Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29433543›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2018

Engaging policy-makers, health system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process: a scoping review.

Andrea C Tricco, Wasifa Zarin, Patricia Rios, Vera Nincic, Paul A Khan, Marco Ghassemi, Sanober Diaz, Ba' Pham, Sharon E Straus, Etienne V Langlois

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 53 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
16.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 99 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Paper 2: Performing rapid reviews.Systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Strategies for involving patients and the public in scaling initiatives in health and social services: A scoping review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Andrea C TriccoLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5B 1T8, Canada. triccoa@smh.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-4114-8971
Wasifa ZarinLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5B 1T8, Canada.
Patricia RiosLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5B 1T8, Canada.
Vera NincicLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5B 1T8, Canada.
Paul A KhanLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5B 1T8, Canada.
Marco GhassemiLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5B 1T8, Canada.
Sanober DiazLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5B 1T8, Canada.
Ba' PhamLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5B 1T8, Canada.
Sharon E StrausDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 27 King's College Circle, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1A1, Canada.
Etienne V LangloisAlliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, World Health Organization, Avenue Appia 20, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland.
St. Michael's Hospital · CAUniversity of Toronto · CAWorld Health Organization · CH

Funding

Canada Research Chairs Tier 1Canada Research Chairs Tier 2World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt 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.

methodsWe 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.

resultsAfter 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%).

conclusionsKnowledge 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. REGISTRATION DETAILS: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/4dy53/ ).

Indexed as

Decision MakingHealth PolicyHealth Services AdministrationKnowledgePolicy MakingAdministrative PersonnelDelivery of Health CareHumansMaleEngagementHealth policyHealth systemKnowledge synthesisKnowledge translationKnowledge userPolicy-makerPolicy-relevantStakeholder

Identifiers

PMID29433543
PMCPMC5809959
OpenAlexW2801546261

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.