Faculty of Medicine, Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada.
VITAM Centre de Recherche sur la Santé Durable, CIUSSS de la Capitale Nationale, Québec, Canada.
PLoS One. 2023 Jul 25;18(7):e0289153. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289153. eCollection 2023.
Little is known about knowledge transfer with the public. We explored how citizens, physicians, and communication specialists understand knowledge transfer in public spaces such as libraries. The initial study aimed at evaluating the scaling up of a program on disseminating research findings on potentially inappropriate medication. Twenty-two citizen workshops were offered by 16 physicians and facilitated by 6 communication specialists to 322 citizens in libraries during spring 2019. We did secondary analysis using the recorded workshop discussions to explore the type of knowledge participants used. Participants described four kinds of knowledge: biomedical, sociocultural beliefs, value-based reasoning, and institutional knowledge. Biomedical knowledge included scientific evidence, research methods, clinical guidelines, and access to research outcomes. Participants discussed beliefs in scientific progress, innovative clinical practices, and doctors' behaviours. Participants discussed values related to reliability, transparency, respect for patient autonomy and participation in decision-making. All categories of participants used these four kinds of knowledge. However, their descriptions varied particularly for biomedical knowledge which was described by physician-speakers and communication specialists-facilitators as scientific evidence, epidemiological and clinical practice guidelines, and pathophysiological theories. Communication specialists-facilitators also described scientific journalistic sources and scientific journalistic reports as proxies of scientific evidence. Citizens described biomedical knowledge in terms of knowledge to make informed decisions. These findings offer insights for future scientific knowledge exchange interventions with the public.
关于与公众的知识转移,我们知之甚少。我们探讨了公民、医生和传播专家如何理解图书馆等公共空间中的知识转移。最初的研究旨在评估一个传播潜在不适当药物研究结果的项目的扩大规模。2019 年春季,16 名医生为 322 名公民在图书馆举办了 22 个公民研讨会,并由 6 名传播专家协助。我们使用记录的研讨会讨论进行二次分析,以探讨参与者使用的知识类型。参与者描述了四种类型的知识:生物医学知识、社会文化信念、基于价值的推理和机构知识。生物医学知识包括科学证据、研究方法、临床指南和获取研究结果。参与者讨论了对科学进步、创新临床实践和医生行为的信念。参与者讨论了与可靠性、透明度、尊重患者自主权和参与决策相关的价值观。所有类别的参与者都使用了这四种类型的知识。然而,他们的描述因生物医学知识而有所不同,医生和传播专家描述了生物医学知识作为科学证据、流行病学和临床实践指南以及病理生理学理论。传播专家还将科学新闻来源和科学新闻报道描述为科学证据的代表。公民将生物医学知识描述为做出明智决策的知识。这些发现为未来与公众进行科学知识交流干预提供了见解。