RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, researchers are involving children and young people in designing paediatric research agendas, but as far as we were able to determine, only one report exists on the academic impact of such an agenda. In our opinion, the importance of insight into the impact of research agendas designed together with children and young people cannot be overstated. The first aim of our study was therefore to develop a method to describe the academic impact of paediatric research agendas. Our second aim was to describe the academic impact of research agendas developed by involving children and young people. METHODS: We based our method on aspects of the Research Impact Framework developed by Kuruvilla and colleagues and the Payback Framework developed by Donovan and Hanney. We named it Descriptive Academic Impact Analysis of Paediatric Research Agendas, consisting of five steps: [1] Identification of paediatric research agendas, [2] Citation analysis, [3] Impact analysis, [4] Author assessment, and [5] Classification of the ease of determining traceability. RESULTS: We included 31 paediatric research agendas that were designed by involving children and young people. These agendas were cited 517 times, ranging from 0 to 71 citations. A total of 131 new studies (25%) were published, ranging from 0 to 23 per paediatric research agenda, based on at least one of the research priorities from the agenda. Sixty studies (46%) were developed by at least one of the first, second, or last authors of the paediatric research agenda on which the studies were based. Based on their accessibility and the ease with which we could identify the studies as being agenda-based, we categorised 44 studies (34%) as easy, 62 studies (47%) as medium, and 25 studies (19%) as difficult to identify. CONCLUSION: This study reports on the development of a method to describe the academic impact of paediatric research agendas and it offers insight into the impact of 31 such agendas. We recommend that our results be used as a guide for designing future paediatric research agendas, especially by including ways of tracing the academic impact of new studies concerning the agendas' research priorities.

Increasingly, researchers are involving children and young people in designing paediatric research agendas. However, few researchers have described the impact of these agendas on the research undertaken. We strongly believe that it is important to know how such agendas affect research, what their impact is. One of the reasons paediatric research agendas are being designed is to create a clear overview of what the research questions are that need to be investigated - if this question is left unanswered, why bother designing the agendas at all? Therefore, we developed a 5-step tool to identify these agendas and to describe their impact. We tested our tool on 31 paediatric research agendas that were designed together with children and young people. These agendas were mentioned 517 times, 131 new studies were based on these agendas, and 60 studies were performed by the same authors who had designed the agendas. Of the new studies, we found 44 that were easy to identify, 62 that were fairly easy, and 25 that were difficult to identify as being based on paediatric research agendas. We hope that our results will serve as a useful guide for future researchers who aim to involve children and young people in designing research agendas. Especially, if ways are included to trace the impact of new studies in relation to the most important questions stated in the original research agendas.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: University rankings often serve as benchmarks for excellence in academic evaluation. For example, ShanghaiRanking data from 2016 to 2023 for the Global Ranking of Sport Science Schools and Departments reveal consistent dominance by Australia (23.1%), Canada (18.0%), and the United States (12.0%), collectively counting over half of the top 50 universities worldwide. Nevertheless, there is uncertainty about how the methodology behind these rankings shapes a reality as much as it reflects one. PURPOSE: Our intention is to discuss the complexity of university rankings, using ShanghaiRanking as an example, to highlight how these rankings reflect academic excellence within the field of sport science. Current Evidence: When ranking universities in sport science, several aspects of academic excellence could be considered in addition to research metrics currently considered in ShanghaiRanking (publication, citation, citations per publication, top 25% journal publications, and internationally collaborated publications). These aspects may include (1) teaching quality, (2) practical training, (3) industry links and employability, (4) support services, (5) facilities and equipment, (6) international network, (7) community engagement, (8) sustainability and ethical practices, and (9) interdisciplinary approach. Altogether, they could provide a more comprehensive view of the quality and effectiveness of a sport-science program. CONCLUSIONS: The ranking of sport-science institutions poses a complex challenge due to diverse factors influencing academic excellence. Engaging in a broader dialogue and refining internationally relevant evaluation methodologies are crucial. These steps enable comparability between countries and provide a holistic understanding of the multidimensional nature of academic excellence in sport science.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Poverty-related diseases (PRD) remain amongst the leading causes of death in children under-5 years in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) based on the best available evidence are key to strengthening health systems and helping to enhance equitable health access for children under five. However, the CPG development process is complex and resource-intensive, with substantial scope for improving the process in SSA, which is the goal of the Global Evidence, Local Adaptation (GELA) project. The impact of research on PRD will be maximized through enhancing researchers and decision makers' capacity to use global research to develop locally relevant CPGs in the field of newborn and child health. The project will be implemented in three SSA countries, Malawi, South Africa and Nigeria, over a 3-year period. This research protocol is for the monitoring and evaluation work package of the project. The aim of this work package is to monitor the various GELA project activities and evaluate the influence these may have on evidence-informed decision-making and guideline adaptation capacities and processes. The specific project activities we will monitor include (1) our ongoing engagement with local stakeholders, (2) their capacity needs and development, (3) their understanding and use of evidence from reviews of qualitative research and, (4) their overall views and experiences of the project. METHODS: We will use a longitudinal, mixed-methods study design, informed by an overarching project Theory of Change. A series of interconnected qualitative and quantitative data collections methods will be used, including knowledge translation tracking sheets and case studies, capacity assessment online surveys, user testing and in-depth interviews, and non-participant observations of project activities. Participants will comprise of project staff, members of the CPG panels and steering committees in Malawi, South Africa and Nigeria, as well as other local stakeholders in these three African countries. DISCUSSION: Ongoing monitoring and evaluation will help ensure the relationship between researchers and stakeholders is supported from the project start. This can facilitate achievement of common goals and enable researchers in South Africa, Malawi and Nigeria to make adjustments to project activities to maximize stakeholder engagement and research utilization. Ethical approval has been provided by South African Medical Research Council Human Research Ethics Committee (EC015-7/2022); The College of Medicine Research and Ethics Committee, Malawi (P.07/22/3687); National Health Research Ethics Committee of Nigeria (01/01/2007).

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Post graduate master's degree qualifications are increasingly required to advance allied health profession careers in education, clinical practice, leadership, and research. Successful awards are dependent on completion of a research dissertation project. Despite the high volume of experience gained and research undertaken at this level, the benefits and impact are not well understood. Our study aimed to evaluate the perceived impact and legacy of master's degree training and research on allied health profession practice and research activity. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey design was used to collect data from allied health professionals working in the United Kingdom who had completed a postgraduate master's degree. Participants were recruited voluntarily using social media and clinical interest group advertisement. Data was collected between October and December 2022 and was analysed using descriptive statistics and narrative content analysis. Informed consent was gained, and the study was approved by the university research ethics committee. RESULTS: Eighty-four responses were received from nine allied health professions with paramedics and physiotherapists forming the majority (57%) of respondents. Primary motivation for completion of the master's degree was for clinical career progression (n = 44, 52.4%) and formation of the research dissertation question was predominantly sourced from individual ideas (n = 58, 69%). Formal research output was low with 27.4% (n = 23) of projects published in peer reviewed journal and a third of projects reporting no output or dissemination at all. Perceived impact was rated highest in individual learning outcomes, such as improving confidence and capability in clinical practice and research skills. Ongoing research engagement and activity was high with over two thirds (n = 57, 67.9%) involved in formal research projects. CONCLUSION: The focus of master's degree level research was largely self-generated with the highest perceived impact on individual outcomes rather than broader clinical service and organisation influence. Formal output from master's research was low, but ongoing research engagement and activity was high suggesting master's degree training is an under-recognised source for AHP research capacity building. Future research should investigate the potential benefits of better coordinated and prioritised research at master's degree level on professional and organisational impact.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

This article examines the development and implementation of a customized Python script utilizing the Elsevier Scopus and Clarivate Web of Science Journal Citation Reports Application Programming Interfaces (APIs). The aim was to streamline and expedite the labor-intensive process of collecting research metrics, which were traditionally compiled manually by librarians at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine Louis Calder Memorial Library. The script significantly reduces the time and effort required to generate comprehensive reports on research productivity, thereby enabling more efficient resource allocation and aiding in faculty evaluations.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, university medical centres (UMCs) bear primary responsibility for conducting medical research and delivering highly specialized care. The TopCare program was a policy experiment lasting 4 years in which three non-academic hospitals received funding from the Dutch Ministry of Health to also conduct medical research and deliver highly specialized care in specific domains. This study investigates research collaboration outcomes for all Dutch UMCs and non-academic hospitals in general and, more specifically, for the domains in the non-academic hospitals participating in the TopCare program. Additionally, it explores the organizational boundary work employed by these hospitals to foster productive research collaborations. METHODS: A mixed method research design was employed combining quantitative bibliometric analysis of publications and citations across all Dutch UMCs and non-academic hospitals and the TopCare domains with geographical distances, document analysis and ethnographic interviews with actors in the TopCare program. RESULTS: Quantitative analysis shows that, over the period of study, international collaboration increased among all hospitals while national collaboration and single institution research declined slightly. Collaborative efforts correlated with higher impact scores, and international collaboration scored higher than national collaboration. A total of 60% of all non-academic hospitals' publications were produced in collaboration with UMCs, whereas almost 30% of the UMCs' publications were the result of such collaboration. Non-academic hospitals showed a higher rate of collaboration with the UMC that was nearest geographically, whereas TopCare hospitals prioritized expertise over geographical proximity within their specialized domains. Boundary work mechanisms adopted by TopCare hospitals included aligning research activities with organizational mindset (identity), bolstering research infrastructure (competence) and finding and mobilizing strategic partnerships with academic partners (power). These efforts aimed to establish credibility and attractiveness as collaboration partners. CONCLUSIONS: Research collaboration between non-academic hospitals and UMCs, particularly where this also involves international collaboration, pays off in terms of publications and impact. The TopCare hospitals used the program's resources to perform boundary work aimed at becoming an attractive and credible collaboration partner for academia. Local factors such as research history, strategic domain focus, in-house expertise, patient flows, infrastructure and network relationships influenced collaboration dynamics within TopCare hospitals and between them and UMCs.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

For several decades the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) has supported basic and translational research into cognitive impairment in schizophrenia. This article describes the Institute's ongoing commitment to cognitive assessment and intervention research, as reflected by three signature initiatives-Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia; Cognitive Neuroscience Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia; and Research Domain Criteria-and related funding announcements that span basic experimental studies, efficacy and comparative effectiveness trials, and implementation research designed to promote cognitive healthcare in real-world treatment settings. We discuss how trends in science and public health policy since the early 2000s have influenced NIMH treatment development activities, resulting in greater attention to (1) inclusive teams that reflect end-user perspectives on the utility of proposed studies; (2) measurement of discrete neurocognitive processes to inform targeted interventions; (3) clinical trials that produce useful information about putative illness mechanisms, promising treatment targets, and downstream clinical effects; and (4) "productive urgency" in pursuing feasible and effective cognitive interventions for psychosis. Programs employing these principles have catalyzed cognitive measurement, drug development, and behavioral intervention approaches that aim to improve neurocognition and community functioning among persons with schizophrenia. NIMH will maintain support for innovative and impactful investigator-initiated research that advances patient-centered, clinically effective, and continuously improving cognitive health care for persons with psychotic disorders.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The generation of research evidence and knowledge in primary health care (PHC) is crucial for informing the development and implementation of interventions and innovations and driving health policy, health service improvements, and potential societal changes. PHC research has broad effects on patients, practices, services, population health, community, and policy formulation. The in-depth exploration of the definition and measures of research impact within PHC is essential for broadening our understanding of research impact in the discipline and how it compares to other health services research. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of the study are (1) to understand the conceptualizations and measures of research impact within the realm of PHC and (2) to identify methodological frameworks for evaluation and research impact and the benefits and challenges of using these approaches. The forthcoming review seeks to guide future research endeavors and enhance methodologies used in assessing research impact within PHC. METHODS: The protocol outlines the rapid review and environmental scan approach that will be used to explore research impact in PHC and will be guided by established frameworks such as the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences Impact Framework and the Canadian Health Services and Policy Research Alliance. The rapid review follows scoping review guidelines (PRISMA-ScR; Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews). The environmental scan will be done by consulting with professional organizations, academic institutions, information science, and PHC experts. The search strategy will involve multiple databases, citation and forward citation searching, and manual searches of gray literature databases, think tank websites, and relevant catalogs. We will include gray and scientific literature focusing explicitly on research impact in PHC from high-income countries using the World Bank classification. Publications published in English from 1978 will be considered. The collected papers will undergo a 2-stage independent review process based on predetermined inclusion criteria. The research team will extract data from selected studies based on the research questions and the CRISP (Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care) protocol statement. The team will discuss the extracted data, enabling the identification and categorization of key themes regarding research impact conceptualization and measurement in PHC. The narrative synthesis will evolve iteratively based on the identified literature. RESULTS: The results of this study are expected at the end of 2024. CONCLUSIONS: The forthcoming review will explore the conceptualization and measurement of research impact in PHC. The synthesis will offer crucial insights that will guide subsequent research, emphasizing the need for a standardized approach that incorporates diverse perspectives to comprehensively gauge the true impact of PHC research. Furthermore, trends and gaps in current methodologies will set the stage for future studies aimed at enhancing our understanding and measurement of research impact in PHC. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/55860.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Academic departments, research clusters and evaluators analyze author and citation data to measure research impact and to support strategic planning. We created Scholar Metrics Scraper (SMS) to automate the retrieval of bibliometric data for a group of researchers. The project contains Jupyter notebooks that take a list of researchers as an input and exports a CSV file of citation metrics from Google Scholar (GS) to visualize the group's impact and collaboration. A series of graph outputs are also available. SMS is an open solution for automating the retrieval and visualization of citation data.

RESUMEN

The body of scientific knowledge accumulated by the scholarly disciplines such as Developmental Psychopathology can achieve meaningful public impact if wielded and used in policy decision-making. Scientific study of how policymakers use research evidence underscores the need for researchers' policy engagement; however, barriers in the academy create conditions in which there is a need for infrastructure that increases the feasibility of researchers' partnership with policymakers. This need led to the development of the Research-to-Policy Collaboration model, a systematic approach for developing "boundary spanning" infrastructure, which has been experimentally tested and shown to improve policymakers' use of research evidence and bolster researchers' policy skills and engagement. This paper presents original research regarding the optimization of the RPC model, which sought to better serve and engage scholars across the globe. Trial findings shed light on ways to improve conditions that make good use of researchers' time for policy engagement via a virtual platform and enhanced e-communications. Future directions, implications, and practical guidelines for how scientists can engage in the political process and improve the impact of a collective discipline are also discussed.

RESUMEN

The h index has become a widely known indicator to assess the research impact of academic scholars. However, its application has been associated with some criticism regarding its ability to fully capture the quality and significance of an author's research contributions. In this paper, we present a novel approach to improve the evaluation of authors' publications by means of a Figure-of-Merit (FOM) that includes 5 distinct indicators, of which, an enhanced version of the h index. Named the Enhanced Research Quality Index (ERQI), it addresses the current limitations of existing solutions and offers a more comprehensive evaluation of research quality. The ERQI builds upon the concept that one metric is never sufficient to capture the performance of an academic scholar, while multiple ones are complex to handle and interpret. The proposed ERQI considers the total number of citations, papers and co-authors and can further differentiate researchers with equal h index. By incorporating measurable, and quantitative metrics, ERQI moves away from subjective and indirect factors such as journal reputation, citation context, citation patterns and self-citation righteousness, to offer a more nuanced and accurate representation of research quality. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed metric, we conducted a comparative study using a real dataset of 31 researchers in one of the top 3 engineering faculties in Lebanon, and a randomly generated dataset of 1000 author profiles with >1 million citations. Our findings indicate that ERQI provides a more balanced assessment of research quality by reducing the shortcomings of one indicator. Furthermore, it exhibits a multidimensional effect that captures more efficiently the intrinsic value of scholarly contributions. By adopting ERQI, institutions can make informed decisions that recognize both the quantity and quality of an author's research output and can obtain insightful evaluation enabling fairer recognition of academic scholars' impact and innovation.

RESUMEN

There is a gap between healthcare workforce research and decision-making in policy and practice. This matters more than ever given the urgent staffing crisis. As a national research network, we held the first ever United Kingdom (UK) forum on healthcare workforce evidence in March 2023. This paper summarises outputs of the event including an emerging UK healthcare workforce agenda and actions to build research capacity and bridge the gap between academics and decisionmakers. The forum brought together over 80 clinical and system leaders, policymakers and regulators with workforce researchers. Fifteen sessions convened by leading experts combined knowledge exchange with deliberative dialogue over 2 days. Topics ranged from workforce analytics, forecasting, international migration to interprofessional working. In the small groups that were convened, important gaps were identified in both the existing research body and uptake of evidence already available. There had not been enough high quality evaluations of recent workforce initiatives implemented at pace, from virtual wards to e-rostering. The pandemic had accelerated many changes in skillmix and professional roles with little learning from other countries and systems. Existing research was often small-scale or focused on individual, rather than organisational solutions in areas such as staff wellbeing. In terms of existing research, managers were often unaware of accepted high quality evidence in areas like the relationship between registered nurse staffing levels and patient outcomes. More work is needed to engage new disciplines from labour economics and occupational health to academic human resources and to strengthen the emerging diverse community of healthcare workforce researchers.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Effective stakeholder engagement in health research is increasingly being recognised and promoted as an important pathway to closing the gap between knowledge production and its use in health systems. However, little is known about its process and impacts, particularly in low-and middle-income countries. This opinion piece draws on the stakeholder engagement experiences from a global health research programme on Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) led by clinician researchers in Brazil, China, Georgia and North Macedonia, and presents the process, outcomes and lessons learned. MAIN BODY: Each country team was supported with an overarching engagement protocol and mentored to develop a tailored plan. Patient involvement in research was previously limited in all countries, requiring intensive efforts through personal communication, meetings, advisory groups and social media. Accredited training programmes were effective incentives for participation from healthcare providers; and aligning research findings with competing policy priorities enabled interest and dialogue with decision-makers. The COVID-19 pandemic severely limited possibilities for planned engagement, although remote methods were used where possible. Planned and persistent engagement contributed to shared knowledge and commitment to change, including raised patient and public awareness about COPD, improved skills and practice of healthcare providers, increased interest and support from clinical leaders, and dialogue for integrating COPD services into national policy and practice. CONCLUSION: Stakeholder engagement enabled relevant local actors to produce and utilise knowledge for small wins such as improving day-to-day practice and for long-term goals of equitable access to COPD care. For it to be successful and sustained, stakeholder engagement needs to be valued and integrated throughout the research and knowledge generation process, complete with dedicated resources, contextualised and flexible planning, and commitment.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Alternative metrics, or altmetrics, have emerged as a promising tool for measuring the social impact of research, which is increasingly important in today's digital and social media-driven world. Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) is a weighted count of all the online attention garnered by a study, and it is currently unclear whether a relationship with traditional bibliometrics exists. The purpose of this article was to retrospectively review articles published in the Surgeon Journal from 2003 to 2020 to compare AAS with bibliometric parameters using an Independent t-test and Pearson's correlation analysis. There were statistically significant weakly positive relationships between AAS and sample size, number of reads, and number of citations. There was no statistically significant relationship between AAS and number of authors, H-index, or level of evidence. This study highlights the potential value of altmetrics by measuring the social impact of research as altmetrics can provide valuable information not captured by traditional metrics. It is currently unclear what the optimal balance of social and academic impact is in evaluating research impact and how altmetrics can be integrated into existing research frameworks.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Research funders and managers can play a critical role in supporting the translation of knowledge into action by facilitating the brokering of knowledge and partnerships. We use semi-structured interviews with a research funding agency, the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), to explore (i) ways that funders can facilitate knowledge brokering, the (ii) barriers to, and (iii) enablers for, facilitating knowledge brokering, and (iv) the individual skills and attributes for research program funders and managers to be effective brokers. Based on these findings, we generate three considerations for research funders elsewhere, in particular R4D funders, seeking to build capacity for knowledge brokering: (i) formalise the process and practice, (ii) develop shared language and understanding, and (iii) build individual competencies and capabilities. Our findings complement the existing literature with a context specific analysis of how research funders can facilitate knowledge brokering, and by identifying the barriers and enablers in doing so.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Several drivers are currently leading to greater emphasis of the importance of ensuring research has impact. Nursing research aims to improve patient care, safety and well-being, so it might be assumed results with the potential to effect such changes would automatically have an impact on clinical practice. However, experience suggests this is not the case and careful attention is needed for there to be an impact. AIM: To present the example of a project commissioned to develop a health communication tool to support people with learning disabilities in accessing healthcare. DISCUSSION: The authors explore the importance of a planned approach to impact by referencing existing frameworks and providing examples of strategies used in the project. They also discuss the importance of framing the question using a range of approaches to actively engage stakeholders and of using diverse strategies to embed the development in practice. CONCLUSION: A planned approach is required to maximise impact from research. Planning and associated actions need to start at the very beginning of the research project and continue beyond the point of delivering the project report. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This paper relates to a specific context and patient group but the principles discussed are transferable to other clinical settings and patient groups.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Research Impact Assessment (RIA) represents one of a suite of policies intended to improve the impact generated from investment in health and medical research (HMR). Positivist indicator-based approaches to RIA are widely implemented but increasingly criticised as theoretically problematic, unfair, and burdensome. This commentary proposes there are useful outcomes that emerge from the process of applying an indicator-based RIA framework, separate from those encapsulated in the metrics themselves. The aim for this commentary is to demonstrate how the act of conducting an indicator-based approach to RIA can serve to optimise the productive gains from the investment in HMR. Prior research found that the issues regarding RIA are less about the choice of indicators/metrics, and more about the discussions prompted and activities incentivised by the process. This insight provides an opportunity to utilise indicator-based methods to purposely optimise the research impact. An indicator-based RIA framework specifically designed to optimise research impacts should: focus on researchers and the research process, rather than institution-level measures; utilise a project level unit of analysis that provides control to researchers and supports collaboration and accountability; provide for prospective implementation of RIA and the prospective orientation of research; establish a line of sight to the ultimate anticipated beneficiaries and impacts; Include process metrics/indicators to acknowledge interim steps on the pathway to final impacts; integrate 'next' users and prioritise the utilisation of research outputs as a critical measure; Integrate and align the incentives for researchers/research projects arising from RIA, with those existing within the prevailing research system; integrate with existing peer-review processes; and, adopt a system-wide approach where incremental improvements in the probability of translation from individual research projects, yields higher impact across the whole funding portfolio.Optimisation of the impacts from HMR investment represents the primary purpose of Research Impact policy. The process of conducting an indicator-based approach to RIA, which engages the researcher during the inception and planning phase, can directly contribute to this goal through improvements in the probability that an individual project will generate interim impacts. The research project funding process represents a promising forum to integrate this approach within the existing research system.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary care (CRISP) provides a new research reporting guideline to meet the needs of the producers and users of primary care (PC) research. Developed through an iterative program of research, including investigators, practicing clinicians, patients, community representatives, and educators, the CRISP Checklist guides PC researchers across the spectrum of research methods, study designs, and topics. This pilot test included a variety of team members using the CRISP Checklist for writing, revising, and reviewing PC research reports. All or most of the 15 participants reported that the checklist was easy to use, improved research reports, and should be recommended by PC research journals. The checklist is adaptable to different study types; not all items apply to all reports. The CRISP Checklist can help meet the needs of PC research when used in parallel with existing guidelines that focus on specific methods and limited topics.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Understanding the views of policy-makers and practitioners regarding how best to communicate research evidence is important to support research use in their decision-making. AIM: To quantify and describe public health policy-makers and practitioners' views regarding the source, content and form of messages describing public health research findings to inform their decision-making. We also sought to examine differences in preferences between public health policy-makers and practitioners. METHODS: A cross sectional, value-weighting survey of policy-makers and practitioners was conducted. Participants were asked to allocate a proportion of 100 points across different (i) sources of research evidence, (ii) message content and (iii) the form in which evidence is presented. Points were allocated based on their rating of influence, usefulness and preference when making decisions about health policy or practice. RESULTS: A total of 186 survey responses were received from 90 policy-makers and 96 practitioners. Researchers and government department agencies were the most influential source of research evidence based on mean allocation of points, followed by knowledge brokers, professional peers and associations. Mean point allocation for perceived usefulness of message content was highest for simple summary of key findings and implications, and then evidence-based recommendations and data and statistical summaries. Finally, based on mean scores, policy-makers and practitioners preferred to receive research evidence in the form of peer-reviewed publications, reports, evidence briefs and plain language summaries. There were few differences in scores between policy-makers and practitioners across source, message content or form assessments or those with experience in different behavioural areas. CONCLUSIONS: The findings should provide a basis for the future development and optimization of dissemination strategies to this important stakeholder group.

Asunto(s)