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

Abstract

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 Both published and unpublished reviews in English, Spanish or Portuguese were included.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.

Exploring public health researchers’ approaches, barriers, and needs regarding dissemination: A mixed-methods exploration

“…Among public health researchers in the UK, the use of traditional approaches could be explained by the way in which impact of research is evaluated in the UK, with a strong focus on traditional academic dissemination strategies [ 11 ]. Uncontrolled and horizontal methods such as publishing in peer-reviewed journals and presenting at academic conferences [ 20 ] could be viewed as forms of communication (‘letting it happen’ [ 4 ]) rather than dissemination (‘helping it happen’ [ 4 ]). Planned strategies such as through news media, social media, policy briefs, one-on-one meetings, workshops, and seminars [ 7 ] are better suited to reach an audience that can create societal change, e.g., practitioners and policymakers [ 1 ].…”

“…Consequently, the field of dissemination and implementation science has emerged to address this translation gap and to increase the uptake and the impact of research findings [ 2 ]. Within this field, dissemination research focuses on the understanding of factors that lead to the broad use of research findings [ 3 ] (“helping it happen” [ 4 ]), while implementation research focuses more on the methods, processes, and frameworks to promote uptake into routine practices in specific settings [ 3 ] (“making it happen” [ 4 ]). In light of the current study, we are primarily interested in dissemination, which we defined as “the broad range of activities used to spread scientific knowledge to a target audience through planned strategies” [ 5 ].…”

Sources of information on monkeypox virus infection. A systematic review with meta-analysis

“…In addition, it is crucial to collaborate with social media platforms and search engines to improve the visibility of reliable resources and verify the authenticity of information shared online. Awareness campaigns on social media and the promotion of educational content produced by health experts can help counter misinformation and reach a wider audience [ 20 , 50 , 51 ].…”

Evidence synthesis to policy: development and implementation of an impact-oriented approach from the Eastern Mediterranean Region

“…It encourages researchers, policymakers, and stakeholders to interact at each phase to achieve the desired impact. The approach can support evidence-informed policymaking and practice by aligning evidence synthesis production to policy priorities, fostering interactions between researchers and policymakers, and utilizing a range of knowledge translation and uptake activities to achieve policy impact and action [ 20 , 41 – 43 ]. Additionally, by considering the appropriateness of producing evidence synthesis products, particularly systematic reviews, the approach responds to growing calls to make research more valuable by avoiding duplication of research and reducing research waste [ 44 , 45 ].…”