Policymaker experiences with rapid response briefs to address health-system and technology questions in Uganda

Abstract

BackgroundHealth service and systems researchers have developed knowledge translation strategies to facilitate the use of reliable evidence for policy, including rapid response briefs as timely and responsive tools supporting decision making. However, little is known about users’ experience with these newer formats for presenting evidence. We sought to explore Ugandan policymakers’ experience with rapid response briefs in order to develop a format acceptable for policymakers.MethodsWe used existing research regarding evidence formats for policymakers to inform the initial version of rapid response brief format. We conducted user testing with healthcare policymakers at various levels of decision making in Uganda, employing a concurrent think-aloud method, collecting data on elements including usability, usefulness, understandability, desirability, credibility and value of the document. We modified the rapid response briefs format based on the results of the user testing and sought feedback on the new format.ResultsThe participants generally found the format of the rapid response briefs usable, credible, desirable and of value. Participants expressed frustrations regarding several aspects of the document, including the absence of recommendations, lack of clarity about the type of document and its potential uses (especially for first time users), and a crowded front page. Participants offered conflicting feedback on preferred length of the briefs and use and placement of partner logos. Users had divided preferences for the older and newer formats.ConclusionAlthough the rapid response briefs were generally found to be of value, there are major and minor frustrations impeding an optimal user experience. Areas requiring further research include how to address policymakers’ expectations of recommendations in these briefs and their optimal length.

Lessons learned from descriptions and evaluations of knowledge translation platforms supporting evidence-informed policy-making in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

“…Based on our analysis of the characteristics of included studies provided in Additional file 3 , we note the following patterns: the years of publication ranged from 2008 to 2017, with the median year of publication being 2014; the most common jurisdictional focus of the KT platforms was country rather than sub-national, regional (supra-national) or global, while the most common country focus was Uganda (appearing in 13 studies) [ 23 , 24 , 33 , 41 – 48 , 52 , 53 ], Lebanon (appearing in 8 studies, of which 6 examine Lebanon in the context of the Eastern Mediterranean region) [ 28 – 32 , 34 , 41 , 59 ], and South Africa (appearing in 8 studies) [ 23 , 24 , 26 , 37 , 42 , 49 , 51 , 54 ]; the most common name used by the KT platforms was EVIPNet (appearing in 17 studies) [ 25 , 28 – 33 , 37 , 41 , 44 – 48 , 50 , 52 , 53 ], whether because that was the formal name of the group or because it considered itself part of the EVIPNet ‘family’ even if it went by a different name, such as REACH Policy Initiative Uganda and its variously named rapid evidence service (e.g. Makerere University’s service, REACH Policy Initiative service, SURE project service or rapid response service); the most common variables and relationships addressed, were as follows: ◦ descriptions ( n = 33 of 38 studies) [ 23 – 38 , 40 – 43 , 46 – 49 , 51 – 56 , 58 – 60 ] were more common than formative evaluations ( n = 18) [ 23 , ...…”

“…the most common name used by the KT platforms was EVIPNet (appearing in 17 studies) [ 25 , 28 – 33 , 37 , 41 , 44 – 48 , 50 , 52 , 53 ], whether because that was the formal name of the group or because it considered itself part of the EVIPNet ‘family’ even if it went by a different name, such as REACH Policy Initiative Uganda and its variously named rapid evidence service (e.g. Makerere University’s service, REACH Policy Initiative service, SURE project service or rapid response service);…”

Facilitating evidence uptake: development and user testing of a systematic review summary format to inform public health decision-making in German-speaking countries

“…Another challenging observation was the participants’ wish for information outside the scope of a systematic review. Many decision-makers deplored the absence of detailed recommendations and guidance for the implementation of findings, an observation also made in other user testing studies on knowledge translation products [ 30 , 31 ]. Despite acknowledging the importance of these factors, the time and person-power needed to compile such information will make it difficult to produce locally adapted systematic review summaries in a standardised manner and on an ongoing basis.…”

“…Sometimes, even individual participants gave conflicting feedback, at one point indicating that the document should be shorter to cater to their limited time frame, at a later point suggesting that more information should be added. Decision-makers’ preference for short texts and simple messages [ 4 , 5 , 14 , 31 ], the seemingly contradictory wish for both brevity and detail [ 30 ], and the preference for an accessible structure [ 34 ] have also been reported by others. The revised summary format should cater to different types of decision-makers.…”

“…The aim is to obtain a better understanding of the user experience, to observe the users’ problems with the product, to collect their suggestions and to improve the product on the basis of the structured observations and participant feedback. It has been applied to a variety of Cochrane products [ 27 – 29 ] and other knowledge translation formats [ 30 , 31 ].…”