy framework outlining situations in which hybrids could be eligible for conservation in Canada and the United States. The framework comprises a decision tree that helps users determine whether a hybrid should be eligible for conservation based on multiple ecological and ethical considerations. The framework may be applied to any hybrid and is flexible in that it accommodates context-specific management by allowing different options if a hybrid is a threat to or could benefit conservation goals. The framework can inform policy makers and conservationists in decision-making processes regarding hybrid conservation by providing a systematic set of decision criteria and guidance on additional criteria to be considered in cases of uncertainty, and it fills a policy gap that limits current hybrid management.

Un Marco de Referencia para Guiar a la Conservación de Híbridos de Especies con base en Consideraciones Éticas y Ecológicas Jackiw et al. 12526 Resumen Los híbridos de especies han sido subvalorados en la conservación durante mucho tiempo y frecuentemente se perciben como una amenaza para las especies puras. Recientemente, el valor de conservación de los híbridos, especialmente aquellos de origen natural, ha ganado reconocimiento; sin embargo, la conservación de híbridos sigue siendo controversial. Revisamos las políticas de manejo de híbridos de una variedad de organizaciones, principalmente en Canadá y en los Estados Unidos, incluyendo las leyes, regulaciones y protocolos de manejo. Encontramos que muchas políticas se basan en consideraciones éticas y ecológicas limitadas y proporcionan pocas oportunidades para la conservación de híbridos. En la mayoría de las políticas, los híbridos están mal representados o se consideran una amenaza para los objetivos de conservación. Esto es problemático porque nuestra revisión de la literatura sobre la conservación de híbridos identificó muchas consideraciones éticas y ecológicas relevantes para la determinación del valor de conservación de un híbrido, de las cuales todas son específicas para el manejo de contexto específico. También notamos una falta de discusión sobre las consideraciones éticas con respecto a la conservación de híbridos. Con base en estos hallazgos, creamos un marco de referencia político que resalta situaciones en las que los híbridos pueden ser elegibles para la conservación en Canadá y en los Estados Unidos. El marco de referencia consta de un árbol de decisión que ayuda a los usuarios a determinar si un híbrido debe ser elegible para la conservación con base en múltiples consideraciones éticas y ecológicas. El marco de referencia puede aplicarse a cualquier híbrido y es flexible, ya que acomoda el manejo de contexto específico al permitir diferentes opciones si un híbrido es una amenaza o si podría beneficiar a los objetivos de conservación. El marco de referencia puede informar a quienes hacen las políticas y a los conservacionistas sobre los procesos de toma de decisiones con respecto a la conservación de híbridos al proporcionar un conjunto sistemático de criterios de decisión y una guía de los criterios adicionales a ser considerados en casos de incertidumbre y llena un vacío político que limita al manejo actual de los híbridos.

A regulatory gap analysis of midwifery to deliver essential reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health services in Lao People's Democratic Republic.

Background: In Lao Peoples Democratic Republic, midwives are the main providers of primary reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent (RMNCAH) services. We analyzed to what extent practice regulations allow midwives to provide nationally defined essential RMNCAH services. Methods: Stakeholder consultations and document reviews were conducted to identify the essential RMNCAH interventions and care tasks midwives are expected to provide without physicians. These were defined in: 1) the Essential Health Service Package (EHSP) and 2) 18 national standards and guidelines. We then mapped whether midwifery regulations, which provide the legal framework for clinical service provision, supported delivery of these standards to identify regulatory gaps. Data were used to update regulations. Findings: Midwives were expected to provide 39 RMNCAH interventions without physicians, representing 1100 care tasks. Midwifery practice regulations allowed eight of 39 interventions (20.5%) and 705 of 1100 care tasks (64.1%) at baseline. Of the 31 interventions not allowed for provision by midwives, 83.9% (26) required prescribing and giving medicines, 51.6% (16) ordering and conducting diagnostics, 38.7% (12) making a clinical diagnosis, and 22.6% (7) use of non-pharmacological interventions. The Ministry of Health convened a multi-stakeholder group to revise the midwifery practice regulations, which increased the legally supported interventions and care tasks to 37 (94.9%) and 1081 (98.3%), respectively. Interpretation: This novel methodology enabled systematic identification and quantification of regulatory gaps in midwifery practice and data-driven revisions. Consequently, regulatory support for delivery of primary RMNCAH interventions vastly improved. The approach can be applied to other clinical cadres, service areas and countries. Funding: Korea Foundation for International Health Care (KOFIH) supported research operation.

Reducing publication delay to improve the efficiency and impact of conservation science.

Evidence-based decision-making is most effective with comprehensive access to scientific studies. If studies face significant publication delays or barriers, the useful information they contain may not reach decision-makers in a timely manner. This represents a potential problem for mission-oriented disciplines where access to the latest data is required to ensure effective actions are undertaken. We sought to analyse the severity of publication delay in conservation science-a field that requires urgent action to prevent the loss of biodiversity. We used the Conservation Evidence database to assess the length of publication delay (time from finishing data collection to publication) in the literature that tests the effectiveness of conservation interventions. From 7,447 peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed studies of conservation interventions published over eleven decades, we find that the raw mean publication delay was 3.2 years (±2SD = 0.1) and varied by conservation subject. A significantly shorter delay was observed for studies focused on Bee Conservation, Sustainable Aquaculture, Management of Captive Animals, Amphibian Conservation, and Control of Freshwater Invasive Species (Estimated Marginal Mean range from 1.4-1.9 years). Publication delay was significantly shorter for the non-peer-reviewed literature (Estimated Marginal Mean delay of 1.9 years ± 0.2) compared to the peer-reviewed literature (i.e., scientific journals; Estimated Marginal Mean delay of 3.0 years ± 0.1). We found publication delay has significantly increased over time (an increase of ~1.2 years from 1912 (1.4 years ± 0.2) to 2020 (2.6 years ± 0.1)), but this change was much weaker and non-significant post-2000s; we found no evidence for any decline. There was also no evidence that studies on more threatened species were subject to a shorter delay-indeed, the contrary was true for mammals, and to a lesser extent for birds. We suggest a range of possible ways in which scientists, funders, publishers, and practitioners can work together to reduce delays at each stage of the publication process.