Health Equity: 05/03/11

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

[EQ] Using evidence: Advances and debates in bridging health research and action

Using evidence:
Advances and debates in bridging health research and action

Renée Lyons, professor and Canada Research Chair, Atlantic Health Promotion Research Centre (AHPRC), Dalhousie University

This monograph grew out of a symposium on health and knowledge translation (KT) held at
13 Norham Gardens at Green Templeton College, University of Oxford

Website: http://bit.ly/lgj4Wa

PDF: http://bit.ly/lwfIKf

“….Global health issues, such as access to clean air and water, obesity, poverty and health, cardiovascular disease prevention, and clinical effectiveness, need high quality evidence so that problems can be understood and addressed.

There is a widespread belief that research evidence can and should be used more effectively in health-related decision-making – from broad government actions that have an impact on health, to practitioner decisions in clinical and public health practice (Kerner, 2005). A major development in health research over the past 10 years has been the growth in knowledge translation (KT) and the diffusion and use of research…..”

Content:

Part 1. An introduction to knowledge translation: fulfilling the promise of health research (Lyons)

Part 2. Implementation of evidence: macro level approaches to knowledge utilization

Development of a European implementation score for measuring implementation of research into health care practice: the European implementation score collaboration (Heuschmann et al.)

The NICE implementation programme: strategies and challenges in the implementation of health evidence. A national perspective (Leng)
Developing and transferring evidence into practice: NICE or nasty? Reflections on NICE to develop and implement public health guidance (Foster)

Part 3. Evidence use in action: engaging users

The “lean” approach to evidence-based surgical safety (McCulloch and Catchpole)..

Conservation of resources theory and knowledge translation: A Canada-U.S.collaboration (Alvaro)

Using knowledge translation to transform the fundamentals of care: the older person and improving care (Topic 7) project (Kitson et al)
Evidence-based health care and the implementation gap (Dopson)

Part 4. Commentaries

Deciding when to “mind the gap”: considering context in action (Harris)

Does the concept of KT capture the complexity between research and practice?

Cause and effect (Smith)

Evidence, patient experience and research (Locock and Ziebland)

Expanding the notion of evidence-based practice in nursing (Hinkle)

KT as relational transformation (Duck)

Part 5. Discussants

Alastair Buchan

J.A. Muir Gray

Susan Law

Twitter http://twitter.com/eqpaho

* * *
This message from the Pan American Health Organization, PAHO/WHO, is part of an effort to disseminate
information Related to: Equity; Health inequality; Socioeconomic inequality in health; Socioeconomic
health differentials; Gender; Violence; Poverty; Health Economics; Health Legislation; Ethnicity; Ethics;
Information Technology - Virtual libraries; Research & Science issues. [DD/ KMC Area]
Washington DC USA

“Materials provided in this electronic list are provided "as is". Unless expressly stated otherwise, the findings
and interpretations included in the Materials are those of the authors and not necessarily of The Pan American
Health Organization PAHO/WHO or its country members”.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAHO/WHO Website
Equity List - Archives - Join/remove: http://listserv.paho.org/Archives/equidad.html
Twitter http://twitter.com/eqpaho

IMPORTANT: This transmission is for use by the intended
recipient and it may contain privileged, proprietary or
confidential information. If you are not the intended
recipient or a person responsible for delivering this
transmission to the intended recipient, you may not
disclose, copy or distribute this transmission or take
any action in reliance on it. If you received this transmission
in error, please dispose of and delete this transmission.

Thank you.

Correction - link [EQ] Towards better use of evidence in policy formation

Correct link below:

Towards better use of evidence in policy formation:
a discussion paper

Sir Peter Gluckman KNZM FRSNZ FRS- Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister

April 2011 - OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER’S SCIENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE - New Zealand

Available online PDF [17p.] at: http://bit.ly/mu3fbV

“….The public good is undoubtedly advanced by knowledge-informed policy formation, evaluation and implementation.

The challenge is how to do better in two related domains: the generation and application of knowledge to inform policy making, and the use of scientific approaches to the monitoring and evaluation of policy initiatives.

As Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister I have the brief to promote discourse that will lead New Zealand to better apply evidence-based knowledge and research across all domains of public endeavour. When I was first appointed to the role, I consulted with my counterparts overseas and it was generally noted that addressing this issue of the relationship between science and knowledge on one hand, and policy formation and implementation on the other, was one of critical importance in this increasingly complex and interconnected world.

The challenges are multiple: to identify what research and information is needed, to identify appropriate sources of such knowledge, to interpret the validity, quality and relevance of the knowledge obtained, and to understand how that knowledge can improve consideration of policy options and policy formation while being cognisant of the changing nature of science and the increasingly complex interaction between science and policy formation. These issues confront all sectors of the public service.

It is important to separate as far as possible the role of expert knowledge generation and evaluation from the role of those charged with policy formation. Equally, it is important to distinguish clearly between the application of scientific advice for policy formation (‘science for policy’) and the formation of policy for the operation of the Crown’s science and innovation system, including funding allocation (‘policy for science’).

This paper is concerned with the former. A purely technocratic model of policy formation is not appropriate in that knowledge is not, and cannot be, the sole determinant of how policy is developed. We live in a democracy, and governments have the responsibility to integrate dimensions beyond that covered in this paper into policy formation, including societal values, public opinion, affordability and diplomatic considerations while accommodating political processes….”

Twitter http://twitter.com/eqpaho

[EQ] Towards better use of evidence in policy formation

Towards better use of evidence in policy formation:
a discussion paper

Sir Peter Gluckman KNZM FRSNZ FRS- Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister

April 2011 - OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER’S SCIENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE - New Zealand

Available online PDF [17p.] at: http://bit.ly/kgXImv

“….The public good is undoubtedly advanced by knowledge-informed policy formation, evaluation and implementation.

Twitter http://twitter.com/eqpaho

[EQ] Interventions Encouraging The Use of Systematic Reviews by Health Policymakers and Managers

Interventions Encouraging The Use of Systematic Reviews by Health Policymakers and Managers:
A Systematic Review

Laure Perrier, Kelly Mrklas, John N. Lavis and Sharon E. Straus

1Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital; Office of Continuing Education and Professional Development, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

2Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada

3McMaster Health Forum, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Political Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

4Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto; Keenan Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada

Implementation Science – 27 April 2011, 6:43 doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-43

Available online at: http://bit.ly/kgXImv

Systematic reviews have the potential to inform decisions made by health policymakers and managers, yet little is known about the impact of interventions to increase the use of systematic reviews by these groups in decision-making.

Methods

We systematically reviewed the evidence on the impact of interventions for seeking, appraising, and applying evidence from systematic reviews in decision-making by health policymakers or managers. Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Methodology Register, Health Technology Assessment Database, and LISA were searched from the earliest date available until April 2010. Two independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion if the intervention intended to increase seeking, appraising, or applying evidence from systematic reviews by a health policymaker or manager. Minimum inclusion criteria were a description of the study population and availability of extractable data.

Results

11,297 titles and abstracts were reviewed leading to retrieval of 37 full-text articles for assessment; four of these articles met all inclusion criteria. Three articles described one study where five systematic reviews were mailed to public health officials and followed up with surveys at three months and two years. The articles reported from 23% to 63% of respondents declaring they had used systematic reviews in policymaking decisions. One randomised trial indicated that tailored messages combined with access to a registry of systematic reviews had a significant effect on policies made in the area of healthy body weight promotion in health departments.

Conclusions

The limited empirical data renders the strength of evidence weak for the effectiveness and the types of interventions that encourage health policymakers and managers to use systematic reviews in decision making….”

Twitter http://twitter.com/eqpaho