• No results found

Researchers’ and the public’s perspectives on evidence-based health policy: Bridging the communication chasm

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Researchers’ and the public’s perspectives on evidence-based health policy: Bridging the communication chasm"

Copied!
1
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

R

esearchers’ and the public’s perspectives on evidence-based health policy:

Bridging the communication chasm

Background

EBHP is critical for increasing transparency in decision-making, ensuring effective use of resources, and building stronger

partnerships. See Figure 1.2

Objectives

•  Explore researchers’ and the public’s perspectives on evidence-based health policy (EBHP)

•  Relate preliminary findings to a conceptual framework from our larger study, “Perspectives and experiences on EBHP of researchers, policy-makers, HIT professionals, and the public (the KhITT framework)1

Methods

•  Exploratory qualitative study design

•  Snowball sampling to recruit four researchers in academia and one member of the public (n=5)

•  In-depth semi-structured interviews •  Rigorous content analysis3

Key preliminary findings

1 - Mallidou, A. A., Dordunoo, D., Sadeghi-Yekta, K., Borycki, E., Kushniruk, A., Asuri, S., & Fraser, J. (accepted). Perspectives and experiences of policy-makers, researchers, health-information technology professionals, and the public on

evidence-based health policies: A protocol of the KhITT framework. Journal of

Medical Internet Research (JMIR) Research Protocols. doi:10.2196/16268

2 – Baicker, K., & Chandra, A. (2017). Evidence-based health policy. The New

England Journal of Medicine, 377(25), 2413-2415. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1709816

3 – LoBiondo-Wood, G. & Harber, J. (2018). Nursing research in Canada:

Methods, critical appraisal and utilization (4th Canadian ed.). Toronto, ON:

Elsevier Canada.

Discussion

•  EBHP development is a collaborative process requiring consistent communication across disciplines.

•  Role clarity and mutual understanding of good quality evidence enhance the policy-making process.

•  Health information technology platforms can help support

knowledge translation amongst researchers and policy-makers. •  The KhITT framework facilitates transparent knowledge

dissemination and EBHP development.

Acknowledgements

References

•  Jamie Cassels Undergraduate Research Award (JCURA) 2019-20 •  University of Victoria Internal Research and Creative Project

Grant (IRCPG) 2019-20 to Dr. Anastasia Mallidou •  Supervisor: Dr. Mallidou, UVic School of Nursing

•  Presentation at JCURA Research Fair on March 4, 2020

“I don’t think we have strengthened the connections between academia and policy makers … because we seem to be working and developing all these ideas and they seem to have the

potential to put them into play but we have walls between us”

•  Inadequate understanding of roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders involved in EBHP development

•  Need for further communication and collaboration to increase transparency in the policy-making process

SUBTHEME 1: Seeking role clarity

“…it’s a transformational effort for researchers, policy makers and

policy users…it’s something that

brings everyone together”

SUBTHEME 2: Exploring collaborative efforts

CC BY-SA 2.0, CFCF, Research Design and Evidence, http://media.dentalcare.com/images/en-US/education/ce311/fig02.jpg

“It’s not clear who we should be going to saying we found

particularly valuable evidence that could inform decision making and policy making and it just kind of gets lost in the vacuum”

THEME: Communication chasm

“Health information technology is

a communication tool…that allows for collaboration where you can

actually build and co-create policy

together” Knowledge translation Health information technology EBHP development and implementation

CC BY-SA 2.0, Great Wall, David Wilmot, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Great_Wall_in_Inner_Mongolia.JPG

CC BY-SA 2.0, Health Technology communication, https://annenberg.usc.edu/research/partnership

CC BY -S A 2.0, M arke ti ng Re se arc h, Int erna ti ona l Cons ul ti ng, ht tps :/ /w w w .ybi erl ing.c om /e n/ bl og-m arke ti ng-w hy-i s-re se arc h-i m port ant CC BY -S A 2.0, IBM W at son, F li ckr , ht tps :/ /t ec hc runc h.c om /2015/ 07/ 30/ cvs -he al th-t aps -i bm s-w at son-t o-he lp-pre di ct -pa ti ent s-he al th/

CC BY-SA 2.0, Nurses, Ddcmis, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NURSING_Orig.jpg CC BY-SA 2.0, Handshake, Pixabay, https://www.pexels.com/photo/agree-agreement-asian-black-263406/

Aditi Lakshmanan, BSc v Anastasia Mallidou, RN, PhD, School of Nursing

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

The report consists of three compo- nents: (a) a trend scenario for population health in the Netherlands up to 2030; (b) future scenarios based on four normative perspec- tives; and

Still, there are cases where researchers may want to raise questions on the decision of a policy maker not to use scientific information7. Whether or not

We used a case study approach and mapped in detail the process of three projects of the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), focusing on

Contributions of knowledge products to health policy: a case study on the Public Health Status and Forecasts Report 20101. Ingrid Hegger 1 ,

[r]

The research of Henning-Thurau, Gwinner, Walsh and Gremler (2004) tested the following motivations to determine their impact on intention to post a reviews

Gedwongen zijn, moe ten Tak Stud· ievak Dapper Ontbijt Adem B ries, lwdte H elde r Ophalen Breed Gebouw Afgebrand B ezigheid.. Zaken, handelszaken B ezig,

Members of the coalition proposed five major action items that consultation suggested were critical: Capital funds to grow co-operatives and social enterprises; program dollars