Knowledge translation for public health in low- and middle- income countries: a critical interpretive synthesis

Abstract

BackgroundEffective knowledge translation allows the optimisation of access to and utilisation of research knowledge in order to inform and enhance public health policy and practice. In low- and middle- income countries, there are substantial complexities that affect the way in which research can be utilised for public health action. This review attempts to draw out concepts in the literature that contribute to defining some of the complexities and contextual factors that influence knowledge translation for public health in low- and middle- income countries.MethodsA Critical Interpretive Synthesis was undertaken, a method of analysis which allows a critical review of a wide range of heterogeneous evidence, through incorporating systematic review methods with qualitative enquiry techniques. A search for peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2016 on the topic of knowledge translation for public health in low- and middle – income countries was carried out, and 85 articles were reviewed and analysed using this method.ResultsFour main concepts were identified: 1) tension between ‘global’ and ‘local’ health research, 2) complexities in creating and accessing evidence, 3) contextualising knowledge translation strategies for low- and middle- income countries, and 4) the unique role of non-government organisations in the knowledge translation process.ConclusionThis method of review has enabled the identification of key concepts that may inform practice or further research in the field of knowledge translation in low- and middle- income countries.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s41256-018-0084-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Review of published evidence on knowledge translation capacity, practice and support among researchers and research institutions in low- and middle-income countries

“…Several reviews have been undertaken to better understand the KT process, including the barriers and facilitators of KT, the role of context and institutions, and effective KT approaches [21][22][23][24]. However, to our knowledge, there are no reviews that have systematically synthesised the literature on researchers' KT capacity and practice or interventions for improving their KT capacity and practice, either in general or in LMIC settings.…”

Development and implementation of nutrition labelling in Iran: A retrospective policy analysis

“…Knowledge brokering approach is one of the methods to increase the use of evidence in policy development . Involving NGOs is stated as one of the main ways to improve public health knowledge translation that is low in LMICs . Furthermore, establishing digital food activism is recommended to improve the good governance of food labelling projects in Iran.…”

Local ownership of health policy and systems research in low-income and middle-income countries: a missing element in the uptake debate

“…Research has an important role to play in strengthening health system performance and public health 6. Policymaking processes are not well understood, including among HPSRs who wish to see their research have a stronger influence 7–9. We know little about the mechanisms of policy change in LMICs, and there is a particular gap in evidence from ‘difficult’ environments, such as post-conflict and fragile settings.…”

“…We know little about the mechanisms of policy change in LMICs, and there is a particular gap in evidence from ‘difficult’ environments, such as post-conflict and fragile settings. Use of evidence in decision-making may be more challenging and less institutionalised, involving a multiplicity of stakeholders with diverse interests, and complex and fluctuating governance arrangements for policymaking 9–12…”