National strategies for knowledge translation in health policy-making: A scoping review of grey literature.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Without strategic actions in its support, the translation of scientific research evidence into health policy is often absent or delayed. This review systematically maps and assesses national-level strategic documents in the field of knowledge translation (KT) for health policy, and develops a practical template that can support Evidence-informed Policy Network (EVIPNet) Europe countries in producing national strategies for evidence-informed policy-making. METHODS: Websites of organizations with strategic responsibilities in KT were electronically searched, on the basis of pre-defined criteria, in July-August 2017, and an updated search was carried out in April-June 2021. We included national strategies or elements of national strategies that dealt with KT activities, as well as similar strategies of individual institutions with a national policy focus. Two reviewers screened the strategies for inclusion. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 65 unique documents were identified, of which 17 were eligible and analysed for their structure and content. Of the 17, 1 document was a national health KT action plan and 6 documents were institution-level KT strategies. The remaining 10 strategies, which were also included were 2 national health strategies, 5 national health research strategies and 3 national KT strategies (not specific to the field of health alone). In all, 13 structural elements and 7 major themes of health policy KT strategies were identified from the included documents. CONCLUSION: KT in health policy, as emerged from the national strategies that our mapping identified, is based on the production and accessibility of policy-relevant research, its packaging for policy-making and the activities related to knowledge exchange. KT strategies may play different roles in the complex and context-specific process of policy-making. Our findings show that the main ideas of health-specific evidence-informed policy literature appear in these strategies, but their effectiveness depends on the way stakeholders use them. Specific knowledge-brokering institutions and organizational capacity, advocacy about the use of evidence, and close collaboration and co-decision-making with key stakeholders are essential in furthering the policy uptake of research results.

Routinizing the Use of Evidence in Policy - What Is Needed? Comment on "Sustaining Knowledge Translation Practices: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis".

In their study of sustaining knowledge translation (KT) practices, Borst et al found that this process is an interplay of: (i) constructing and extending networks, (ii) creating contexts that support KT practices, and (iii) understanding how actors create, maintain, and disrupt institutions. Their article is an important contribution to the body of research promoting KT. In this commentary we reflect on the convergences and differences between the concepts of 'sustaining' and 'institutionalizing' KT, highlighting domains and processes related to the institutionalization, providing an analysis of KT landscape in Brazil and making a case for the need to increase countries' routine use of evidence.

Identifying priority questions regarding rapid systematic reviews' methods: protocol for an eDelphi study.

INTRODUCTION: Rapid systematic reviews (RRs) have the potential to provide timely information to decision-makers, thus directly impacting healthcare. However, consensus regarding the most efficient approaches to performing RRs and the presence of several unaddressed methodological issues pose challenges. With such a large potential research agenda for RRs, it is unclear what should be prioritised. OBJECTIVE: To elicit a consensus from RR experts and interested parties on what are the most important methodological questions (from the generation of the question to the writing of the report) for the field to address in order to guide the effective and efficient development of RRs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An eDelphi study will be conducted. Researchers with experience in evidence synthesis and other interested parties (eg, knowledge users, patients, community members, policymaker, industry, journal editors and healthcare providers) will be invited to participate. The following steps will be taken: (1) a core group of experts in evidence synthesis will generate the first list of items based on the available literature; (2) using LimeSurvey, participants will be invited to rate and rank the importance of suggested RR methodological questions. Questions with open format responses will allow for modifications to the wording of items or the addition of new items; (3) three survey rounds will be performed asking participants to re-rate items, with items deemed of low importance being removed at each round; (4) a list of items will be generated with items believed to be of high importance by ≥75% of participants being included and (5) this list will be discussed at an online consensus meeting that will generate a summary document containing the final priority list. Data analysis will be performed using raw numbers, means and frequencies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Concordia University Human Research Ethics Committee (#30015229). Both traditional, for example, scientific conference presentations and publication in scientific journals, and non-traditional, for example, lay summaries and infographics, knowledge translation products will be created.

Key issues for stakeholder engagement in the development of health and healthcare guidelines.

Established in 2015, the Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium is an international network of over 120 individuals interested in stakeholder engagement in research and guidelines. The MuSE group is developing guidance for stakeholder engagement in the development of health and healthcare guideline development. The development of this guidance has included multiple meetings with stakeholders, including patients, payers/purchasers of health services, peer review editors, policymakers, program managers, providers, principal investigators, product makers, the public, and purchasers of health services and has identified a number of key issues. These include: (1) Definitions, roles, and settings (2) Stakeholder identification and selection (3) Levels of engagement, (4) Evaluation of engagement, (5) Documentation and transparency, and (6) Conflict of interest management. In this paper, we discuss these issues and our plan to develop guidance to facilitate stakeholder engagement in all stages of the development of health and healthcare guideline development.

A group of international researchers, patient partners, and other stakeholders are working together to create a checklist for when and how to involve stakeholders in health guideline development. Health guidelines include clinical practice guidelines, which your healthcare provider uses to determine treatments for health conditions. While working on this checklist, the team identified key issues to work on, including: (1) Definitions, roles, and settings (2) Stakeholder identification and selection (3) Levels of engagement, (4) Evaluation of engagement, (5) Documentation and transparency, and (6) Conflict of interest management. This paper describes each issue and how the team plans to produce guidance papers to address them.

Integration of evidence into Theory of Change frameworks in the healthcare sector: A rapid systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Theory of Change (ToC) has become an established approach to design and evaluate interventions. While ToC should-in line with the growing international focus on evidence-informed health decision-making-consider explicit approaches to incorporate evidence, there is limited guidance on how this should be done. This rapid review aims to identify and synthesize the available literature on how to systematically use research evidence when developing or adapting ToCs in the health sector. METHODS: A rapid review methodology using a systematic approach, was designed. Eight electronic databases were consulted to search for peer-reviewed and gray publications detailing tools, methods, and recommendations promoting the systematic integration of research evidence in ToCs. The included studies were compared, and the findings summarized qualitatively into themes to identify key principles, stages, and procedures, guiding the systematic integration of research evidence when developing or revising a ToC. RESULTS: This review included 18 studies. The main sources from which evidence was retrieved in the ToC development process were institutional data, literature searches, and stakeholder consultation. There was a variety of ways of finding and using evidence in ToC. Firstly, the review provided an overview of existing definitions of ToC, methods applied in ToC development and the related ToC stages. Secondly, a typology of 7 stages relevant for evidence integration into ToCs was developed, outlining the types of evidence and research methods the included studies applied for each of the proposed stages. CONCLUSION: This rapid review adds to the existing literature in two ways. First, it provides an up-to-date and comprehensive review of the existing methods for incorporating evidence into ToC development in the health sector. Second, it offers a new typology guiding any future endeavors of incorporating evidence into ToCs.

An ethical analysis of policy dialogues.

BACKGROUND: A policy dialogue is a tool which promotes evidence-informed policy-making. It involves deliberation about a high-priority issue, informed by a synthesis of the best-available evidence, where potential policy interventions are discussed by stakeholders. We offer an ethical analysis of policy dialogues - an argument about how policy dialogues ought to be conceived and executed - to guide those organizing and participating in policy dialogues. Our analysis focuses on the deliberative dialogues themselves, rather than ethical issues in the broader policy context within which they are situated. METHODS: We conduct a philosophical conceptual analysis of policy dialogues, informed by a formal and an interpretative literature review. RESULTS: We identify the objectives of policy dialogues, and consider the procedural and substantive values that should govern them. As knowledge translation tools, the chief objective of policy dialogues is to ensure that prospective evidence-informed health policies are appropriate for and likely to support evidence-informed decision-making in a particular context. We identify five core characteristics which serve this objective: policy dialogues are (i) focused on a high-priority issue, (ii) evidence-informed, (iii) deliberative, (iv) participatory and (v) action-oriented. In contrast to dominant ethical frameworks for policy-making, we argue that transparency and accountability are not central procedural values for policy dialogues, as they are liable to inhibit the open deliberation that is necessary for successful policy dialogues. Instead, policy dialogues are legitimate insofar as they pursue the objectives and embody the core characteristics identified above. Finally, we argue that good policy dialogues need to actively consider a range of substantive values other than health benefit and equity. CONCLUSIONS: Policy dialogues should recognize the limits of effectiveness as a guiding value for policy-making, and operate with an expansive conception of successful outcomes. We offer a set of questions to support those organizing and participating in policy dialogues.

An evaluation of the evidence brief for policy development process in WHO EVIPNet Europe countries.

BACKGROUND: Evidence briefs for policy (EBPs) represent a potentially powerful tool for supporting evidence-informed policy-making. Since 2012, WHO Evidence-Informed Policy Network (EVIPNet) Europe has been supporting Member States in developing EBPs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the process of developing EBPs in Estonia, Hungary and Slovenia. METHODS: We used a rapid appraisal approach, combining semi-structured interviews and document review, guided by the Medical Research Council (MRC) process evaluation framework. Interviews were conducted with a total of 20 individuals familiar with the EBP process in the three study countries. Data were analysed thematically, and emerging themes were related back to the MRC framework components (implementation, mechanisms of impact, and context). We also reflected on the appropriateness of this evaluation approach for EVIPNet teams without evaluation research expertise to conduct themselves. RESULTS: The following themes emerged as important to the EBP development process: how the focus problem is prioritized, who initiates this process, EBP team composition, EBP team leadership, availability of external support in the process, and the culture of policy-making in a country. In particular, the EBP process seemed to be supported by early engagement of the Ministry of Health and other stakeholders as initiators, clear EBP team roles and expectations, including a strong leader, external support to strengthen EBP team capacity and cultural acceptance of the necessity of evidence-informed policy-making. Overall, the evaluation approach was considered feasible by the EBP teams and captured rich qualitative data, but may be limited by the absence of external reviewers and long lag times between the EBP process and the evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: This process occurs in a complex system and must be conceptualized in each country and each EBP project in a way that fits local policy-making culture, priorities, leadership and team styles, roles and available resources. The use of a rapid appraisal approach, combining qualitative interviews and document review, is a feasible method of process evaluation for EVIPNet member countries.

The ecosystem of health decision making: from fragmentation to synergy.

Clinicians, patients, policy makers, funders, programme managers, regulators, and science communities invest considerable amounts of time and energy in influencing or making decisions at various levels, using systematic reviews, health technology assessments, guideline recommendations, coverage decisions, selection of essential medicines and diagnostics, quality assurance and improvement schemes, and policy and evidence briefs. The criteria and methods that these actors use in their work differ (eg, the role economic analysis has in decision making), but these methods frequently overlap and exist together. Under the aegis of WHO, we have brought together representatives of different areas to reconcile how the evidence that influences decisions is used across multiple health system decision levels. We describe the overlap and differences in decision-making criteria between different actors in the health sector to provide bridging opportunities through a unifying broad framework that we call theory of everything. Although decision-making activities respond to system needs, processes are often poorly coordinated, both globally and on a country level. A decision made in isolation from other decisions on the same topic could cause misleading, unnecessary, or conflicted inputs to the health system and, therefore, confusion and resource waste.

Domains and processes for institutionalizing evidence-informed health policy-making: a critical interpretive synthesis.

BACKGROUND: While calls for institutionalization of evidence-informed policy-making (EIP) have become stronger in recent years, there is a paucity of methods that governments and organizational knowledge brokers can use to sustain and integrate EIP as part of mainstream health policy-making. The objective of this paper was to conduct a knowledge synthesis of the published and grey literatures to develop a theoretical framework with the key features of EIP institutionalization. METHODS: We applied a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) that allowed for a systematic, yet iterative and dynamic analysis of heterogeneous bodies of literature to develop an explanatory framework for EIP institutionalization. We used a "compass" question to create a detailed search strategy and conducted electronic searches to identify papers based on their potential relevance to EIP institutionalization. Papers were screened and extracted independently and in duplicate. A constant comparative method was applied to develop a framework on EIP institutionalization. The CIS was triangulated with the findings of stakeholder dialogues that involved civil servants, policy-makers and researchers. RESULTS: We identified 3001 references, of which 88 papers met our eligibility criteria. This CIS resulted in a definition of EIP institutionalization as the "process and outcome of (re-)creating, maintaining and reinforcing norms, regulations, and standard practices that, based on collective meaning and values, actions as well as endowment of resources, allow evidence to become-over time-a legitimate and taken-for-granted part of health policy-making". The resulting theoretical framework comprised six key domains of EIP institutionalization that capture both structure and agency: (1) governance; (2) standards and routinized processes; (3) partnership, collective action and support; (4) leadership and commitment; (5) resources; and (6) culture. Furthermore, EIP institutionalization is being achieved through five overlapping stages: (i) precipitating events; (ii) de-institutionalization; (iii) semi-institutionalization (comprising theorization and diffusion); (iv) (re)-institutionalization; and (v) renewed de-institutionalization processes. CONCLUSIONS: This CIS advances the theoretical and conceptual discussions on EIP institutionalization, and provides new insights into an evidence-informed framework for initiating, strengthening and/or assessing efforts to institutionalize EIP.

A comprehensive monitoring and evaluation framework for evidence to policy networks.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the development of a framework for monitoring and evaluating knowledge translation (KT) networks. METHOD: The framework was developed using mixed methods over four phases, including i) a targeted literature review of KT networks, activities and indicators, ii) two scoping reviews to further enhance the set of indicators, iii) peer-reviews by international KT experts and an online expert consultation, and iv) piloting. RESULTS: A comprehensive theory of change (ToC) and indicators, both for the Network Secretariat and its participating member countries, were identified to develop the monitoring and evaluation framework. The framework includes (i) a ToC, including three key indicator domains across the results chain (outputs, short term outcomes, intermediate outcomes), and (ii) indicators for the three key domains, that can be selected depending on the stage of network maturity, along with suggested data collection methods. The three key indicator domains are 1) KT capacity and skill building; 2) network (structure, governance and leadership); and 3) KT/evidence-informed policy value and culture. CONCLUSION: The monitoring and evaluation framework that links KT activities with policy and health outcomes fills an important gap in optimizing KT procedures, generating lessons learned and increasing accountability of major multipartner KT networks.

Factors to Consider During Identification and Invitation of Individuals in a Multi-stakeholder Research Partnership.

BACKGROUND: Health research teams increasingly partner with stakeholders to produce research that is relevant, accessible, and widely used. Previous work has covered stakeholder group identification. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop factors for health research teams to consider during identification and invitation of individual representatives in a multi-stakeholder research partnership, with the aim of forming equitable and informed teams. DESIGN: Consensus development. PARTICIPANTS: We involved 16 stakeholders from the international Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium, including patients and the public, providers, payers of health services/purchasers, policy makers, programme managers, peer review editors, and principal investigators. APPROACH: We engaged stakeholders in factor development and as co-authors of this manuscript. Using a modified Delphi approach, we gathered stakeholder views concerning a preliminary list of 18 factors. Over two feedback rounds, using qualitative and quantitative analysis, we concentrated these into ten factors. KEY RESULTS: We present seven highly desirable factors: 'expertise or experience', 'ability and willingness to represent the stakeholder group', 'inclusivity (equity, diversity and intersectionality)', 'communication skills', 'commitment and time capacity', 'financial and non-financial relationships and activities, and conflict of interest', 'training support and funding needs'. Additionally, three factors are desirable: 'influence', 'research relevant values', 'previous stakeholder engagement'. CONCLUSIONS: We present factors for research teams to consider during identification and invitation of individual representatives in a multi-stakeholder research partnership. Policy makers and guideline developers may benefit from considering the factors in stakeholder identification and invitation. Research funders may consider stipulating consideration of the factors in funding applications. We outline how these factors can be implemented and exemplify how their use has the potential to improve the quality and relevancy of health research.

Integrating citizen engagement into evidence-informed health policy-making in eastern Europe and central Asia: scoping study and future research priorities.

BACKGROUND: The perspectives of citizens are an important and often overlooked source of evidence for informing health policy. Despite growing encouragement for its adoption, little is known regarding how citizen engagement may be integrated into evidence-informed health policy-making in low- and middle-income counties (LMICs) and newly democratic states (NDSs). We aimed to identify the factors and variables affecting the potential integration of citizen engagement into evidence-informed health policy-making in LMICs and NDSs and understand whether its implementation may require a different approach outside of high-income western democracies. Further, we assessed the context-specific considerations for the practical implementation of citizen engagement in one focus region-eastern Europe and central Asia. METHODS: First, adopting a scoping review methodology, we conducted and updated searches of six electronic databases, as well as a comprehensive grey literature search, on citizen engagement in LMICs and NDSs, published before December 2019. We extracted insights about the approaches to citizen engagement, as well as implementation considerations (facilitators and barriers) and additional political factors, in developing an analysis framework. Second, we undertook exploratory methods to identify relevant literature on the socio-political environment of the focus region, before subjecting these sources to the same analysis framework. RESULTS: Our searches identified 479 unique sources, of which 28 were adjudged to be relevant. The effective integration of citizen engagement within policy-making processes in LMICs and NDSs was found to be predominantly dependent upon the willingness and capacity of citizens and policy-makers. In the focus region, the implementation of citizen engagement within evidence-informed health policy-making is constrained by a lack of mutual trust between citizens and policy-makers. This is exacerbated by inadequate incentives and capacity for either side to engage. CONCLUSIONS: This research found no reason why citizen engagement could not adopt the same form in LMICs and NDSs as it does in high-income western democracies. However, it is recognized that certain political contexts may require additional support in developing and implementing citizen engagement, such as through trialling mechanisms at subnational scales. While specifically outlining the potential for citizen engagement, this study highlights the need for further research on its practical implementation.

What do we know about evidence-informed priority setting processes to set population-level health-research agendas: an overview of reviews.

BACKGROUND: This overview aimed to synthesize existing systematic reviews to produce a draft framework of evidence-informed health priority setting that supports countries in identifying appropriate steps and methods when developing and implementing national research agendas. MAIN BODY: We searched Ovid MEDLINE® and the WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing from 2010 to 2020 for critical or systematic reviews that evaluated research priority setting exercises. We adapted the AMSTAR checklist to assess the quality of included reviews and used adapted frameworks for data extraction and analysis. The search resulted in 2395 titles, of which 31 were included. Populations included in the reviews typically involved patients, families and carers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and research funders. The topics covered in the reviews varied from specific diseases or conditions, approaches for healthcare practice or research priority setting methods itself. All the included systematic reviews were of low or critically low quality. The studies were thematically grouped based on their main focus: identifying and engaging with stakeholders; methods; context; and health area. CONCLUSION: Our overview of reviews has reconfirmed aspects of existing frameworks, but has also identified new concepts for countries to consider while developing their national research agendas. We propose a preliminary framework for consideration that highlights four key phases: (1) preparatory, (2) priority setting, (3) follow-up phase and (4) sustainability phase, which have thirteen sub-domains to consider.

Translating health information into policy-making: A pragmatic framework.

Knowledge translation (KT) is increasingly acknowledged to have the potential to improve policy-making. The value of health information (HI), as part of the KT context, is now also increasingly understood. This paper aims to identify existing tools for the translation of HI into policy-making and to develop a related framework facilitating future application of these identified tools. Updating and building upon a scoping review undertaken for the Health Evidence Network (HEN) Synthesis Report No. 54, commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for Europe in 2017, a literature search was conducted using the same databases (PubMed and Scopus) and the same keywords as in the WHO/HEN scoping review. All papers elaborating on tools enhancing the use of HI in policy-making were included. Of the 2549 records screened, 17 publications were included in this study. This review identified four different types of tools: 1) Visualisation and modelling tools, 2) Information packaging and synthesis tools, 3) Communication and dissemination tools and 4) Information linkage and exchange tools. The distinctions between these are fluid as different tools can be combined or incorporated into one another to complement each other. Our framework shows that communication/dissemination or linkage tools are crucial to effectively inform policy decisions through HI. This study helps to understand and guide the processes of KT of HI.

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.