Engaging policy-makers, health system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process: a scoping review

Abstract

BackgroundIt 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsAfter 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%).ConclusionsKnowledge 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.Registration detailsOpen Science Framework (https://osf.io/4dy53/).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0717-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Moving from formative research to co-creation of interventions: insights from a community health system project in Mozambique, Nepal and Peru

“…Co-creation has become more widely used as it allows an alignment of research and intervention development to better address the needs of the targeted populations. 41 A recent scoping review found that co-creation approaches are gaining traction in implementation research 49. However, this study did not include communities or possible users and highlighted the need to test this approach to developing interventions.…”

Engaging knowledge users in a systematic review on the comparative effectiveness of geriatrician-led models of care is possible: A cross-sectional survey using the Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool

“…Our study included three activities and used methods that are frequently used to elicit feedback from KUs [8].…”

“…In knowledge synthesis studies, KUs are primarily engaged as key informants and methods for engaging them in review [8,21,22]. In addition, KUs are mainly used for only one step of the research process; specifically, of 91 studies on KU engagement in knowledge synthesis studies, only 11% (n 5 10) used KUs in at least three steps [8].…”

“…A scoping review of 91 studies on KU engagement in knowledge synthesis found that stakeholders were frequently involved in the interpretation of research findings or were consulted on the relevance of the research topic. Authors of knowledge syntheses used methods such as focus groups, interviews, surveys, nominal group, or Delphi approaches to engage [8] KUs. There are several stages in the conduct of a systematic review when KUs can be engaged and multiple methods are available to elicit their engagement; however, best practices for engagement are unknown.…”

A modified Delphi and cross-sectional survey to facilitate selection of optimal outcomes and measures for a systematic review on geriatrician-led care models

“…While research in patient engagement has focused on patient input in developing research priorities [24] and core outcome sets [25] for inclusion in primary research, there is also a need to engage patients in the conduct of systematic reviews. A recent scoping review identified that KUs are frequently engaged as key informants in meetings, workshops, or participate in surveys and focus groups in the knowledge synthesis process [26]. Engaging KUs such as patients, clinicians, and policymakers in systematic reviews can have several benefits, such as improving review relevance and quality as well as increasing dissemination and uptake of findings [27].…”