Cargando…
Indicators to evaluate organisational knowledge brokers: a scoping review
BACKGROUND: Knowledge translation (KT) is currently endorsed by global health policy actors as a means to improve outcomes by institutionalising evidence-informed policy-making. Organisational knowledge brokers, comprised of researchers, policy-makers and other stakeholders, are increasingly being u...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7444249/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32831095 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-00607-8 |
_version_ | 1783573772696027136 |
---|---|
author | Scarlett, Julia Forsberg, Birger C. Biermann, Olivia Kuchenmüller, Tanja El-Khatib, Ziad |
author_facet | Scarlett, Julia Forsberg, Birger C. Biermann, Olivia Kuchenmüller, Tanja El-Khatib, Ziad |
author_sort | Scarlett, Julia |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Knowledge translation (KT) is currently endorsed by global health policy actors as a means to improve outcomes by institutionalising evidence-informed policy-making. Organisational knowledge brokers, comprised of researchers, policy-makers and other stakeholders, are increasingly being used to undertake and promote KT at all levels of health policy-making, though few resources exist to guide the evaluation of these efforts. Using a scoping review methodology, we identified, synthesised and assessed indicators that have been used to evaluate KT infrastructure and capacity-building activities in a health policy context in order to inform the evaluation of organisational knowledge brokers. METHODS: A scoping review methodology was used. This included the search of Medline, Global Health and the WHO Library databases for studies regarding the evaluation of KT infrastructure and capacity-building activities between health research and policy, published in English from 2005 to 2016. Data on study characteristics, outputs and outcomes measured, related indicators, mode of verification, duration and/or frequency of collection, indicator methods, KT model, and targeted capacity level were extracted and charted for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1073 unique articles were obtained and 176 articles were qualified to be screened in full-text; 32 articles were included in the analysis. Of a total 213 indicators extracted, we identified 174 (174/213; 81.7%) indicators to evaluate the KT infrastructure and capacity-building that have been developed using methods beyond expert opinion. Four validated instruments were identified. The 174 indicators are presented in 8 domains based on an adaptation of the domains of the Lavis et al. framework of linking research to action – general climate, production of research, push efforts, pull efforts, exchange efforts, integrated efforts, evaluation and capacity-building. CONCLUSION: This review presents a total of 174 method-based indicators to evaluate KT infrastructure and capacity-building. The presented indicators can be used or adapted globally by organisational knowledge brokers and other stakeholders in their monitoring and evaluation work. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7444249 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-74442492020-08-26 Indicators to evaluate organisational knowledge brokers: a scoping review Scarlett, Julia Forsberg, Birger C. Biermann, Olivia Kuchenmüller, Tanja El-Khatib, Ziad Health Res Policy Syst Review BACKGROUND: Knowledge translation (KT) is currently endorsed by global health policy actors as a means to improve outcomes by institutionalising evidence-informed policy-making. Organisational knowledge brokers, comprised of researchers, policy-makers and other stakeholders, are increasingly being used to undertake and promote KT at all levels of health policy-making, though few resources exist to guide the evaluation of these efforts. Using a scoping review methodology, we identified, synthesised and assessed indicators that have been used to evaluate KT infrastructure and capacity-building activities in a health policy context in order to inform the evaluation of organisational knowledge brokers. METHODS: A scoping review methodology was used. This included the search of Medline, Global Health and the WHO Library databases for studies regarding the evaluation of KT infrastructure and capacity-building activities between health research and policy, published in English from 2005 to 2016. Data on study characteristics, outputs and outcomes measured, related indicators, mode of verification, duration and/or frequency of collection, indicator methods, KT model, and targeted capacity level were extracted and charted for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1073 unique articles were obtained and 176 articles were qualified to be screened in full-text; 32 articles were included in the analysis. Of a total 213 indicators extracted, we identified 174 (174/213; 81.7%) indicators to evaluate the KT infrastructure and capacity-building that have been developed using methods beyond expert opinion. Four validated instruments were identified. The 174 indicators are presented in 8 domains based on an adaptation of the domains of the Lavis et al. framework of linking research to action – general climate, production of research, push efforts, pull efforts, exchange efforts, integrated efforts, evaluation and capacity-building. CONCLUSION: This review presents a total of 174 method-based indicators to evaluate KT infrastructure and capacity-building. The presented indicators can be used or adapted globally by organisational knowledge brokers and other stakeholders in their monitoring and evaluation work. BioMed Central 2020-08-24 /pmc/articles/PMC7444249/ /pubmed/32831095 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-00607-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Review Scarlett, Julia Forsberg, Birger C. Biermann, Olivia Kuchenmüller, Tanja El-Khatib, Ziad Indicators to evaluate organisational knowledge brokers: a scoping review |
title | Indicators to evaluate organisational knowledge brokers: a scoping review |
title_full | Indicators to evaluate organisational knowledge brokers: a scoping review |
title_fullStr | Indicators to evaluate organisational knowledge brokers: a scoping review |
title_full_unstemmed | Indicators to evaluate organisational knowledge brokers: a scoping review |
title_short | Indicators to evaluate organisational knowledge brokers: a scoping review |
title_sort | indicators to evaluate organisational knowledge brokers: a scoping review |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7444249/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32831095 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-00607-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT scarlettjulia indicatorstoevaluateorganisationalknowledgebrokersascopingreview AT forsbergbirgerc indicatorstoevaluateorganisationalknowledgebrokersascopingreview AT biermannolivia indicatorstoevaluateorganisationalknowledgebrokersascopingreview AT kuchenmullertanja indicatorstoevaluateorganisationalknowledgebrokersascopingreview AT elkhatibziad indicatorstoevaluateorganisationalknowledgebrokersascopingreview |