Background
What stands in the way of the use of scientific evidence in public health?
The mechanisms of an effective knowledge transfer
-
“Awareness” (M1) is defined as building awareness for, and positive attitudes toward, evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM). This mechanism emphasises the importance of decision-makers’ valuing the concept of EIDM.
-
“Agree” (M2) is defined as the building mutual understanding and agreement on policy-relevant questions and the kind of evidence needed to answer them. This mechanism emphasises the importance of building mutual understanding and agreement on policy questions and what constitutes fit-for-purpose evidence.
-
“Communication and access” is (M3) defined as providing communication of, and access to, evidence. This mechanism emphasises the importance of decision-makers receiving effective communication of evidence and convenient access to it.
-
“Interact” (M4) is defined as the interaction between decision-makers and researchers. This mechanism emphasises the importance of decision-makers interacting with researchers in order to build trusted relationships based on mutual trust, collaborate, and gain exposure to a different type of social influence.
-
“Skills” (M5) is defined as supporting decision-makers to develop skills in finding and making sense of evidence. This mechanism emphasises the importance of decision-makers’ having the necessary skills to identify, appraise, synthesise evidence, and integrate it with other information and political needs.
-
“Structure and process” (M6) is defined as influencing decision-making structures and processes. This mechanism emphasises the importance of decision-makers’ psychological, social and environmental structures and processes (e.g. personal models, professional norms, habits, organisational and institutional rules) in providing means and barriers to action.
Study objectives and location
Methods/design
Study design and conceptual framework
Intervention strategies
-
Supporting the access to and the adaptation of scientific and usable evidences especially the policy briefs.
-
Strengthening professionals’ skills to analyse, adopt and use the policy briefs in the course of their practices and their decision-making process (training, journal club, tutoring, etc.).
-
Facilitating the use of evidence in the organisations and processes (collaborative workshops, normative processes, incentives, nudge, etc.).
Population
-
ARS public health professionals: five agents per region (deputy directors in charge of prevention, heads of strategy departments and project managers);
-
IREPS professionals: ten people per region (directors, project managers and communication managers).
-
Members of specialised prevention commissions within the Regional Conferences on Health and Autonomy (CRSA) and members of the Public Policy Coordination Commission (CCPP) both devoted to prevention in French regions (five people) and partners of IREPS and ARS.
Data collection
Stakeholders | Outcomes | Indicators | Data collection |
---|---|---|---|
ARS | Agents use policy briefs (PBs) in discussions at committee level | Number of verbatims per meetings Type of PBs or extracts from PBs Ways of using PBs | Semi-structured interview Observation |
Agents use evidences from PBs as criteria of project assessment | Existing in assessment grids | Documentary analysis Semi-structured interview | |
Agents use evidences from PBs as part of conventional tools agreed between the ARS and its implementers (e.g. integration into specialised library and reference services) | Existence of mentioned PBs or extracts from PBs in documents Ways of using PBs | Documentary analysis Semi-structured interview | |
Agents advocate evidences from PBs in their productions (communications, reports, action plans, etc.) | Number of communications, reports, action plans mentioning PBS or extracts from PBs | Semi-structured interview Observation Documentary analysis | |
IREPS | Professionals use evidences from PBs to design their projects | Number of projects mentioning PBs or extracts from PBs Ways of using PBs | Semi-structured interview Documentary analysis |
Professionals use evidences from PBs to evaluate their projects | Number of evaluation based on PBs or extracts from PBs Ways of using PBs | Semi-structured interview Documentary analysis | |
Professionals use evidences from PBs to make reports to their sponsors | Number of reporting based on PBs or extracts from PBs Ways of using PBs | Semi-structured interview Documentary analysis | |
Professionals use evidences from PBs in the methodological supports for field professionals | Number of methodological supports based on PBs or extracts from PBs Ways of using PBs | Semi-structured interview Observation | |
Professionals advocate evidences from PBs in their productions (communications, reports, action plans, etc.) | Number of communications, reports, action plans mentioning PBS or extracts from PBs | Semi-structured interview Observation Documentary analysis | |
Professionals use evidences from PBs as part of conventional tools agreed with their sponsors, included ARS and partners. | Existence of mentioned PBs or extracts from PBs in documents Ways of using PBs | Documentary analysis Semi-structured interview | |
Field professionals | Field professionals use evidences from PBs to design their projects | Number of projects mentioning PBs or extracts from PBs Ways of using PBs | Semi-structured interview Documentary analysis |
Field professionals use evidences from PBs to design their conventional tools with partners and sponsors | Existence of mentioned PBs or extracts from PBs in documents Ways of using PBs | Documentary analysis Semi-structured interview | |
CRSA | CRSA committee use evidences from PBs to make statements | Number of verbatim per meetings Type of PBs or extracts from PBs Ways of using PBs | Observation Documentary analysis Semi-structured interview |
CCPP | CCPP committee use evidences from PBs to design their partnership aim, their common projects | Number of verbatim per meetings Type of PBs or extracts from PBs Ways of using PBs | Observation Documentary analysis Semi-structured interview |
Types of variable | CMO | Types | Variables | Questions | Data collection |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Context in each region (C) | Relating to regional policy-making and policy action on prevention | Leadership | Type of management Type of management structuring | Observation Documentary analysis Semi-structured interview | |
How public health is organised | Funders Types of funding ways (competitive call for project, conventional agreement, etc.) Assessment of actions Main partnership between stakeholders. | Observation Documentary analysis Semi-structured interview | |||
Support mechanisms for stakeholders/practitioners | Types of supporting process Who support the practitioners Who are supported Who fund the supporting activities | Observation Documentary analysis Semi-structured interview | |||
Opportunities | Opportunities to work with researchers, to use evidences from researchers in practices | Observation Documentary analysis Semi-structured interview | |||
Collaborative | Experiences of collaborating work with researchers Assessment of them | Observation Documentary analysis Semi-structured interview | |||
Specific decision-making and operational process | Description of decision-making process Description of designing, setting and assessment of interventions | Observation Documentary analysis Semi-structured interview | |||
Parameters influencing the use of the PBs | Mechanisms (M) | Relating to the PBs | Acceptability of PBs Closeness between practices and PBs recommendations Convenience of PBs with context and practices Credibility perceived of PBs Other mechanisms not expected | Observation Documentary analysis Semi-structured interview | |
Relating to stakeholders/professionals | Ability to integrate new practices in the context, in the habits (capabilities) Interest from PBS using Culture of change existing (previous experiences, awareness, agreement) Motivation of using PBs Levels of interaction between researchers and practitioners to discuss about evidence-informed practices Other mechanisms not expected | Observation Documentary analysis Semi-structured interview | |||
Relating to organisations | Changes in ability to evolve (opportunities in functioning, hierarchical agreement, etc.) Temporality (opportunity to take time to introduce new knowledge coming from PBs) Other blocking or driving mechanisms not expected | Observation Documentary analysis Semi-structured interview | |||
Others | Other mechanisms not envisaged initially | Observation Documentary analysis Semi-structured interview | |||
Conduct of the KT | Intervention (I) set up locally | Type of KT activity set up locally Duration of these activities (action plans) Types of activity carried out Stage of completion of the expected activities Contributors involved in KT strategies Partnerships involved in KT strategies Financial resources in KT strategies Material resources in KT strategies | Observation Documentary analysis Semi-structured interview |
-
Semi-structured interviews conducted with the above-mentioned population (20 people per region)
-
The observation of health promotion meetings and collective events resulting from the scheme’s implementation: project selection committees, selection processes, trainings, seminars, presentations etc. The aim of these observations is to study the types of interactions between the professionals who deal with KT strategies (for instance, leadership, uptake, bottom up or top down approaches).
-
A documentary analysis (calls for project, action plans, projects applications, reports of meeting, etc.)
Data analysis
-
Document the uptake of evidence and the practice changes triggered by the intervention. This will be carried out on a case-per-case basis in monographic format, in order to identify the mechanisms at play, the degree of intervention, the contextual contingencies and the changes arising in the three types of knowledge use (instrumental, conceptual, persuasive).
-
Instrumental use: knowledge users draw on the IBs to make decisions or to change their practice;
-
Conceptual use which implies changes in understanding and thinking inspired by the IBs;
-
Persuasive use (also called strategic or symbolic use) which refers to a use of knowledge as a means to justify decisions or actions.
Development of an adjusted middle range theory
Communication and dissemination of results
-
Developing short and practical policy briefs about knowledge transfer to national policy-makers and practitioners
-
Delivering presentations at local, national meetings in France and relevant international meetings for professionals and researchers
-
Regular project review meetings and continuous engagement with key decision-makers and practitioners, in particular as part of the Public Health Initiative for the Interaction between Research, Intervention and Decision-Initiative en Santé Publique pour l’Interaction entre la Recherche, l’Intervention et la Décision (InSPIRe-ID), a knowledge transfer consortium, led by the French Ministry of Health.
-
Delivering presentations at national and international conferences and publishing articles in peer-reviewed academic journals with emphasis on open access
-
Developing a project research report for the funder, with a publishable executive summary
Discussion
Acknowledgements
Funding
Availability of data and materials
Authors’ contributions
Competing interests
Consent for publication
Ethics approval and consent to participate
-
Anonymity of study respondents will be preserved and ensured at all times as respondent(s) request. Unnecessary collection of personal data will be avoided, and respondents will have the right to review outputs and withdraw consent. All personal data will be coded, removed from the data for analysis and stored separately. Only designated research staff will have access to the keys linking the data with the personal information.
-
Informed consent will be obtained from all study participants, and in the case of refusal, alternative means of data collection will be explored (e.g. alternative respondents).