School of Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, 2318, Australia.
Hunter New England Population Health, Locked Bag 10, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2022 Jan 31;20(1):15. doi: 10.1186/s12961-022-00817-2.
Greater use of knowledge translation (KT) strategies is recommended to improve the research impact of public health trials. The purpose of this study was to describe (1) the research impact of setting-based public health intervention trials on public health policy and practice; (2) the association between characteristics of trials and their research impact on public health policy and practice; and (3) the association between the use of KT strategies and research impacts on public health policy and practice.
We conducted a survey of authors of intervention trials targeting nutrition, physical activity, sexual health, tobacco, alcohol or substance use. We assessed the use of KT strategies aligned to domains of the Knowledge-To-Action Framework. We defined "research impact" on health policy and practice as any one or more of the following: citation in policy documents or announcements, government reports, training materials, guidelines, textbooks or court rulings; or endorsement by a (non)governmental organization; use in policy or practice decision-making; or use in the development of a commercial resource or service.
Of the included trials, the authors reported that 65% had one or more research impacts. The most frequently reported research impact was citation in a policy document or announcement (46%). There were no significant associations between the effectiveness of the intervention, trial risk of bias, setting or health risk and trial impact. However, for every one unit increase in the total KT score (range 0-8), reflecting greater total KT activity, the odds of a health policy or practice research impact increased by approximately 30% (OR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.66; p = 0.031). Post hoc examination of KT domain scores suggests that KT actions focused on providing tailored support to facilitate program implementation and greater use of research products and tools to disseminate findings to end-users may be most influential in achieving impact.
Trials of public health interventions frequently have public health impacts, and the use of more comprehensive KT strategies may facilitate greater research impact.
为提高公共卫生试验的研究影响力,建议更多地采用知识转化(KT)策略。本研究旨在描述:(1)基于环境的公共卫生干预试验对公共卫生政策和实践的研究影响力;(2)试验特征与对公共卫生政策和实践的研究影响力之间的关联;(3)KT 策略的使用与对公共卫生政策和实践的研究影响力之间的关联。
我们对以营养、身体活动、性健康、烟草、酒精或物质使用为目标的干预试验的作者进行了调查。我们评估了与知识转化行动框架领域一致的 KT 策略的使用情况。我们将对健康政策和实践的“研究影响力”定义为以下一种或多种情况:在政策文件或公告、政府报告、培训材料、指南、教科书或法庭裁决中被引用;或得到(非)政府组织的认可;在政策或实践决策中被使用;或用于开发商业资源或服务。
在所纳入的试验中,作者报告称有 65%的试验具有一项或多项研究影响力。最常报告的研究影响力是在政策文件或公告中被引用(46%)。干预效果、试验偏倚风险、环境或健康风险与试验影响力之间没有显著关联。然而,KT 总分每增加一个单位(范围 0-8),反映出 KT 活动总量增加,健康政策或实践研究影响力的几率就会增加约 30%(OR=1.30,95%CI:1.02,1.66;p=0.031)。对 KT 领域得分的事后检验表明,重点提供定制支持以促进项目实施、更多地利用研究成果和工具向最终用户传播研究结果的 KT 行动可能最有助于实现影响力。
公共卫生干预试验经常具有公共卫生影响力,并且使用更全面的 KT 策略可能会促进更大的研究影响力。