Dissemination of knowledge from Cochrane Public Health reviews: a bibliographic study

被引:3
作者
Helmer, Stefanie Maria [1 ,2 ]
Matthias, Katja [3 ]
Mergenthal, Lea [4 ]
Reimer, Mia [4 ]
De Santis, Karina Karolina [2 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Bremen, Fac Human & Hlth Sci 11, Inst Publ Hlth & Nursing Res, Grazer Str 4, D-28359 Bremen, Germany
[2] Cochrane Publ Hlth Europe, Bremen, Germany
[3] Univ Appl Sci Stralsund, Fac Elect Engn & Comp Sci, Stralsund, Germany
[4] Leibniz Inst Prevent Res & Epidemiol, Dept Prevent & Evaluat, BIPS, Bremen, Germany
关键词
Dissemination; Knowledge translation; Stakeholder; Systematic review; Cochrane; Public health; Meta-research; Bibliographic study; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS; OPPORTUNITIES; INFORMATION; POLICY;
D O I
10.1186/s13643-023-02272-8
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background Appropriate dissemination of public health evidence is of high importance to ensure that scientific knowledge reaches potential stakeholders and relevant population groups. A wide distrust towards science and its findings indicates that communication thereof remains below its potential. Cochrane Public Health provides an important source of high-quality scientific evidence in the field of public health via reviews with systematic methodology. The aims of this study were to identify (1) dissemination strategies and (2) stakeholders of Cochrane Public Health reviews. Methods This is a bibliographic study with a cross-sectional design. All 68 records (reviews or review protocols) listed on the Cochrane Public Health website (https://ph.cochrane.org/cph-reviews-and-topics) up to 8 March 2022 were included. Record characteristics, dissemination strategies, and potential stakeholder details were coded by one author, and 10% of records were checked by another author. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics or narratively into common themes. Results The 68 records were published between 2010 and 2022 and included 15 review protocols and 53 reviews with systematic methodology (46 systematic, 6 rapid, and 1 scoping review). All 53 reviews were disseminated via open-access plain language summaries (PLS) in English with translations into 3-13 other languages. Other dissemination strategies included information on Cochrane websites (e.g., clinical answers or guidelines) available for 41/53 reviews and Cochrane news or blogs that mentioned 19/53 reviews. Overall, 23/68 records mentioned the actual stakeholder involvement in review production, protocol development, or formulation of dissemination plans. The potential stakeholders included several highly diverse groups, such as the general population or specific communities (e.g., racial minority groups), policy and decision makers, and researchers and professionals in various fields (e.g., nutrition, physical activity, education, or care). Conclusions This study shows that Cochrane Public Health reviews are disseminated predominantly via PLS in different languages and via review information on Cochrane websites. Planned dissemination strategies were rarely reported although actual stakeholders were involved in the planning and production of some reviews. The relevance of Cochrane Public Health reviews for non-academic stakeholders and the general population highlights the need for the dissemination of evidence from such reviews beyond academia. Systematic review registration The study was prospectively registered at the Open Science Framework (https://osf. io/ga9pt/).
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 32 条
  • [1] Understanding evidence: a statewide survey to explore evidence-informed public health decision-making in a local government setting
    Armstrong, Rebecca
    Waters, Elizabeth
    Moore, Laurence
    Dobbins, Maureen
    Pettman, Tahna
    Burns, Cate
    Swinburn, Boyd
    Anderson, Laurie
    Petticrew, Mark
    [J]. IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE, 2014, 9 : 188
  • [2] Strategies for effective dissemination of research to United States policymakers: a systematic review
    Ashcraft, Laura Ellen
    Quinn, Deirdre A.
    Brownson, Ross C.
    [J]. IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE, 2020, 15 (01)
  • [3] Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice
    Baker, Richard
    Camosso-Stefinovic, Janette
    Gillies, Clare
    Shaw, Elizabeth J.
    Cheater, Francine
    Flottorp, Signe
    Robertson, Noelle
    Wensing, Michel
    Fiander, Michelle
    Eccles, Martin P.
    Godycki-Cwirko, Maciek
    van Lieshout, Jan
    Jaeger, Cornelia
    [J]. COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2015, (04):
  • [4] Evidence-based information needs of public health workers: a systematized review
    Barr-Walker, Jill
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, 2017, 105 (01) : 69 - 79
  • [5] Dissemination 2.0: Closing the Gap Between Knowledge and Practice With New Media and Marketing
    Bernhardt, Jay M.
    Mays, Darren
    Kreuter, Matthew W.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF HEALTH COMMUNICATION, 2011, 16 : 32 - 44
  • [6] Getting the Word Out: New Approaches for Disseminating Public Health Science
    Brownson, Ross C.
    Eyler, Amy A.
    Harris, Jenine K.
    Moore, Justin B.
    Tabak, Rachel G.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH MANAGEMENT AND PRACTICE, 2018, 24 (02) : 102 - 111
  • [7] Designing for Dissemination Among Public Health Researchers: Findings From a National Survey in the United States
    Brownson, Ross C.
    Jacobs, Julie A.
    Tabak, Rachel G.
    Hoehner, Christine M.
    Stamatakis, Katherine A.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2013, 103 (09) : 1693 - 1699
  • [8] No difference in knowledge obtained from infographic or plain language summary of a Cochrane systematic review: three randomized controlled trials
    Buljan, Ivan
    Malicki, Mario
    Wager, Elizabeth
    Puljak, Livia
    Hren, Darko
    Kellie, Frances
    West, Helen
    Alfirevic, Zarko
    Marusic, Ana
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2018, 97 : 86 - 94
  • [9] Cochrane, MILL LIV COULD BE SA
  • [10] Cochrane Covenes, PREP RESP GLOB HLTH