Knowledge exchange strategies for interventions and policy in public health

Abstract

Promoting the use of research-based knowledge in public health becomes more complex when public health includes interventions on health determinants. This article examines strategies for knowledge synthesis, translation and exchange (KSTE) in the context of public health in Canada, making reference to the work of the recently established National Collaborating Centres for Public Health (NCCs). NCCs simultaneously pursue KSTE and study how KSTE strategies meet different needs. Because NCCs are focused on interventions and policies, they must address the relationship between knowledge and policy, and how amenable it is to change. KSTE can seek to respond to and inform an existing policy agenda, but it can also seek to shape, frame and change that agenda. The two paths might call for different approaches, and for expanding the boundaries of KSTE in health.

Public health knowledge utilisation by policy actors: an evaluation study in Midden-Holland, the Netherlands

“…The explanation for this usage lies in the long-term collaboration between the local authorities and the RPHS; they were accustomed to RPHS reports, and prepared to accept the contents and to use the report for the development of local health policy. This is in line with the recent debate begun by Kouri (2009), in which she emphasises the 'pre-existing frames of reference or understanding of the issue, their predisposing attitudes and their pre-existing knowledge which matter a great deal'.…”

How Contexts and Issues Influence the Use of Policy‐Relevant Research Syntheses: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis

“…The fourth mechanism that can influence users’ views of evidence briefs results from factors that increase trust between the producers and the users of evidence briefs, minimizing the users’ demand for information that justifies confidence in the validity, rigor, and trustworthiness of an evidence brief while increasing the likelihood that explicit action‐oriented messages are viewed as helpful. For example, when interactions are ongoing and institutionalized, trust can develop between those preparing and those reading briefs, obviating the need for information that promotes confidence in the source and increasing the expectation that clear, action‐oriented decision support is provided (a context‐driven institutional factor) (Ayuk and Ali Marouani ; Bekker et al ; Bellew, Bauman, and Brown ; Bero and Jadad ; Best et al ; Cherney and Head ; Colby et al ; Crosswaite and Curtice ; Durrant ; Elliot and Popay ; Franklin et al ; Hanney et al ; Hyder et al ; Kapiriri, Norheim, and Heggenhougen ; Kennedy et al ; Kiefer et al ; Kouri ; Landry ; Lavis et al , ; Logar ; Lomas ; Madden ; McCaughey ; McGregor and Brophy ; Mubyazi and Gonzalez‐Block ; Oxman et al ; Pope, Mays, and Popay ; Teerawattananon ; Theobald and Nhlema‐Simwaka ; Tran et al ). Although related, this mechanism differs from the third mechanism (the creation of a need for confidence‐instilling information), in that it is linked to trust in the producers of briefs themselves, which then spurs (or depresses) the demand for specific content such as recommendations (when producers are trusted) or information about the methods used (when producers are not trusted as much).…”

Understanding the Development of Minimum Unit Pricing of Alcohol in Scotland: A Qualitative Study of the Policy Process

“…Our analysis of the development of MUP raises a number of potential lessons for those seeking to improve the use of evidence within public health policy. First, there is some support for those seeking evidence-informed policy [82] , [83] , [84] . In particular, epidemiological data was important in highlighting the problem and systematic reviews and econometric modelling appear to have played an important role in allowing those seeking policy solutions to make use of price as a mechanism to address alcohol-related harms.…”