Assessing the impact of knowledge communication and dissemination strategies targeted at health policy-makers and managers: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: The 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. METHODS: This 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 Both published and unpublished reviews in English, Spanish or Portuguese were included.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. RESULTS: We 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. CONCLUSIONS: There 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.

Comparison of national health research priority-setting methods and characteristics in Latin America and the Caribbean, 2002 - 2012 / Comparación de los métodos de establecimiento de prioridades de investigación nacional de salud y sus características en América Latina y el Caribe, 2002 al 2012

OBJECTIVE: To compare health research priority-setting methods and characteristics among countries in Latin America and the Caribbean during 2002 - 2012. METHODS: This was a systematic review that identified national health research policies and priority agendas through a search of ministry and government databases related to health care institutions. PubMed, LILACS, the Health Research Web, and others were searched for the period from January 2002 - February 2012. The study excluded research organized by governmental institutions and specific national strategies on particular disease areas. Priority-setting methods were compared to the "nine common themes for good practice in health research priorities." National health research priorities were compared to those of the World Health Organization's Millennium Development Goals (MDG). RESULTS: Of the 18 Latin American countries assessed, 13 had documents that established national health research priorities; plus the Caribbean Health Research Council had a research agenda for its 19 constituents. These 14 total reports varied widely in terms of objectives, content, dissemination, and implementation; most provided a list of strategic areas, suggestions, and/or sub-priorities for each country; however, few proposed specific research topics and questions. CONCLUSIONS: Future reports could be improved by including more details on the comprehensive approach employed to identify priorities, on the information gathering process, and on practices to be undertaken after priorities are set. There is a need for improving the quality of the methodologies utilized and coordinating Regional efforts as countries strive to meet the MDG.

OBJETIVO: Comparar los métodos de establecimiento de prioridades de investigación de salud y sus características en los países de América Latina y el Caribe durante el período del 2002 al 2012. MÉTODOS: Se llevó a cabo una revisión sistemática que determinó las políticas nacionales de investigación de salud y los programas prioritarios mediante una búsqueda de bases de datos ministeriales y gubernamentales relacionadas con instituciones de atención de salud. Se llevó a cabo una búsqueda ajustada al período de enero del 2002 a febrero del 2012 en PubMed, LILACS, Health Research Web y otras fuentes. El estudio excluyó las investigaciones organizadas por instituciones gubernamentales y estrategias nacionales específicas sobre áreas de enfermedades particulares. Se compararon los métodos de establecimiento de prioridades con los "nueve temas comunes para unas prácticas adecuadas en materia de prioridades de investigación de salud". Se compararon las prioridades nacionales de investigación de salud con las de los Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio (ODM) de la Organización Mundial de la Salud. RESULTADOS: De los 18 países latinoamericanos evaluados, 13 disponían de documentos que establecían las prioridades nacionales de investigación de salud; además, el Consejo del Caribe de Investigación de Salud disponía de un programa de investigaciones dirigido a sus 19 integrantes. Estos 14 informes variaban ampliamente en cuanto a objetivos, contenido, difusión y ejecución; la mayor parte de ellos proporcionaban una lista de áreas estratégicas, sugerencias o subprioridades para cada país, sin embargo, eran pocos los que proponían temas y cuestiones específicos de investigación. CONCLUSIONES: Se podrían mejorar los informes futuros mediante una descripción más detallada del método integral empleado para determinar las prioridades, del proceso de recopilación de información y de las prácticas que deben emprenderse una vez fijadas las prioridades. Es necesario mejorar la calidad de los métodos utilizados y coordinar las iniciativas regionales a medida que los países tratan de cumplir los ODM.