National Health & Medical Research Council ID 353803, St Vincent's Clinic Foundation, the Curran Foundation, Australian Diabetes Society-Servier, the College of Nursing, and Australian Catholic University.

Objective To quantify the risk and severity of negative effects of treatment for localised prostate cancer on long term quality of life.

Context:The process of knowledge translation (KT) in health research depends on the activities of a wide range of actors, including health professionals, researchers, the public, policymakers, and research funders. Little is known, however, about health research funding agencies' support and promotion of KT. Our team asked thirty-three agencies from Australia, Canada, France, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, the United Kingdom, and the United States about their role in promoting the results of the research they fund.Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted with a sample of key informants from applied health funding agencies identified by the investigators. The interviews were supplemented with information from the agencies' websites. The final coding was derived from an iterative thematic analysis. engagement in this process. The agencies' abilities to create a pull for research findings; to engage in linkage and exchange between agencies, researchers, and decision makers; and to push results to various audiences differed as well. Finally, the evaluation of the effectiveness of KT strategies remains a methodological challenge. Conclusions:Funding agencies need to think about both their conceptual framework and their operational definition of KT, so that it is clear what is and what is not considered to be KT, and adjust their funding opportunities and activities accordingly. While we have cataloged the range of knowledge translation activities conducted across these agencies, little is known about their effectiveness and so a greater emphasis on evaluation is needed. It would appear that "best practice" for funding agencies is an elusive concept depending on the particular agency's size, context, mandate, financial considerations, and governance structure.

If implemented, evidence-based medicine (EBM) in general practice will improve health outcomes for patients. This paper examines the views of 60 Australian general practitioners about EBM. While 57% of respondents had a computer in their surgery, 15% had Internet access and only 3% had access to the Cochrane Library at work. The most commonly cited barrier to EBM was 'patient demand for treatment despite lack of evidence for effectiveness' (45%). The next three most highly rated barriers related to lack of time. For each of three tasks of EBM, namely searching for evidence, appraising evidence and discussing the implications of evidence with patients, lack of time was rated as a 'very important barrier' by significantly more participants than lack of skills (McNemar's tests: chi2(1) = 7.1, P = 0.008, chi2(1) = 14.0, P = 0.001 and chi2(1) = 9.0, P = 0.003, respectively). Preferred resources for EBM included clinical practice guidelines (rated as 'very useful' by 55%) and journals that summarize research evidence, for example Evidence-based Medicine (52%). Systematic reviews were considered 'very useful' by only 15% of respondents, consistent with our finding that 30% did not understand the term 'systematic review'. Furthermore, 43% did not understand 'meta-analysis'. A minority indicated they understood the terms 'relative risk' (23%), 'absolute risk' (28%) and 'number needed to treat' (15%) sufficiently to explain to others. Skills development is crucial to achieve EBM in general practice.

Objectives: Efforts to educate men about the controversy surrounding prostate cancer screening are well intended but rarely evaluated rigorously. We evaluated an evidence-based (EB) booklet for men designed to promote informed decision-making. We also determined whether men's preference for involvement in decision-making ("passive", "collaborative" or "active") modified its impact. Setting and methods: Men aged 40-70 years were recruited from the practices of 13 local general practitioners (GPs) in Sydney, Australia. They completed a self-administered questionnaire before seeing their GP, who, according to pre-randomised codes, distributed either our EB booklet or conventional information. Post-test questionnaires were mailed to men three days later. Of the 248 eligible men recruited, 214 (86% response rate) returned post-test questionnaires. Knowledge of evidence and of risk of developing and dying from prostate cancer, attitudes, interest in screening for prostate-specific antigen (PSA), worry and decisional conflict were the main outcome measures. Results: Compared with those receiving conventional information, men receiving the EB booklet had significantly improved knowledge (50% of items correct, 95% CI 46-53%; vs 45% correct, 95% CI 42-48%) (p=0.048) and lower levels of decisional conflict (mean 21.6, 95% CI 20.7-22.5; vs mean 24.3, 95% CI 23.4-25.2) (p<0.001). Interest in PSA screening was significantly reduced in both groups at post-test (p<0.001). Men preferring a "passive" approach to decision-making gained as much from our EB booklet as those with "active" or "collaborative" preferences. Conclusions: Our findings show the benefits of providing evidence-based information to men about PSA screening. Our EB booklet facilitated informed choice, even among "passive" decision-makers.