Engaging policy-makers, health system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process: a scoping review.
Engaging policy-makers, health system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process: a scoping review.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s13012-018-0717-x
复制
发表时间：
2018-02-12
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Langlois EV
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Tricco AC;Zarin W;Rios P;Nincic V;Khan PA;Ghassemi M;Diaz S;Pham B;Straus SE;Langlois EV
目前还不清楚如何让广泛的知识用户参与研究。我们的目标是通过范围界定审查，在知识综合过程中，以政策制定者、卫生系统管理者和政策分析者为重点，绘制有关知识使用者参与的证据。我们使用Joanna Briggs Institute指南进行范围审查。九个电子数据库（例如，MEDLINE），两个灰色文献来源（例如，OpenSIGLE），并检索了1996年至2016年8月的相关系统性综述的参考文献列表。我们纳入了任何类型的研究，描述战略，障碍和促进者，或评估参与决策者，卫生系统管理人员和政策分析师在知识综合过程中的影响。筛选和数据提取由两名审查员独立进行，第三名审查员解决差异。进行了频率和主题分析。在筛选了8395个标题和摘要，随后是394个全文后，84个独特的文件和7个伴随报告符合我们的资格标准。所有84份文件都是在过去10年中出版的，其中一半是在北美编写的。知识用户参与的最常见的知识综合类型是系统综述（36%）。知识综合最常见的是解决国家医疗保健系统一级的问题（48%），并侧重于高收入国家（86%）的医疗服务提供（17%）。决策者是最常见的知识使用者（64%），其次是医疗保健专业人员（49%）和政府机构以及患者和护理人员（34%）。知识使用者从事概念化和设计（49%），文献检索和数据收集（52%），数据综合和解释（71%），以及知识传播和应用（44%）。知识使用者最常作为主要的信息提供者，通过会议和讲习班以及调查、焦点小组和面谈，或亲自或通过电话和电子邮件。知识用户内容的专业知识/意识是一个常见的促进因素（18%），而缺乏时间或机会参与是一个常见的障碍（12%）。知识用户最常参与知识综合的数据综合和解释阶段。研究人员应记录和评估知识用户参与知识综合。开放科学框架（https：//osf.io/4dy53/）。本文的在线版本（10.1186/s13012-018-0717-x）包含补充材料，可供授权用户使用。
It is unclear how to engage a wide range of knowledge users in research. We aimed to map the evidence on engaging knowledge users with an emphasis on policy-makers, health system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process through a scoping review. We used the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for scoping reviews. Nine electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE), two grey literature sources (e.g., OpenSIGLE), and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews were searched from 1996 to August 2016. We included any type of study describing strategies, barriers and facilitators, or assessing the impact of engaging policy-makers, health system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process. Screening and data abstraction were conducted by two reviewers independently with a third reviewer resolving discrepancies. Frequency and thematic analyses were conducted. After screening 8395 titles and abstracts followed by 394 full-texts, 84 unique documents and 7 companion reports fulfilled our eligibility criteria. All 84 documents were published in the last 10 years, and half were prepared in North America. The most common type of knowledge synthesis with knowledge user engagement was a systematic review (36%). The knowledge synthesis most commonly addressed an issue at the level of national healthcare system (48%) and focused on health services delivery (17%) in high-income countries (86%). Policy-makers were the most common (64%) knowledge users, followed by healthcare professionals (49%) and government agencies as well as patients and caregivers (34%). Knowledge users were engaged in conceptualization and design (49%), literature search and data collection (52%), data synthesis and interpretation (71%), and knowledge dissemination and application (44%). Knowledge users were most commonly engaged as key informants through meetings and workshops as well as surveys, focus groups, and interviews either in-person or by telephone and emails. Knowledge user content expertise/awareness was a common facilitator (18%), while lack of time or opportunity to participate was a common barrier (12%). Knowledge users were most commonly engaged during the data synthesis and interpretation phases of the knowledge synthesis conduct. Researchers should document and evaluate knowledge user engagement in knowledge synthesis. Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/4dy53/). The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0717-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
1.8
作者：
Crawford, Cindy;Boyd, Courtney;Jonas, Wayne
通讯作者：
Jonas, Wayne
影响因子：
2.4
作者：
Agweyu, Ambrose;Opiyo, Newton;English, Mike
通讯作者：
English, Mike
影响因子：
2.7
作者：
Goodyear-Smith, Felicity;Jackson, Claire;Greenhalgh, Trisha
通讯作者：
Greenhalgh, Trisha
影响因子：
15.8
作者：
Bastian H;Glasziou P;Chalmers I
通讯作者：
Chalmers I
影响因子：
4.5
作者：
Buchan J;Fronteira I;Dussault G
通讯作者：
Dussault G