Negotiating multisectoral evidence: a qualitative study of knowledge exchange at the intersection of transport and public health

Abstract

BackgroundFor the prevention and control of chronic diseases, two strategies are frequently highlighted: that public health should be evidence based, and that it should develop a multisectoral approach. At the end of a natural experimental study of the health impacts of new transport infrastructure, we took the opportunity of a knowledge exchange forum to explore how stakeholders assessed, negotiated and intended to apply multisectoral evidence in policy and practice at the intersection of transport and health. We aimed to better understand the challenges they faced in knowledge exchange, as well as their everyday experiences with working in multisectoral remits.MethodsIn 2015, we conducted participant observation during an interactive event with 41 stakeholders from national and local government, the third sector and academia in Cambridge, UK. Formal and informal interactions between stakeholders were recorded in observational field notes. We also conducted 18 semistructured interviews reflecting on the event and on knowledge exchange in general.ResultsWe found that stakeholders negotiated a variety of challenges. First, stakeholders had to negotiate relatively new formal and informal multisectoral remits; and how to reconcile the differing expectations of transport specialists, who tended to emphasise the importance of precedence in guiding action, and health specialists’ concern for the rigour and synthesis of research evidence. Second, research in this field involved complex study designs, and often produced evidence with uncertain transferability to other settings. Third, health outcomes of transport schemes had political traction and were used strategically but not easily translated into cost-benefit ratios. Finally, knowledge exchange meant multiple directions of influence. Stakeholders were concerned that researchers did not always have skills to translate their findings into understandable evidence, and some stakeholders would welcome opportunities to influence research agendas.ConclusionsThis case study of stakeholders’ experiences indicates that multisectoral research, practice and policymaking requires the ability and capacity to locate, understand and communicate complex evidence from a variety of disciplines, and integrate different types of evidence into clear business cases beyond sectoral boundaries.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3940-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis and early antiretroviral treatment among female sex workers in South Africa: Results from a prospective observational demonstration project

“…Yet there was a higher rate of FSWs in stable relationships in our sample. This is likely a reflection of the group of FSWs accessing SWP clinics in general, as a similar profile was recently reported among SWP attendees not enrolled in the study [ 27 ].…”

Evaluating policy responses to noncommunicable diseases in seven Caribbean countries: challenges to addressing unhealthy diets and physical inactivity

“…Other conceptual approaches within public health, such as knowledge exchange (16) and patient-centeredness, have developed their own research fields that inform policy and practice. By comparison, multisectoral collaboration still seems to be an underdeveloped research field (17, 18).…”

Cost effectiveness of HIV and sexual reproductive health interventions targeting sex workers: a systematic review

“…Sex workers, who defined as a population who exchange sex for money, goods or favours, are at a higher risk of adverse sexual health outcomes both due to their nature of work, their extraordinary social and economic vulnerability, and the high levels of stigma and violence attached to their work [ 8 , 9 ]. Moreover, marginalised populations such as sex workers face many barriers accessing Sexual Reproductive Health (SRH) services due to reasons such as criminalisation of sex work, stigmatization and discrimination experienced at health facilities, increasing their vulnerability and obstructing their right to access health services [ 9 – 12 ]. Furthermore, sex workers lack of contact with SRH services is also influenced socio-demographics and the low levels of knowledge about the value of SRH interventions; for example, up to 26% of sex workers in Nigerian brothels were unaware of methods to protect against STIs [ 10 , 13 ].…”