plueme/wizJson huggingface dataset:
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2018 source: BMC 
title: Deconstructing knowledge brokering for commissioned rapid reviews: an observational study 
abstract:BackgroundKnowledge brokers are increasingly used by policy agencies, yet little is known about how they engage with policy-makers and facilitate discussions with them about their research needs. This study examines knowledge brokers’ behaviour in one-off interactions with policy-makers commissioning rapid reviews. It describes how knowledge brokers engage with policy-makers, build trust and gain agreement about the review’s parameters.MethodsWe observed and transcribed 15 structured knowledge brokering sessions and used line-by-line analysis to derive, test and refine a coding schedule. The final coding schedule was applied to all transcripts. We assigned 35 codes to three tasks identified in the data, namely eliciting information, exploring the policy context and negotiating the content of reviews.ResultsThe knowledge brokers we observed were skilled facilitators who built trust by their open stance, neutrality, and knowledge of research and policy contexts. Trust engendered an interplay of expertise in which review questions and scope were clarified and contextual factors evaluated. Negotiation about the content of the review focused on understanding how it would contribute to the policy process, comparing options and assessing feasibility. Key functions of knowledge brokers included eliciting and clarifying information, linking the review questions to the context and purpose, moving fluidly between policy and research perspectives, and weighing up review options against policy objectives. Four knowledge brokering roles were identified, namely diagnostic, facilitative, deliberative and interpretative.ConclusionsThis study identified ways in which knowledge brokers established rapport with policy-makers who commissioned reviews, enabled disclosure of essential information and explored contextual factors that affected the review’s purpose and intended use. Knowledge brokers were competent in the discourse and conventions of both policy and research and were skilled in negotiating complex policy and political environments, assisting policy-makers to evaluate options and craft a review proposal that was targeted, responsive and feasible. Mutuality, respect and an interplay of expertise were integral to the knowledge brokering process. Future research might usefully examine whether other rapid review programmes using knowledge brokers have similar results as well as the transferability of the four knowledge brokering roles to other contexts and settings.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2018 source: BMC 
title: Mental health research priorities in Australia: a consumer and carer agenda 
abstract:BackgroundThe perspectives of mental health consumers and carers are increasingly recognised as important to the development and conduct of research. However, research directions are still most commonly developed without consumer and carer input. This project aimed to establish priorities for mental health research driven by the views of consumers and carers in Australia.MethodThe project was conducted in two studies. Firstly, a face-to-face discussion forum held in the Australian Capital Territory (Study 1; n = 25), followed by a national online survey (Study 2; n = 70). Participants in both studies were members of the community who identified as a mental health consumer, carer or both. In Study 1, participants developed topics for mental health research in small group discussions, then voted on which topics, developed across all groups and sorted into thematic areas, were a priority. An online survey was developed from these research topics. Study 2 participants were asked to rate topics on a 5-point priority scale and rank the relative importance of the highest-rated topics.ResultsAt the forum, 79 topics were generated and grouped into 14 thematic areas. Votes on priorities were spread across a large number of topics, with the greatest overall support for research relating to integrating care that is sensitive to past experiences of trauma into mental health service delivery (trauma-informed care). Survey responses were similarly spread, with the majority of research topics rated as important by at least 50% of participants and no clear individual priorities for research identified. Amongst items rated as important by approximately 80% of participants, key research areas included the delivery of services, and consumer and carer involvement.ConclusionsAustralian mental health consumers and carers demonstrate a strong understanding of the mental health system and its inadequacies. Although clear specific priorities are difficult to establish, consistent areas of focus are services and the role consumers and carers can play in their improvement. However, for consumer and carer views to be at the forefront of research, it is important to regularly update research agendas and work in partnership across the whole research process.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2018 source: BMC 
title: Embracing complexity and uncertainty to create impact: exploring the processes and transformative potential of co-produced research through development of a social impact model 
abstract:The potential use, influence and impact of health research is seldom fully realised. This stubborn problem has caused burgeoning global interest in research aiming to address the implementation ‘gap’ and factors inhibiting the uptake of scientific evidence. Scholars and practitioners have questioned the nature of evidence used and required for healthcare, highlighting the complex ways in which knowledge is formed, shared and modified in practice and policy. This has led to rapid expansion, expertise and innovation in the field of knowledge mobilisation and funding for experimentation into the effectiveness of different knowledge mobilisation models. One approach gaining prominence involves stakeholders (e.g. researchers, practitioners, service users, policy-makers, managers and carers) in the co-production, and application, of knowledge for practice, policy and research (frequently termed integrated knowledge translation in Canada). Its popularity stems largely from its potential to address dilemmas inherent in the implementation of knowledge generated using more reductionist methods. However, despite increasing recognition, demands for co-produced research to illustrate its worth are becoming pressing while the means to do so remain challenging. This is due not only to the diversity of approaches to co-production and their application, but also to the ways through which different stakeholders conceptualise, measure, reward and use research. While research co-production can lead to demonstrable benefits such as policy or practice change, it may also have more diffuse and subtle impact on relationships, knowledge sharing, and in engendering culture shifts and research capacity-building. These relatively intangible outcomes are harder to measure and require new emphases and tools. This opinion paper uses six Canadian and United Kingdom case studies to explore the principles and practice of co-production and illustrate how it can influence interactions between research, policy and practice, and benefit diverse stakeholders. In doing so, we identify a continuum of co-production processes. We propose and illustrate the use of a new ‘social model of impact’ and framework to capture multi-layered and potentially transformative impacts of co-produced research. We make recommendations for future directions in research co-production and impact measurement.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2018 source: BMC 
title: Application of the i-PARIHS framework for enhancing understanding of interactive dissemination to achieve wide-scale improvement in Indigenous primary healthcare 
abstract:BackgroundParticipatory research approaches improve the use of evidence in policy, programmes and practice. Few studies have addressed ways to scale up participatory research for wider system improvement or the intensity of effort required. We used the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework to analyse implementation of an interactive dissemination process engaging stakeholders with continuous quality improvement (CQI) data from Australian Indigenous primary healthcare centres. This paper reports lessons learnt about scaling knowledge translation research, facilitating engagement at a system level and applying the i-PARIHS framework to a system-level intervention.MethodsDrawing on a developmental evaluation of our dissemination process, we conducted a post-hoc analysis of data from project records and interviews with 30 stakeholders working in Indigenous health in different roles, organisation types and settings in one Australian jurisdiction and with national participants. Content-analysed data were mapped onto the i-PARIHS framework constructs to examine factors contributing to the success (or otherwise) of the process.ResultsThe dissemination process achieved wide reach, with stakeholders using aggregated CQI data to identify system-wide priority evidence–practice gaps, barriers and strategies for improvement across the scope of care. Innovation characteristics influencing success were credible data, online dissemination and recruitment through established networks, research goals aligned with stakeholders’ interest in knowledge-sharing and motivation to improve care, and iterative phases of reporting and feedback. The policy environment and infrastructure for CQI, as well as manager support, influenced participation. Stakeholders who actively facilitated organisational- and local-level engagement were important for connecting others with the data and with the externally located research team. Developmental evaluation was facilitative in that it supported real-time adaptation and tailoring to stakeholders and context.ConclusionsA participatory research process was successfully implemented at scale without intense facilitation efforts. These findings broaden the notion of facilitation and support the utility of the i-PARIHS framework for planning participatory knowledge translation research at a system level. Researchers planning similar interventions should work through established networks and identify organisational- or local-level facilitators within the research design. Further research exploring facilitation in system-level interventions and the use of interactive dissemination processes in other settings is needed.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2018 source: BMC 
title: An analysis of research priority-setting at the World Health Organization – how mapping to a standard template allows for comparison between research priority-setting approaches 
abstract:BackgroundA review of research priorities completed by WHO technical units was undertaken. Results of the mapping were recorded in a database that was used to generate analysis and compare research priorities and the different methodological approaches used in their development.MethodsA total of 116 documents were reviewed for this study. The documents were published between 2002 and 2017 by the technical programmes of WHO headquarters and deposited in the institutional repository, IRIS. Research priorities were extracted from documents into a standard template and mapped to a five-category research cycle type framework defined in the WHO Strategy on Research for Health covering research to describe the research problem, identifying the cause and risk factors, developing solutions and new interventions, understanding the barriers to implementation, and evaluation of the impact of response. Details of the research priority methods were recorded. A database with user interface was created using Microsoft Excel 2010.ResultsA total of 2145 research priorities were extracted from the 116 documents meeting the inclusion criteria. The priorities specifically address 73 diseases/health topics. The document types were 26% Report, 22% WHO Guideline, 26% Research Prioritisation publication and 11% Meeting Notes. The most widely reported method used to identify priorities was expert consultation. Expert consultation was used to identify 86% of the priorities categorised here, with 26% (561) reporting it as the sole method; 52% (1111) explicitly listed a literature review as contributing to the identification of priorities. When the 2145 priorities were categorised across the research cycle framework, the largest portion (43%) addressed implementation challenges. The database is published here under an open access licence.ConclusionComparing research priorities between diseases/health topics requires standardisation and the research cycle type framework is one approach that can be applied across all the health topics found in public health. There is great variation in the use of research priority-setting methodology at WHO Headquarters. Therefore, a standard reporting approach, linked to established good practice, should be an area for future development by the WHO Global Health R&D Observatory. The database reported here can also be used to quickly access and analyse the research priorities for a specific health topic or to compare across a range of health topics.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2018 source: BMC 
title: Budgeting for a billion: applying health technology assessment (HTA) for universal health coverage in India 
abstract:BackgroundIndia recently launched the largest universal health coverage scheme in the world to address the gaps in providing healthcare to its population. Health technology assessment (HTA) has been recognised as a tool for setting priorities as the government seeks to increase public health expenditure. This study aims to understand the current situation for healthcare decision-making in India and deliberate on the opportunities for introducing HTA in the country.MethodsA paper-based questionnaire, adapted from a survey developed by the International Decision Support Initiative (iDSI), was administered on the second day of the Topic Selection Workshop that was conducted as part of the HTA Awareness Raising Workshop held in New Delhi on 25–27 July, 2016. Participants were invited to respond to questions covering the need, demand and supply for HTA in their context as well as the role of their organisation vis-à-vis HTA. The response rate for the survey was about 68% with 41 participants having completed the survey.ResultsThree quarters of the respondents (71%) stated that the government allocated healthcare resources on the basis of expert opinion. Most respondents indicated reimbursement of individual health technologies and designing a basic health benefit package (93% each) were important health policy areas while medical devices and screening programmes were cited as important technologies (98% and 92%, respectively). More than half of the respondents noted that relevant local data was either not available or was limited. Finally, technical capacity was seen as a strength and a constraint facing organisations.ConclusionThe findings from this study shed light on the current situation, the opportunities, including potential topics, and challenges in conducting HTA in India. There are limitations to the study and further studies may need to be conducted to inform the role that HTA will play in the design or implementation of universal health coverage in India.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2018 source: BMC 
title: Healthy bi-regional connection: The EU-LAC Health initiative has promoted equitable and collaborative health research and innovation 
abstract:The European Union and Latin America and the Caribbean regions have enjoyed privileged relations since the first bi-regional Summit of Heads of State and Government, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1999, and the lunching of a Strategic Partnership. Health research stands as one of the major areas of research and development expenditure in both regions and has also been the focus of roughly 30% of all bilateral cooperation agreements and programmes.EU-LAC Health, a project funded by the European Union from 2011 to 2017, had the main objective to develop a consensus roadmap to enhance and coordinate the bi-regional collaboration between the European Union member states and Latin America and Caribbean countries in health research. From April 2013, EU-LAC Health has also supported the Working Group on Health created and designated by decision-makers at the highest political level to implement a bi-regional Join Initiative on Research and Innovation.This article collects and summarises the context, methodology (series of workshops, surveys and iterative deskwork by multiple bi-regional stakeholders) of this project, as well as the main outputs of (1) definition of a strategic roadmap, containing a scientific research agenda, to guide policy-makers in equitable and collaborative health research and innovation; (2) launching of the Joint Initiative on Health Research and Innovation, with the vision of being the reference body on the bi-regional health research and innovation collaboration; and (3) funding of 13 bi-regional health research and innovation projects.EU-LAC Health represents a successful example of bi-regional collaboration and the emerging networks and expertise gathered during the lifetime of the project have the potential to tackle common health challenges affecting the quality of life of citizens from the two regions and beyond. The project has also paved the way for more specific bi-regional initiatives such as a new initiative for bi-regional collaboration in personalised medicine that is being arranged by the partnership. Furthermore, it can inspire future initiatives for bi-regional research collaboration on other fields.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2018 source: BMC 
title: A deliberative dialogue as a knowledge translation strategy on road traffic injuries in Burkina Faso: a mixed-method evaluation 
abstract:IntroductionDeliberative dialogues are increasingly being used, particularly on the African continent. They are a promising interactive knowledge translation strategy that brings together and leverages the knowledge of diverse stakeholders important to the resolution of a societal issue. Following a research project carried out in Burkina Faso on road traffic injuries, a 1-day workshop in the form of a deliberative dialogue was organised in November 2015. The workshop brought together actors involved in road safety, such as researchers, police and fire brigades, health professionals, non-governmental and civil society organisations, and representatives of government structures. The objective was to present the research results, propose recommendations to improve the situation and develop a collective action plan.MethodTo better understand the workshop’s utility and effects, a mixed-method evaluation was conducted. Data were obtained from two questionnaires distributed at the end of the workshop (n = 37) and 14 qualitative interviews with participants 6–10 weeks after the workshop. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the quantitative data, and a thematic analysis was conducted for the qualitative data.ResultsThe data revealed several positive impacts of the workshop, such as the acquisition of new knowledge about road safety, the opportunity for participants to learn from each other, the creation of post-workshop collaborations, and individual behaviour changes. However, several challenges were encountered that constrained the potential effects of the workshop, including the limited presence of political actors, the lack of engagement among participants to develop an action plan, and the difficulty in setting up a monitoring committee following the workshop.ConclusionWhile the deliberative workshop is not the standard format for reporting research results in Burkina Faso, this model should be reproduced in different contexts. This interactive knowledge translation strategy is useful to benefit from the experiential knowledge of the various actors and to encourage their involvement in formulating recommendations.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2018 source: BMC 
title: Subjective judgements – no more, no less? A response to Malterud, Bjelland and Elvbakken 
abstract:In 2016, three researchers published a report where they concluded that systematic reviews from my institution, the Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, are of little use for health policy decision-making. Based on their reading of the conclusion section in 14 reports, they argue that our systematic reviews are not useful due to their lack of clear and conclusive findings. I have reviewed the same documents and I beg to differ. Unfortunately, the description of their methodological approach is both sparse and difficult to grasp, making it very hard to understand how they arrived at their conclusions.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2018 source: BMC 
title: An integrative review of potential enablers and barriers to accessing mental health services in Ghana 
abstract:IntroductionThe importance of accessible mental health treatment is a global concern, particularly when one in five people will experience a mental health problem in their lifespan. This is no less important in Ghana; however, no studies have yet attempted to appraise and synthesise the potential enablers and barriers to accessing services in Ghana. The aim of this integrative review is therefore to identify and synthesise existing evidence on the barriers and enablers to accessing mental health services in Ghana.MethodsA search of the published literature was conducted using Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL (EBSCO), Web of Science, and Scopus electronic databases. The search was limited to papers published in English and within 2000–2018. Using pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts of the retrieved papers. A data extraction form and a Critical Appraisal Checklist were used to extract and appraise data, respectively. The integrative review incorporates both qualitative and quantitative data into a single synthesis.ResultsOut of 42 papers that met the inclusion criteria, 50% used qualitative methods, 33.3% used mixed methods and 16.7% used quantitative methods alone. The potential barriers in accessing mental health services were attitudinal, knowledge about services, treatment cost, transportation and geographical proximity, as well as perceived efficacy of medication. Similarly, the health systems factors contributing to barriers were low priority, limited funding sources, irregular medicine supply, limited services for marginalised groups and poor state of psychiatric facilities, together with poor management of mental health cadres. The potential enablers for service users involved increased decentralisation and integration, task-shifting and existing support services.ConclusionThe existing evidence on mental health in Ghana is skewed towards weaknesses in the systems and stigma, with rationally little, or no, evidence or emphasis on the effectiveness, or quality of mental health services. These attributes largely neglect the provision of psychiatric services for marginalised mental health service user groups, including children, adolescents, people with disabilities and the elderly.