Research evidence communication for policy-makers: a rapid scoping review on frameworks, guidance and tools, and barriers and facilitators

Author:

Barreto Jorge Otávio MaiaORCID,de Melo Roberta Crevelário,da Silva Letícia Aparecida Lopes Bezerra,de Araújo Bruna Carolina,de Freitas Oliveira Cintia,Toma Tereza Setsuko,de Bortoli Maritsa Carla,Demaio Peter Nichols,Kuchenmüller Tanja

Abstract

Abstract Background Communication is a multifaceted process, ranging from linear, one-way approaches, such as transmitting a simple message, to continuous exchanges and feedback loops among stakeholders. In particular the COVID-19 pandemic underscored the critical need for timely, effective and credible evidence communication to increase awareness, levels of trust, and evidence uptake in policy and practice. However, whether to improve policy responses in crises or address more commonplace societal challenges, comprehensive guidance on evidence communication to decision-makers in health policies and systems remains limited. Our objective was to identify and systematize the global evidence on frameworks, guidance and tools supporting effective communication of research evidence to facilitate knowledge translation and evidence-informed policy-making processes, while also addressing barriers and facilitators. Methods We conducted a rapid scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Manual. Literature searches were performed across eight indexed databases and two sources of grey literature, without language or time restrictions. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed, and a narrative-interpretative synthesis was applied to present the findings. Results We identified 16 documents presenting either complete frameworks or framework components, including guidance and tools, aimed at supporting evidence communication for policy development. These frameworks outlined strategies, theoretical models, barriers and facilitators, as well as insights into policy-makers’ perspectives, communication needs, and preferences. Three primary evidence communication strategies, comprising eleven sub-strategies, emerged: “Health information packaging”, “Targeting and tailoring messages to the audience”, and “Combined communication strategies”. Based on the documented barriers and facilitators at micro, meso and macro levels, critical factors for successful communication of evidence to policy-makers were identified. Conclusions Effective communication is indispensable for facilitating knowledge translation and evidence-informed policy-making. Nonetheless gaps persist in frameworks designed to enhance research communication to policy-makers, particularly regarding the effectiveness of multiple communication strategies. To advance in this field, the development of comprehensive frameworks incorporating implementation strategies is warranted. Additionally, barriers and facilitators to implementing effective communication must be recognized and addressed taking diverse contexts into consideration. Registrationhttps://zenodo.org/record/5578550

Funder

World Health Organization

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Reference35 articles.

1. La Bella E, Allen C, Lirussi F. Communication vs evidence: What hinders the outreach of science during an infodemic? A narrative review. Integr Med Res. 2021;10(4): 100731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imr.2021.100731.

2. Scarlett J, Köhler K, Reinap M, Ciobanu A, Tirdea M, Koikov V, et al. CASE STUDY AND LESSONS LEARNT. Evidence-informed Policy Network (EVIPNet) Europe: success stories in knowledge translation. Public Health Panorama. 2018;4(2):161–69. https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1232219/retrieve.

3. World Health Organization. World report on knowledge for better health: strengthening health systems. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/43058.

4. Oxman AD, Glenton C, Flottorp S, Lewin S, Rosenbaum S, Fretheim A. Development of a checklist for people communicating evidence-based information about the effects of healthcare interventions: a mixed methods study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(7): e036348. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036348.

5. Dobbins M, Jack S, Thomas H, Kothari A. Public health decision-makers’ informational needs and preferences for receiving research evidence. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2007;4(3):156–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6787.2007.00089.x.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3