Knowledge translation of health research requires the synthesis, exchange, and application of knowledge to improve public health. Health promotion initiatives should use a comprehensive approach to disseminate research findings, which includes a variety of sources and forms of delivery; this supports effective knowledge translation and enhances the impact of research on public health policies and services. Surprisingly, only 50-65% of public health policies and programs in the United States and Europe are considered evidence-based (Dreisinger et al., 2008; Gibbert et al., 2013). This underscores the importance of open access so research is freely available to policy-makers and practitioners; optimizing communication methods of health evidence supports its use in decision-making to bridge the gap between research and practice. This post examines McCrabb et al.'s (2023) article "Disseminating health research to public health policy-makers and practitioners: A survey of source, message content, and delivery modality preferences."
McCrabb et al. (2023) describe how policy-makers and practitioners prefer to learn about health research in terms of source of evidence, content of messages, and form of messages. This Australian study used a value-weighting survey involving online cross-sectional data collection from May to October 2021. Participants allotted 100 points to different types of message sources (i.e., from whom the research is being disseminated), 100 points to message content usefulness metrics, and 100 points to delivery form preference.
Figure 1 shows the box plot of the perceived influence of the source of research evidence split by role. Except in the case of professional associations, who received on average fewer points by policy-makers compared with practitioners, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups. The mean scores of 143 participants revealed the rankings of the source of influence:
Researchers (mean score 21)
Government departments or agencies (mean score 14)
Knowledge brokers with expertise in research and policy practice (mean score 12)
Professional peers and colleagues (mean score 11)
Professional health associations (mean score 11)
Scientific societies or bodies (mean score 11)
Nongovernment, not for profit organizations (mean score 9)
Consumer groups or relevant individual patients, consumers, community members (mean score 7)
Nongovernment, for profit organizations or agencies (mean score 2)
Journalists (means score 2)
Figure 1
Box plot of the perceived influence of the source of research evidence split by role
The perceived usefulness of message content of research evidence split by role is shown in Figure 2. The rankings were similar across areas of expertise and there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups except evidence-based recommendations were scored lower by policy-makers. The mean scores for content characteristics and clarity of message from 141 participants revealed the rankings of message content usefulness:
Simple summary of key findings and implications (mean score 16)
Evidence-based recommendations for future course of action (mean score 14)
Data and statistical summaries or presentations describing the impact of health issue or intervention (mean score 13)
Description of alignment of the research evidence with a local policy or practice priority (mean score 10)
Assessment of the quality or certainty of the evidence (mean score 10)
Description of the health issue (mean score 9)
Detailed description of research methods and findings (mean score 8)
Assessment or description of (in)consistency of research findings with broader scientific literature (mean score 7)
Assessment or description of context in which evidence was generated (mean score 7)
Narrative story or testimonial about impact of health issue or intervention (mean score 6)
Figure 2
Box plot of the perceived usefulness of message content of research evidence split by role
The modality in which research evidence is disseminated has an impact on policy-makers and practitioners accessing and using the findings. Figure 3 shows the box plot of perceived influence of form of research evidence split by role. Again, the rankings were broadly similar regardless of expertise area. The only category with a statistically significant difference was policy briefs, which were preferred to a greater extent by policy-makers compared with practitioners. The delivery form preferences were evaluated by 141 participants to reveal the following rankings:
Peer-reviewed publications (mean score 22)
Reports (mean score 15)
Policy briefs (mean score 12)
Plain language summaries (mean score 12)
Infographics (mean score 8)
Decision support tools or resources (mean score 8)
Workshops or conferences (mean score 8)
Meetings (in person or technology enabled) (mean score 8)
Organizational websites (mean score 4)
Media (traditional or social) (mean score 3)
Figure 3
Box plot of perceived influence of form of research evidence split by role
Limitations of this study include a potential sampling bias and selection bias since participants were self-selected or identified through certain organizations. Relying on a convenience sample of Australian-based public health policy-makers and practitioners limits the generalizability of findings to other jurisdictions or settings. The geographic specificity may impact the applicability of the findings to healthcare systems and policies with different cultural contexts. The sample size is relatively small which also reduces the power to detect meaningful differences between policy-makers and practitioners. It is possible that self-reporting bias may be involved if the participants are influenced by social desirability or provide responses they believe are in alignment with the expectations of the researchers. The authors identified a limitation of the study being non-validated survey items and suggest future research involving validating the survey items to ensure the reliability and validity of the measures. Future research addressing these limitations could impact the robustness of the findings related to preferences in knowledge translation and evidence dissemination factors. Creating effective dissemination strategies requires knowledge of what key stakeholders find valuable and impactful. Improving knowledge translation enhances the adoption of evidence-based practice and development of evidence-informed policies.
Dresinger, M., Leet, T.L., Baker, E.A., Gillespie, K.N., Haas, B. & Brownson, R.C. (2008). Improving the public health workforce: Evaluation of a training course to enhance evidence-based decision-making. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 14(2), 138-143.
Gibbert, W.S., Keating, S.M., Jacobs, J.A., Dodson, E., Baker, E., Diem, G., Giles, W., Gillespie, K., Grabauskas, V., Shatchkute, A. & Brownson, R.C. (2013). Training the workforce in evidence- based public health: An evaluation of impact among US and international practitioners. Preventing Chronic Disease, 10, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd10/130120
McCrabb, S., Hall, A., Milat, A., Bauman, A., Hodder, R., Mooney, K., Webb, E., Barnes, C., Yoong, S., Sutherland, R. & Wolfenden, L. (2023). Disseminating health research to public health policy-makers and practitioners: A survey of source, message content, and delivery modality preferences. Health Research Policy and Systems, 21(121), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-01066-7
Comments