Knowledge translation for realist reviews: a participatory approach for a review on scaling up complex interventions.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge syntheses that use a realist methodology are gaining popularity. Yet, there are few reports in the literature that describe how results are summarised, shared and used. This paper aims to inform knowledge translation (KT) for realist reviews by describing the process of developing a KT strategy for a review on pathways for scaling up complex public health interventions. METHODS: The participatory approach used for the realist review was also used to develop the KT strategy. The approach included three main steps, namely (1) an international meeting focused on interpreting preliminary findings from the realist review and seeking input on KT activities; (2) a targeted literature review on KT for realist reviews; and (3) consultations with primary knowledge users of the review. RESULTS: The international meeting identified a general preference among knowledge users for findings from the review that are action oriented. A need was also identified for understanding how to tailor findings for specific knowledge user groups in relation to their needs. The literature review identified four papers that included brief descriptions of planned or actual KT activities for specific research studies; however, information was minimal on what KT activities or products work for whom, under what conditions and why. The consultations revealed that KT for realist reviews should consider the following: (1) activities closely aligned with the preferences of specific knowledge user groups; (2) key findings that are sensitive to factors within the knowledge user's context; and (3) actionable statements that can advance KT goals, activities or products. The KT strategy derived from the three activities includes a planning framework and tailored KT activities that address preferences of knowledge users for findings that are action oriented and context relevant. CONCLUSIONS: This paper provides an example of a KT strategy for realist reviews that blends theoretical and practical insights. Evaluation of the strategy's implementation will provide useful insights on its effectiveness and potential for broader application.

Effectively engaging stakeholders and the public in developing violence prevention messages.

BACKGROUND: Preventing family violence requires that stakeholders and the broader public be involved in developing evidence-based violence prevention strategies. However, gaps exist in between what we know (knowledge), what we do (action), and the structures supporting practice (policy). DISCUSSION: We discuss the broad challenge of mobilizing knowledge-for-action in family violence, with a primary focus on the issue of how stakeholders and the public can be effectively engaged when developing and communicating evidence-based violence prevention messages. We suggest that a comprehensive approach to stakeholder and public engagement in developing violence prevention messages includes: 1) clear and consistent messaging; 2) identifying and using, as appropriate, lessons from campaigns that show evidence of reducing specific types of violence; and 3) evidence-informed approaches for communicating to specific groups. Components of a comprehensive approach must take into account the available research evidence, implementation feasibility, and the context-specific nature of family violence. While strategies exist for engaging stakeholders and the public in messaging about family violence prevention, knowledge mobilization must be informed by evidence, dialogue with stakeholders, and proactive media strategies. This paper will be of interest to public health practitioners or others involved in planning and implementing violence prevention programs because it highlights what is known about the issue, potential solutions, and implementation considerations.

Moving knowledge about family violence into public health policy and practice: a mixed method study of a deliberative dialogue.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to understand scientific evidence in light of the context within which it will be used. Deliberative dialogues are a promising strategy that can be used to meet this evidence interpretation challenge. METHODS: We evaluated a deliberative dialogue held by a transnational violence prevention network. The deliberative dialogue included researchers and knowledge user partners of the Preventing Violence Across the Lifespan (PreVAiL) Research Network and was incorporated into a biennial full-team meeting. The dialogue included pre- and post-meeting activities, as well as deliberations embedded within the meeting agenda. The deliberations included a preparatory plenary session, small group sessions and a synthesizing plenary. The challenge addressed through the process was how to mobilize research to orient health and social service systems to prevent family violence and its consequences. The deliberations focused on the challenge, potential solutions for addressing it and implementation factors. Using a mixed-methods approach, data were collected via questionnaires, meeting minutes, dialogue documents and follow-up telephone interviews. RESULTS: Forty-four individuals (all known to each other and from diverse professional roles, settings and countries) participated in the deliberative dialogue. Ten of the 12 features of the deliberative dialogue were rated favourably by all respondents. The mean behavioural intention score was 5.7 on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), suggesting that many participants intended to use what they learned in their future decision-making. Interviews provided further insight into what might be done to facilitate the use of research in the violence prevention arena. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that participants will use dialogue learnings to influence practice and policy change. Deliberative dialogues may be a viable strategy for collaborative sensemaking of research related to family violence prevention, and other public health topics.

Assessing the Spread and Uptake of a Framework for Introducing and Evaluating Advanced Practice Nursing Roles.

BACKGROUND: Health system researchers must ensure that the products of their work meet the needs of various stakeholder groups (e.g., patients, practitioners, and policy makers). Evidence-based frameworks can support the uptake and spread of research evidence; however, their existence as knowledge translation tools does not ensure their uptake and it is difficult to ascertain their spread into research, practice, and policy using existing methods. PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to report results of a study on the spread and uptake of an evidence-based framework (i.e., the participatory, evidence-based, patient-focused process for advanced practice nursing [PEPPA] framework) into research, practice, and policies relevant to the introduction and evaluation of advanced practice nursing roles. We also reflect on the utility of using a modified citation methodology to evaluate knowledge translation efforts. METHODS: We searched four databases for literature published between 2004 and 2014 citing the original paper in which the PEPPA framework was published, and carried out an Internet search for grey literature using keywords. Relevant data were extracted from sources and organized using NVivo software. We analysed results descriptively. RESULTS: Our search yielded 164 unique sources of which 69.5% were from published literature and the majority (83.4%) of these were published in nursing journals. Most frequently (71.5%), the framework was used by researchers and students in research studies. A smaller number of citations (11.3%) reflected use of the PEPPA framework in practice settings with a focus on role development, implementation, evaluation, or a combination of these. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: This study demonstrates that the PEPPA framework has been used to varying degrees as intended, and provides guidance on how to evaluate the spread and uptake of research outputs (e.g., theoretical frameworks). Further research is needed about ways to determine whether evidence-informed research tools such as frameworks have been taken up successfully into practice and policy contexts.

Communities of practice for supporting health systems change: a missed opportunity.

BACKGROUND: Communities of practice (CoPs) have been used in the health sector to support professional practice change. However, little is known about how CoPs might be used to influence a system that requires change at and across various levels (i.e. front line care, organizational, governmental). In this paper we examine the experience of a CoP in the Canadian province of Ontario as it engages in improving the care of seniors. Our aim is to shed light on using CoPs to facilitate systems change. METHODS: This paper draws on year one findings of a larger multiple case study that is aiming to increase understanding of knowledge translation processes mobilized through CoPs. In this paper we strategically report on one case to illustrate a critical example of a CoP trying to effect systems change. Primary data included semi-structured interviews with CoP members (n = 8), field notes from five planning meetings, and relevant background documents. Data analysis included deductive coding (i.e. pre-determined codes aligned with the larger project) and inductive coding which allowed codes and themes to emerge. A thorough description of the case was prepared using all the coded data. RESULTS: The CoP recognized a need to support health professionals (nurses, dentists) and related paraprofessionals with knowledge, experience, and resources to appropriately address their clients' oral health care needs. Accordingly, the CoP led a knowledge-to-action initiative that involved a seven-part webinar series meant to transfer step-by-step, skill-based knowledge through live and archived webinars. Although the core planning team functioned effectively to develop the webinars, the CoP was challenged by organizational and long-term care sector cultures, as well as governmental structures within the broader health context. CONCLUSION: The provincial CoP functioned as an incubator that brought together best practices, research, experiences, a reflective learning cycle, and passionate champions. Nevertheless, the CoP's efforts to stimulate practice changes were met with broader resistance. Research about how to use CoPs to influence health systems change is needed given that CoPs are being tasked with this goal.

Developing and refining the methods for a 'one-stop shop' for research evidence about health systems.

BACKGROUND: Policymakers, stakeholders and researchers have not been able to find research evidence about health systems using an easily understood taxonomy of topics, know when they have conducted a comprehensive search of the many types of research evidence relevant to them, or rapidly identify decision-relevant information in their search results. METHODS: To address these gaps, we developed an approach to building a 'one-stop shop' for research evidence about health systems. We developed a taxonomy of health system topics and iteratively refined it by drawing on existing categorization schemes and by using it to categorize progressively larger bundles of research evidence. We identified systematic reviews, systematic review protocols, and review-derived products through searches of Medline, hand searches of several databases indexing systematic reviews, hand searches of journals, and continuous scanning of listservs and websites. We developed an approach to providing 'added value' to existing content (e.g., coding systematic reviews according to the countries in which included studies were conducted) and to expanding the types of evidence eligible for inclusion (e.g., economic evaluations and health system descriptions). Lastly, we developed an approach to continuously updating the online one-stop shop in seven supported languages. RESULTS: The taxonomy is organized by governance, financial, and delivery arrangements and by implementation strategies. The 'one-stop shop', called Health Systems Evidence, contains a comprehensive inventory of evidence briefs, overviews of systematic reviews, systematic reviews, systematic review protocols, registered systematic review titles, economic evaluations and costing studies, health reform descriptions and health system descriptions, and many types of added-value coding. It is continuously updated and new content is regularly translated into Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. CONCLUSIONS: Policymakers and stakeholders can now easily access and use a wide variety of types of research evidence about health systems to inform decision-making and advocacy. Researchers and research funding agencies can use Health Systems Evidence to identify gaps in the current stock of research evidence and domains that could benefit from primary research, systematic reviews, and review overviews.

Evaluating deliberative dialogues focussed on healthy public policy.

BACKGROUND: Deliberative dialogues have recently captured attention in the public health policy arena because they have the potential to address several key factors that influence the use of research evidence in policymaking. We conducted an evaluation of three deliberative dialogues convened in Canada by the National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy in order to learn more about deliberative dialogues focussed on healthy public policy. METHODS: The evaluation included a formative assessment of participants' views about and experiences with ten key design features of the dialogues, and a summative assessment of participants' intention to use research evidence of the type that was discussed at the dialogue. We surveyed participants immediately after each dialogue was completed and again six months later. We analyzed the ratings using descriptive statistics and the written comments by conducting a thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 31 individuals participated in the three deliberative dialogues that we evaluated. The response rate was 94% (N = 29; policymakers (n = 9), stakeholders (n = 18), researchers (n = 2)) for the initial survey and 56% (n = 14) for the follow-up. All 10 of the design features that we examined as part of the formative evaluation were rated favourably by all participant groups. The findings of the summative evaluation demonstrated a mean behavioural intention score of 5.8 on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). CONCLUSION: Our findings reinforce the promise of deliberative dialogues as a strategy for supporting evidence-informed public health policies. Additional work is needed to understand more about which design elements work in which situations and for different issues, and whether intention to use research evidence is a suitable substitute for measuring actual behaviour change.

Reliability of a tool for measuring theory of planned behaviour constructs for use in evaluating research use in policymaking.

BACKGROUND: Although measures of knowledge translation and exchange (KTE) effectiveness based on the theory of planned behavior (TPB) have been used among patients and providers, no measure has been developed for use among health system policymakers and stakeholders. A tool that measures the intention to use research evidence in policymaking could assist researchers in evaluating the effectiveness of KTE strategies that aim to support evidence-informed health system decision-making. Therefore, we developed a 15-item tool to measure four TPB constructs (intention, attitude, subjective norm and perceived control) and assessed its face validity through key informant interviews. METHODS: We carried out a reliability study to assess the tool's internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Our study sample consisted of 62 policymakers and stakeholders that participated in deliberative dialogues. We assessed internal consistency using Cronbach's alpha and generalizability (G) coefficients, and we assessed test-retest reliability by calculating Pearson correlation coefficients (r) and G coefficients for each construct and the tool overall. RESULTS: The internal consistency of items within each construct was good with alpha ranging from 0.68 to alpha = 0.89. G-coefficients were lower for a single administration (G = 0.34 to G = 0.73) than for the average of two administrations (G = 0.79 to G = 0.89). Test-retest reliability coefficients for the constructs ranged from r = 0.26 to r = 0.77 and from G = 0.31 to G = 0.62 for a single administration, and from G = 0.47 to G = 0.86 for the average of two administrations. Test-retest reliability of the tool using G theory was moderate (G = 0.5) when we generalized across a single observation, but became strong (G = 0.9) when we averaged across both administrations. CONCLUSION: This study provides preliminary evidence for the reliability of a tool that can be used to measure TPB constructs in relation to research use in policymaking. Our findings suggest that the tool should be administered on more than one occasion when the intervention promotes an initial 'spike' in enthusiasm for using research evidence (as it seemed to do in this case with deliberative dialogues). The findings from this study will be used to modify the tool and inform further psychometric testing following different KTE interventions.

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 14: Organising and using policy dialogues to support evidence-informed policymaking.

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. Policy dialogues allow research evidence to be considered together with the views, experiences and tacit knowledge of those who will be involved in, or affected by, future decisions about a high-priority issue. Increasing interest in the use of policy dialogues has been fuelled by a number of factors: 1. The recognition of the need for locally contextualised 'decision support' for policymakers and other stakeholders 2. The recognition that research evidence is only one input into the decision-making processes of policymakers and other stakeholders 3. The recognition that many stakeholders can add significant value to these processes, and 4. The recognition that many stakeholders can take action to address high-priority issues, and not just policymakers. In this article, we suggest questions to guide those organising and using policy dialogues to support evidence-informed policymaking. These are: 1. Does the dialogue address a high-priority issue? 2. Does the dialogue provide opportunities to discuss the problem, options to address the problem, and key implementation considerations? 3. Is the dialogue informed by a pre-circulated policy brief and by a discussion about the full range of factors that can influence the policymaking process? 4. Does the dialogue ensure fair representation among those who will be involved in, or affected by, future decisions related to the issue? 5. Does the dialogue engage a facilitator, follow a rule about not attributing comments to individuals, and not aim for consensus? 6. Are outputs produced and follow-up activities undertaken to support action?

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 7: Finding systematic reviews.

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. Systematic reviews are increasingly seen as a key source of information in policymaking, particularly in terms of assisting with descriptions of the impacts of options. Relative to single studies they offer a number of advantages related to understanding impacts and are also seen as a key source of information for clarifying problems and providing complementary perspectives on options. Systematic reviews can be undertaken to place problems in comparative perspective and to describe the likely harms of an option. They also assist with understanding the meanings that individuals or groups attach to a problem, how and why options work, and stakeholder views and experiences related to particular options. A number of constraints have hindered the wider use of systematic reviews in policymaking. These include a lack of awareness of their value and a mismatch between the terms employed by policymakers, when attempting to retrieve systematic reviews, and the terms used by the original authors of those reviews. Mismatches between the types of information that policymakers are seeking, and the way in which authors fail to highlight (or make obvious) such information within systematic reviews have also proved problematic. In this article, we suggest three questions that can be used to guide those searching for systematic reviews, particularly reviews about the impacts of options being considered. These are: 1. Is a systematic review really what is needed? 2. What databases and search strategies can be used to find relevant systematic reviews? 3. What alternatives are available when no relevant review can be found?

Evidence-informed health policy making in Canada: past, present, and future.

Evidence-informed health policy making (EIHP) is becoming a necessary means to achieving health system reform. Although Canada has a rich and well documented history in the field of evidence-based medicine, a concerted effort to capture Canada's efforts to support EIHP in particular has yet to be realized. This paper reports on the development of EIHP in Canada, including promising approaches being used to support the use of evidence in policy making about complex health systems issues. In light of Canada's contributions, this paper suggests that scholars in Canada will continue engaging in the field of EIHP through further study of interventions underway, as well as by sharing knowledge within and beyond Canada's borders about approaches that support EIHP.

An exploratory analysis of the nature of informal knowledge underlying theories of planned action used for public health oriented knowledge translation.

BACKGROUND: Informal knowledge is used in public health practice to make sense of research findings. Although knowledge translation theories highlight the importance of informal knowledge, it is not clear to what extent the same literature provides guidance in terms of how to use it in practice. The objective of this study was to address this gap by exploring what planned action theories suggest in terms of using three types of informal knowledge: local, experiential and expert. We carried out an exploratory secondary analysis of the planned action theories that informed the development of a popular knowledge translation theory. Our sample included twenty-nine (n = 29) papers. We extracted information from these papers about sources of and guidance for using informal knowledge, and then carried out a thematic analysis. RESULTS: We found that theories of planned action provide guidance (including sources of, methods for identifying, and suggestions for use) for using local, experiential and expert knowledge. CONCLUSION: This study builds on previous knowledge translation related work to provide insight into the practical use of informal knowledge. Public health practitioners can refer to the guidance summarized in this paper to inform their decision-making. Further research about how to use informal knowledge in public health practice is needed given the value being accorded to using informal knowledge in public health decision-making processes.

Deliberative dialogues as a strategy for system-level knowledge translation and exchange.

We undertook a case study in order to explore deliberative dialogue as a system-level knowledge translation and exchange (KTE) strategy and to describe the design features and intended effects of this dialogue. Our data included observations made during the dialogue, evaluations completed by dialogue participants and interviews. We placed these data in the context of our broader experience. We learned that (a) all the design elements we examined could be maintained in future dialogues, but organizers of dialogues that address similar issues and take place in similar contexts should consider the relative importance of these features and (b) the intended effects of a deliberative dialogue that addresses a low-priority policy issue are mainly apparent at the individual level among dialogue participants. Further research is required to explore the key features and intended effects of deliberative dialogues used to address other issues or in different contexts.

Deliberative dialogues as a mechanism for knowledge translation and exchange in health systems decision-making.

Models that describe the key features and intended effects of specific knowledge translation and exchange (KTE) interventions are much less prominent than models that provide a more general understanding of KTE. Our aim was to develop a model in order to describe the key features and intended effects of deliberative dialogues used as a KTE strategy and to understand how deliberative dialogues can support evidence-informed policymaking. By using critical interpretive synthesis, we identified 17 papers representing four fields of enquiry and integrated our findings into a model. The key features described in the model are: 1) an appropriate (i.e., conducive to the particular dialogue) meeting environment; 2) an appropriate mix of participants; and, 3) an appropriate use of research evidence. These features combine to create three types of intended effects: 1) short-term individual-level; 3) medium-term community/organizational-level; and, 3) long-term system-level. The concept of capacity building helps to explain the relationship between features and effects. The model is a useful contribution to the KTE field because it is a practical tool that could be used to guide the development and evaluation of deliberative dialogues in order to understand more about achieving particular outcomes in relation to specific issues or contexts.

STP: Herramientas SUPPORT para la toma de decisiones en políticas de salud informada por la evidencia 7: cómo buscar revisiones sistemáticas / STP: SUPPORT tools for decision-making in health policies informed by evidence 7: how to seek systematic reviews

Las revisiones sistemáticas se consideran cada vez más como la fuente de información clave en la toma de decisiones, particularmente en cuanto a la ayuda que brindan con las descripciones de los impactos de las opciones. En relación con los estudios individuales, ofrecen una serie de ventajas relacionadas con la interpretación de los impactos y, además, son consideradas una fuente de información clave para definir problemas y proporcionar perspectivas complementarias sobre las opciones. Las revisiones sistemáticas pueden realizarse para colocar los problemas en una perspectiva comparativa y para describir los daños probables de una opción. También ayudan con la interpretación de los significados que los individuos o grupos les asignan a un problema.

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 7: finding systematic reviews

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. Systematic reviews are increasingly seen as a key source of information in policymaking, particularly in terms of assisting with descriptions of the impacts of options. Relative to single studies they offer a number of advantages related to understanding impacts and are also seen as a key source of information for clarifying problems and providing complementary perspectives on options. Systematic reviews can be undertaken to place problems in comparative perspective and to describe the likely harms of an option. They also assist with understanding the meanings that individuals or groups attach to a problem, how and why options work, and stakeholder views and experiences related to particular options. A number of constraints have hindered the wider use of systematic reviews in policymaking.

Ferramentas SUPPORT para a elaboração de políticas de saúde 7: localização de revisões / SUPPORT Tools for Health Policy Making 7: Finding Reviews

As revisões sistemáticas são cada vez mais vistas como uma das principais fontes de informação para a formulação de políticas, especialmente com relação à assistência na descrição dos impactos das opções. No caso dos estudos individuais, eles oferecem uma série de vantagens com relação ao entendimento dos impactos. Eles também são vistos como uma fonte essencial de informações para esclarecer problemas e apresentar perspectivas complementares com relação às opções. As revisões sistemáticas podem ser empreendidas para colocar os problemas em uma perspectiva de comparação e para descrever os possíveis malefícios de uma opção. Eles também ajudam a compreender os significados que os indivíduos ou grupos atribuem a um problema, como e por que as opções funcionam, e os pontos de vistas e experiências das partes interessadas com relação a opções específicas. Diversas restrições têm impedido uma maior utilização de revisões sistemáticas na formulação de políticas. Tais restrições incluem o desconhecimento do valor das revisões sistemáticas e uma incompatibilidade entre os termos utilizados por formuladores de políticas, ao tentar acessar as revisões sistemáticas, e os termos utilizados pelos autores originais destas revisões. As incompatibilidades entre os tipos de informação que os formuladores de políticas buscam e a maneira que os autores deixam de destacar (ou tornar óbvio) estas informações dentro das revisões sistemáticas também são um problema. Neste artigo, sugerimos três perguntas que podem ser usadas para guiar aqueles que buscam por revisões sistemáticas, especialmente as revisões sobre os impactos das opções sendo consideradas. Estas perguntas são as seguintes: 1. Uma revisão sistemática é realmente tudo o que é necessário? 2. Quais bancos de dados e estratégias de busca podem ser usados para encontrar revisões sistemáticas relevantes? 3. Quais alternativas estão disponíveis quando não for possível encontrar revisões sistemáticas relevantes?