Tapping into the power of coproduction and knowledge mobilisation: Exploration of a facilitated interactive group learning approach to support equity‐sensitive decision‐making in local health and care services

Abstract

Background: We report on a study of a facilitated interactive group learning approach, through Collaborative Implementation Groups (CIGs), established to enhance capacity for equity-sensitive evaluation of healthcare services to inform local decision-making: (1) What was the experience of participants of the CIGs? (2) How was knowledge mobilisation achieved? (3) What are the key elements that enhance the process of coproducing equity-sensitive evaluations?Methods: A thematic analysis of qualitative data obtained from focus group (FG) discussions and semistructured interviews exploring the experiences of participants.All FGs included representation of participants from different projects across the programme. Interviews were conducted with a member from each of the teams participating in the first cohort after their final workshop.Results: We identified four themes to illustrate how the approach to delivering intensive and facilitated training supported equity-sensitive evaluations of local healthcare services: (1) Creating the setting for coproduction and knowledge mobilisation; (2) establishing a common purpose, meaning and language for reducing health inequalities; (3) making connections and brokering relationships and (4) challenging and transforming the role of evaluation. Conclusion:We report on the implementation of a practical example of engaged scholarship, where teams of healthcare staff were supported with resources, interactive training and methodological advice to evaluate their own services, enabling organisations to assemble timely practical and relevant evidence that could feed directly into local decision-making. By encouraging mixed teams of practitioners, commissioners, patients, the public and researchers to work together to

Activities used by evidence networks to promote evidence-informed decision-making in the health sector– a rapid evidence review

“…The practical activities most frequently mentioned included the development of training programmes [ 17 , 19 , 29 , 35 , 44 ] as the primary focus, followed by community-based and stakeholder workshops [ 32 , 37 , 44 , 45 , 49 ] and the facilitation of online webinars, portal links, discussions, and engagement on social media platforms [ 38 , 41 , 43 , 48 ]. These activities were more common in topics such as community and rural health care [ 17 , 35 , 37 ], and policy research [ 41 , 43 , 45 ], across settings in the US [ 16 , 17 , 19 , 21 , 29 ], Brazil [ 45 ], Sub-Saharan Africa [ 43 ], Canada [ 32 ], Sweden [ 35 ], and the UK [ 49 ].…”

“…Lastly, some evidence networks provided a post-workshop or post-discussion tool or resource, including but not limited to evaluation workbooks [ 49 ], a collective book, a series of working papers, a toolkit, a blog, and engagement through e-discussions [ 43 ].…”

“…Five authors highlighted the importance of education and training in the successful implementation of activities [ 16 , 17 , 29 , 48 , 49 ]. For example, in the case of Indigenous ACCHO staff capacity, training played a pivotal role in not only enabling their active participation and collaboration in research, but also in empowering them to take an active role in identifying research questions and priorities, conducting research and evaluation activities, and translating findings into practice [ 48 ].…”

“…In one particular article, it was found that delivering training equipped participants with the tools and confidence to address their organisation’s aims and objectives of reducing health inequalities. This was achieved by mobilising knowledge from various stakeholders to coproduce evaluations for their local services [ 49 ]. In another article, it was reported that clinicians found seminars to help foster a positive attitude towards evidence-based practice.…”

“…Evidence networks also engage in practical activities to advance evidence-based decision-making. Often these activities will take the form of training programmes or community-based workshops [ 17 , 19 , 29 , 32 , 35 , 37 , 44 , 45 , 49 ] or they involve offering online webinars, engaging in discussions and utilising social media platforms [ 38 , 41 , 43 , 48 ]. The Academic Network for Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Policy (ANSER) was developed to address the gap between research and policy in SRHR [ 44 ].…”