Lessons learned from descriptions and evaluations of knowledge translation platforms supporting evidence-informed policy
- PDF / 1,204,190 Bytes
- 22 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 54 Downloads / 221 Views
(2020) 18:127
RESEARCH
Open Access
Lessons learned from descriptions and evaluations of knowledge translation platforms supporting evidence-informed policy-making in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review Arun C. R. Partridge1* , Cristián Mansilla2, Harkanwal Randhawa3, John N. Lavis4,5, Fadi El-Jardali6 and Nelson K. Sewankambo7*
Abstract Background: Knowledge translation (KT) platforms are organisations, initiatives and networks that focus on supporting evidence-informed policy-making at least in part about the health-system arrangements that determine whether the right programmes, services and products get to those who need them. Many descriptions and evaluations of KT platforms in low- and middle-income countries have been produced but, to date, they have not been systematically reviewed. Methods: We identified potentially relevant studies through a search of five electronic databases and a variety of approaches to identify grey literature. We used four criteria to select eligible empirical studies. We extracted data about seven characteristics of included studies and about key findings. We used explicit criteria to assess study quality. In synthesising the findings, we gave greater attention to themes that emerged from multiple studies, higher-quality studies and different contexts. Results: Country was the most common jurisdictional focus of KT platforms, EVIPNet the most common name and high turnover among staff a common infrastructural feature. Evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues were the activities/outputs that were the most extensively studied and viewed as helpful, while rapid evidence services were the next most studied but only in a single jurisdiction. None of the summative evaluations used a pre–post design or a control group and, with the exception of the evaluations of the influence of briefs and dialogues on intentions to act, none of the evaluations achieved a high quality score. (Continued on next page)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; [email protected] 1 Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada 7 Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics Unit, Department of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda Full list of author information is available at the end of the article © The Author(s). 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted us
Data Loading...
