Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37095484›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2023

Dissemination of public health research to prevent non-communicable diseases: a scoping review.

Heidi Turon, Luke Wolfenden, Meghan Finch, Sam McCrabb, Shaan Naughton, Sean R O'Connor, Ana Renda, Emily Webb, Emma Doherty, Eloise Howse and 5 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Heidi TuronSchool of Medicine and Public Health, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia. Heidi.turon@health.nsw.gov.au.
Luke WolfendenSchool of Medicine and Public Health, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Meghan FinchSchool of Medicine and Public Health, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Sam McCrabbSchool of Medicine and Public Health, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Shaan NaughtonGlobal Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, Institute for Health Transformation, School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, 3220, Australia.
Sean R O'ConnorSchool of Psychology, Queen's University Belfast, Malone Road, Belfast, BT9 5BN, Northern Ireland.
Ana RendaSchool of Medicine and Public Health, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Emily WebbSchool of Medicine and Public Health, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Emma DohertySchool of Medicine and Public Health, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Eloise HowseThe Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, Sax Institute, Glebe, NSW, 2037, Australia.
Cheryce L HarrisonMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, 3168, Australia.
Penelope LoveFaculty of Health, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences (SENS), Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Natasha SmithSchool of Health Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, VIC, 3122, Australia.
Rachel SutherlandSchool of Medicine and Public Health, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Sze Lin YoongSchool of Medicine and Public Health, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDissemination is a critical element of the knowledge translation pathway, and a necessary step to ensure research evidence is adopted and implemented by key end users in order to improve health outcomes. However, evidence-based guidance to inform dissemination activities in research is limited. This scoping review aimed to identify and describe the scientific literature examining strategies to disseminate public health evidence related to the prevention of non-communicable diseases.

methodsMedline, PsycInfo and EBSCO Search Ultimate were searched in May 2021 for studies published between January 2000 and the search date that reported on the dissemination of evidence to end users of public health evidence, within the context of the prevention of non-communicable diseases. Studies were synthesised according to the four components of Brownson and colleagues' Model for Dissemination of Research (source, message, channel and audience), as well as by study design.

resultsOf the 107 included studies, only 14% (n = 15) directly tested dissemination strategies using experimental designs. The remainder primarily reported on dissemination preferences of different populations, or outcomes such as awareness, knowledge and intentions to adopt following evidence dissemination. Evidence related to diet, physical activity and/or obesity prevention was the most disseminated topic. Researchers were the source of disseminated evidence in over half the studies, and study findings/knowledge summaries were more frequently disseminated as the message compared to guidelines or an evidence-based program/intervention. A broad range of dissemination channels were utilised, although peer-reviewed publications/conferences and presentations/workshops predominated. Practitioners were the most commonly reported target audience.

conclusionsThere is a significant gap in the peer reviewed literature, with few experimental studies published that analyse and evaluate the effect of different sources, messages and target audiences on the determinants of uptake of public health evidence for prevention. Such studies are important as they can help inform and improve the effectiveness of current and future dissemination practices in public health contexts.

Indexed as

Health CommunicationNoncommunicable DiseasesPublic Health Systems ResearchHumansInformation DisseminationPublic HealthDisseminationNon-communicable diseasePreventionPublic healthScoping review

Identifiers

PMID37095484
PMCPMC10123991

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.