Integrated Knowledge Translation with Public Health Policy Makers: A Scoping Review

Lawrence, Logan; Bishop, Alex; Curran, Janet

doi:10.12927/hcpol.2019.25792

Cited by 44 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 83 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the ten included articles, five were systematic reviews, 19,[28][29][30][31] four were narrative reviews, 8,[32][33][34] , and the one remaining was a scoping review. 35 Regarding the geographical focus of included reviews, three reviews were focused on developing countries, 28,31,33 one concentrated on the global perspective, 8 while the other reviews did not specify the regions. 8,19,29,30,32,34,35 Most reviews focused on the policymakers and healthcare system perspectives, 19,28,35 two reviews were focused on nurses, 31,32 and, healthcare professionals in general, 29,30 while one review was focused on clinicians.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…35 Regarding the geographical focus of included reviews, three reviews were focused on developing countries, 28,31,33 one concentrated on the global perspective, 8 while the other reviews did not specify the regions. 8,19,29,30,32,34,35 Most reviews focused on the policymakers and healthcare system perspectives, 19,28,35 two reviews were focused on nurses, 31,32 and, healthcare professionals in general, 29,30 while one review was focused on clinicians. 32 With regards to the timing of publication, most reviews were published in the last ten years.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…32 With regards to the timing of publication, most reviews were published in the last ten years. 8,19,28,[30][31][32][33]35,36 Two reviews were published before 2010. 29,34 With regards to the number of articles included within each review article, six articles specified the number of studies they included.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…29,34 With regards to the number of articles included within each review article, six articles specified the number of studies they included. 19,[28][29][30][31]35 Two articles included more than one hundred studies, 19,30 one review included 62 studies 28 and the other 29,31,35 included less than fifty studies; ranged between 16 and 38 studies. The main findings of the included articles are illustrated in Table 2.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The included systematic reviews 19,[28][29][30][31]35 were reported very high quality that suggests reviews showing a robust and accurate summary of the findings. Included narrative reviews 8,32-34 scored [?]…”

Section: Quality Appraisal Of Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Optimizing Translation of Health Research into Practice: A systematic review of reviews

Abu‐Odah¹,

Said²,

Nair³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rationale, Aims, and Objectives Effective translation of knowledge that is generated from health research into clinical practice has the potential to enhance the quality of care, health services delivery, and its cost-effectiveness. Critical barriers limiting translation of health research into practice are embedded both at the individual and the organizational level. An understanding of the embedded facilitators and barriers will enable findings from health research to be implemented into practice in a timely way. This systematic review aims to synthesize evidence from existing reviews about barriers and facilitators that influence the uptake of health research findings into clinical practice. Method A systematic review was conducted by following PRISMA guidelines. The PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Sciences, and CINAHL databases were searched to identify review papers published from inception to February 2020. The innovative care for chronic conditions was the analytical framework for data analysis. Results The search yielded ten publications. Translation of new evidence was limited predominantly by individual-related issues and less frequently organizational factors. Inadequate knowledge and skills of individuals to conduct, organize, utilize, and appraise research literature, and lack of resources were the primary individual and organizational challenges. This review also discloses mistrust by policymakers about the potential of research to translate into practice, affecting both the development of health policies and also systematic public investments for research programs. A sizable proportion of mistrust by the policymakers stems from their lack of knowledge for understanding research methods and limited skills in comparing research outcomes. To circumvent this barrier, identification and partnering with policymakers and health professionals at all stages of the research process, is critical. Conclusions Despite the challenges affecting the translation of research into practice, utilization of research evidence is critical to improving health services delivery and outcomes.

show abstract