Moving knowledge about family violence into public health policy and practice: a mixed method study of a deliberative dialogue

Abstract

BackgroundThere is a need to understand scientific evidence in light of the context within which it will be used. Deliberative dialogues are a promising strategy that can be used to meet this evidence interpretation challenge.MethodsWe evaluated a deliberative dialogue held by a transnational violence prevention network. The deliberative dialogue included researchers and knowledge user partners of the Preventing Violence Across the Lifespan (PreVAiL) Research Network and was incorporated into a biennial full-team meeting. The dialogue included pre- and post-meeting activities, as well as deliberations embedded within the meeting agenda. The deliberations included a preparatory plenary session, small group sessions and a synthesizing plenary. The challenge addressed through the process was how to mobilize research to orient health and social service systems to prevent family violence and its consequences. The deliberations focused on the challenge, potential solutions for addressing it and implementation factors. Using a mixed-methods approach, data were collected via questionnaires, meeting minutes, dialogue documents and follow-up telephone interviews.ResultsForty-four individuals (all known to each other and from diverse professional roles, settings and countries) participated in the deliberative dialogue. Ten of the 12 features of the deliberative dialogue were rated favourably by all respondents. The mean behavioural intention score was 5.7 on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), suggesting that many participants intended to use what they learned in their future decision-making. Interviews provided further insight into what might be done to facilitate the use of research in the violence prevention arena.ConclusionFindings suggest that participants will use dialogue learnings to influence practice and policy change. Deliberative dialogues may be a viable strategy for collaborative sensemaking of research related to family violence prevention, and other public health topics.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0100-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Knowledge Translation for Improving the Care of Deinstitutionalized People With Severe Mental Illness in Health Policy

“…Therefore, it is important to report about the contextspecific utility of each strategy, so that they can be modified and utilised by other interested decision makers (Larocca et al, 2012). In this study, the participants provided positive evaluations of the evidence brief and of policy dialogue; they considered it to be favorable and useful, and these results corroborate past findings (Yehia and El Jardali, 2015;Boyko et al, 2016;Mc Sween-Cadieux et al, 2018). Similar findings emerged from the miniinterviews that were conducted at the end of the policy dialogue; specifically, all participant opinions were positive in tone.…”

Exploring the knowledge translation of domestic violence research: A literature review

“…More generally, the literature provided a wide range of strategies used in conjunction with each other to strengthen knowledge translation. Examples include professional development for practitioners, education sessions, education summaries, group discussions, interactive learning, deliberative dialogues, using knowledge brokers and opinion leaders, audits, feedback, electronic reminders, clinical decision‐making support, clinical practice guidelines, team learning, formal & informal partnerships and proactive media strategies (Beckett et al., 2016; Boyko et al, 2016; Boyko et al., 2017; Claussen et al., 2017; Goicolea et al., 2015; Goicolea et al, 2013; Guruge, 2016; Isobell et al., 2016; Kothari et al., 2016; Larrivée et al., 2012; Spalding et al, 2015a; Spalding et al, 2015b). Of these, several have generated more extensive evidence through engagement with opinion leaders, interactive meetings, audits reminders and prompts (Spalding et al, 2015a).…”

Shaping Policy on Chronic Diseases through National Policy Dialogs in CHRODIS PLUS

“…The key features of a deliberative dialog are: (1) the meeting environment (enabling or inhibiting), (2) the mix of participants (expertise, experience, interests, capacity) and (3) the role of evidence [ 25 ]. Deliberative approaches like those used in policy dialogs foster structured conversations that promote listening as much as speaking, in order to feed into an informed and reasoned agreement.…”