综合知识翻译方法在五个非洲国家的结果:混合方法比较案例研究。

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Kerstin Sell, Eva Rehfuess, Jimmy Osuret, Esther Bayiga-Zziwa, Bezinash Geremew, Lisa Pfadenhauer
{"title":"综合知识翻译方法在五个非洲国家的结果:混合方法比较案例研究。","authors":"Kerstin Sell, Eva Rehfuess, Jimmy Osuret, Esther Bayiga-Zziwa, Bezinash Geremew, Lisa Pfadenhauer","doi":"10.1186/s12961-024-01256-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) aims to enhance evidence-informed decision-making in public health and healthcare by establishing continuous relationships between researchers and knowledge users, in particular decision-makers. The Collaboration for Evidence-Based Healthcare and Public Health in Africa (CEBHA+) undertook research on noncommunicable diseases in Ethiopia, Malawi, Rwanda, South Africa and Uganda. Alongside the research activities, we implemented an IKT approach, which entailed training and the development and implementation of site-specific IKT strategies. We evaluated these strategies according to a predefined programme theory.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Drawing on our published protocol ( https://rdcu.be/dyfBP ), we interviewed and surveyed CEBHA+ researchers and their decision-making counterparts during two project stages (3/2020-2/2021; 9/2022-5/2023) and collected IKT-related documents. Transcripts and documents were analysed using qualitative content analysis and surveys were analysed descriptively, with subsequent integration, cross-case analysis and revision of the programme theory.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 36 researchers and 19 decision-makers participated in surveys, focus groups and/or interviews, and we collected 92 documents. Relationship building, capacity building and collaborative research were the most proximal intervention outcomes: CEBHA+ researchers and their counterparts built mutual appreciation and partnerships, accessed contacts and networks, and expanded skills in conducting and using research and in IKT. The level of trust between partners varied. Intermediate outcomes were changes in attitudes and knowledge; beyond the conceptualization in our initial programme theory, researchers substantially increased their understanding of the decision-making context and developed a vision for \"research impact\". While it was challenging to evaluate distal outcomes, the IKT approach was linked to the production of research perceived as addressing local priorities and being highly applicable and contextualized, and some consideration of evidence among decision-makers. Unintended effects included high opportunity costs associated with undertaking IKT. An unanticipated outcome was the heightened interest of the research funder in policy engagement. Our updated programme theory constitutes a low-level theory for IKT.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Whilst this study faced many challenges common to the evaluation of knowledge translation interventions, it presents rich, theory-informed insights into IKT outcomes. These are based on documented IKT activities and participants' views, particularly in-depth insights of researchers' experiences with implementing the CEBHA+ IKT approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"22 1","pages":"162"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11629502/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcomes of an integrated knowledge translation approach in five African countries: a mixed-methods comparative case study.\",\"authors\":\"Kerstin Sell, Eva Rehfuess, Jimmy Osuret, Esther Bayiga-Zziwa, Bezinash Geremew, Lisa Pfadenhauer\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12961-024-01256-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) aims to enhance evidence-informed decision-making in public health and healthcare by establishing continuous relationships between researchers and knowledge users, in particular decision-makers. The Collaboration for Evidence-Based Healthcare and Public Health in Africa (CEBHA+) undertook research on noncommunicable diseases in Ethiopia, Malawi, Rwanda, South Africa and Uganda. Alongside the research activities, we implemented an IKT approach, which entailed training and the development and implementation of site-specific IKT strategies. We evaluated these strategies according to a predefined programme theory.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Drawing on our published protocol ( https://rdcu.be/dyfBP ), we interviewed and surveyed CEBHA+ researchers and their decision-making counterparts during two project stages (3/2020-2/2021; 9/2022-5/2023) and collected IKT-related documents. Transcripts and documents were analysed using qualitative content analysis and surveys were analysed descriptively, with subsequent integration, cross-case analysis and revision of the programme theory.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 36 researchers and 19 decision-makers participated in surveys, focus groups and/or interviews, and we collected 92 documents. Relationship building, capacity building and collaborative research were the most proximal intervention outcomes: CEBHA+ researchers and their counterparts built mutual appreciation and partnerships, accessed contacts and networks, and expanded skills in conducting and using research and in IKT. The level of trust between partners varied. Intermediate outcomes were changes in attitudes and knowledge; beyond the conceptualization in our initial programme theory, researchers substantially increased their understanding of the decision-making context and developed a vision for \\\"research impact\\\". While it was challenging to evaluate distal outcomes, the IKT approach was linked to the production of research perceived as addressing local priorities and being highly applicable and contextualized, and some consideration of evidence among decision-makers. Unintended effects included high opportunity costs associated with undertaking IKT. An unanticipated outcome was the heightened interest of the research funder in policy engagement. Our updated programme theory constitutes a low-level theory for IKT.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Whilst this study faced many challenges common to the evaluation of knowledge translation interventions, it presents rich, theory-informed insights into IKT outcomes. These are based on documented IKT activities and participants' views, particularly in-depth insights of researchers' experiences with implementing the CEBHA+ IKT approach.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12870,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Research Policy and Systems\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"162\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11629502/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Research Policy and Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01256-x\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Research Policy and Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01256-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:综合知识转化(IKT)旨在通过在研究人员和知识使用者,特别是决策者之间建立持续的关系,加强公共卫生和医疗保健中的循证决策。非洲循证保健和公共卫生合作组织(CEBHA+)在埃塞俄比亚、马拉维、卢旺达、南非和乌干达开展了非传染性疾病研究。除了研究活动外,我们还实施了IKT方法,其中包括培训以及制定和实施特定地点的IKT策略。我们根据预定义的程序理论评估了这些策略。方法:根据我们已发表的方案(https://rdcu.be/dyfBP),我们在两个项目阶段(2020年3月- 2021年2月;9/2022-5/2023),并收集了ikt相关文件。使用定性内容分析分析笔录和文件,描述性地分析调查,随后进行整合、跨案例分析和修订方案理论。结果:共有36名研究人员和19名决策者参与了调查、焦点小组和/或访谈,收集了92份文件。关系建设、能力建设和合作研究是最接近的干预结果:CEBHA+研究人员及其同行建立了相互欣赏和伙伴关系,获得了联系和网络,并扩大了开展和使用研究和IKT的技能。伴侣之间的信任程度各不相同。中间结果为态度和知识的改变;在我们最初的规划理论概念化之外,研究人员大大增加了他们对决策背景的理解,并形成了“研究影响”的愿景。虽然评估远端结果具有挑战性,但IKT方法与被视为解决当地优先事项、高度适用和情境化的研究成果相关联,并且在决策者中考虑了一些证据。意想不到的影响包括与IKT相关的高机会成本。一个意想不到的结果是,研究资助者对政策参与的兴趣提高了。我们更新的程序理论构成了IKT的低级理论。结论:虽然本研究面临着评估知识转化干预措施的许多共同挑战,但它对知识转化结果提出了丰富的、有理论依据的见解。这些都是基于记录在案的IKT活动和参与者的观点,特别是对研究人员实施CEBHA+ IKT方法的经验的深入见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Outcomes of an integrated knowledge translation approach in five African countries: a mixed-methods comparative case study.

Background: Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) aims to enhance evidence-informed decision-making in public health and healthcare by establishing continuous relationships between researchers and knowledge users, in particular decision-makers. The Collaboration for Evidence-Based Healthcare and Public Health in Africa (CEBHA+) undertook research on noncommunicable diseases in Ethiopia, Malawi, Rwanda, South Africa and Uganda. Alongside the research activities, we implemented an IKT approach, which entailed training and the development and implementation of site-specific IKT strategies. We evaluated these strategies according to a predefined programme theory.

Methods: Drawing on our published protocol ( https://rdcu.be/dyfBP ), we interviewed and surveyed CEBHA+ researchers and their decision-making counterparts during two project stages (3/2020-2/2021; 9/2022-5/2023) and collected IKT-related documents. Transcripts and documents were analysed using qualitative content analysis and surveys were analysed descriptively, with subsequent integration, cross-case analysis and revision of the programme theory.

Results: A total of 36 researchers and 19 decision-makers participated in surveys, focus groups and/or interviews, and we collected 92 documents. Relationship building, capacity building and collaborative research were the most proximal intervention outcomes: CEBHA+ researchers and their counterparts built mutual appreciation and partnerships, accessed contacts and networks, and expanded skills in conducting and using research and in IKT. The level of trust between partners varied. Intermediate outcomes were changes in attitudes and knowledge; beyond the conceptualization in our initial programme theory, researchers substantially increased their understanding of the decision-making context and developed a vision for "research impact". While it was challenging to evaluate distal outcomes, the IKT approach was linked to the production of research perceived as addressing local priorities and being highly applicable and contextualized, and some consideration of evidence among decision-makers. Unintended effects included high opportunity costs associated with undertaking IKT. An unanticipated outcome was the heightened interest of the research funder in policy engagement. Our updated programme theory constitutes a low-level theory for IKT.

Conclusions: Whilst this study faced many challenges common to the evaluation of knowledge translation interventions, it presents rich, theory-informed insights into IKT outcomes. These are based on documented IKT activities and participants' views, particularly in-depth insights of researchers' experiences with implementing the CEBHA+ IKT approach.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health Research Policy and Systems
Health Research Policy and Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.50%
发文量
124
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Research Policy and Systems is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that aims to provide a platform for the global research community to share their views, findings, insights and successes. Health Research Policy and Systems considers manuscripts that investigate the role of evidence-based health policy and health research systems in ensuring the efficient utilization and application of knowledge to improve health and health equity, especially in developing countries. Research is the foundation for improvements in public health. The problem is that people involved in different areas of research, together with managers and administrators in charge of research entities, do not communicate sufficiently with each other.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信