Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5B 1T8, Canada.
Epidemiology Division, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 6th Floor, 155 College St, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 3M7, Canada.
Implement Sci. 2018 Feb 12;13(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0717-x.
It is unclear how to engage a wide range of knowledge users in research. We aimed to map the evidence on engaging knowledge users with an emphasis on policy-makers, health system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process through a scoping review.
We used the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for scoping reviews. Nine electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE), two grey literature sources (e.g., OpenSIGLE), and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews were searched from 1996 to August 2016. We included any type of study describing strategies, barriers and facilitators, or assessing the impact of engaging policy-makers, health system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process. Screening and data abstraction were conducted by two reviewers independently with a third reviewer resolving discrepancies. Frequency and thematic analyses were conducted.
After screening 8395 titles and abstracts followed by 394 full-texts, 84 unique documents and 7 companion reports fulfilled our eligibility criteria. All 84 documents were published in the last 10 years, and half were prepared in North America. The most common type of knowledge synthesis with knowledge user engagement was a systematic review (36%). The knowledge synthesis most commonly addressed an issue at the level of national healthcare system (48%) and focused on health services delivery (17%) in high-income countries (86%). Policy-makers were the most common (64%) knowledge users, followed by healthcare professionals (49%) and government agencies as well as patients and caregivers (34%). Knowledge users were engaged in conceptualization and design (49%), literature search and data collection (52%), data synthesis and interpretation (71%), and knowledge dissemination and application (44%). Knowledge users were most commonly engaged as key informants through meetings and workshops as well as surveys, focus groups, and interviews either in-person or by telephone and emails. Knowledge user content expertise/awareness was a common facilitator (18%), while lack of time or opportunity to participate was a common barrier (12%).
Knowledge users were most commonly engaged during the data synthesis and interpretation phases of the knowledge synthesis conduct. Researchers should document and evaluate knowledge user engagement in knowledge synthesis.
Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/4dy53/ ).
目前尚不清楚如何让广泛的知识使用者参与到研究中。我们旨在通过范围综述，重点描述将决策者、卫生系统管理者和政策分析人员纳入知识综合过程中的知识使用者，并对其进行分析。
我们使用了乔安娜·布里格斯研究所（Joanna Briggs Institute）的范围综述指南。从 1996 年到 2016 年 8 月，我们在 9 个电子数据库（如 MEDLINE）、2 个灰色文献来源（如 OpenSIGLE）和相关系统综述的参考文献列表中进行了搜索。我们纳入了任何类型的研究，这些研究描述了将决策者、卫生系统管理者和政策分析人员纳入知识综合过程中的策略、障碍和促进因素，或评估其影响。筛查和数据提取由两名审查员独立进行，第三名审查员解决差异。我们进行了频率和主题分析。
在筛选了 8395 篇标题和摘要，以及 394 篇全文之后，有 84 篇独特的文献和 7 篇相关报告符合我们的入选标准。所有 84 篇文献均发表于过去 10 年，其中一半来自北美。最常见的知识综合类型是系统综述（36%）。知识综合最常针对国家医疗体系层面的问题（48%），并侧重于高收入国家的卫生服务提供（17%）。决策者是最常见的（64%）知识使用者，其次是医疗保健专业人员（49%）以及政府机构以及患者和护理人员（34%）。知识使用者主要参与概念化和设计（49%）、文献搜索和数据收集（52%）、数据综合和解释（71%）以及知识传播和应用（44%）。知识使用者最常作为主要信息提供者通过会议和研讨会以及调查、焦点小组和访谈的方式参与，这些访谈既可以面对面进行，也可以通过电话和电子邮件进行。知识用户的专业知识/意识是常见的促进因素（18%），而缺乏参与的时间或机会是常见的障碍（12%）。
知识使用者最常参与知识综合的数据分析和解释阶段。研究人员应记录和评估知识综合中的知识使用者参与情况。
开放科学框架（https://osf.io/4dy53/）。
