Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Systematic Reviews
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research

Does knowledge brokering improve the quality of rapid review proposals? A before and after study

Authors: Gabriel Moore, Sally Redman, Catherine D’Este, Steve Makkar, Tari Turner

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Rapid reviews are increasingly being used to help policy makers access research in short time frames. A clear articulation of the review’s purpose, questions, scope, methods and reporting format is thought to improve the quality and generalisability of review findings. The aim of the study is to explore the effectiveness of knowledge brokering in improving the perceived clarity of rapid review proposals from the perspective of potential reviewers.
To conduct the study, we drew on the Evidence Check program, where policy makers draft a review proposal (a pre knowledge brokering proposal) and have a 1-hour session with a knowledge broker, who re-drafts the proposal based on the discussion (a post knowledge brokering proposal).

Methods

We asked 30 reviewers who had previously undertaken Evidence Check reviews to examine the quality of 60 pre and 60 post knowledge brokering proposals. Reviewers were blind to whether the review proposals they received were pre or post knowledge brokering.
Using a six-point Likert scale, reviewers scored six questions examining clarity of information about the review’s purpose, questions, scope, method and format and reviewers’ confidence that they could meet policy makers’ needs. Each reviewer was allocated two pre and two post knowledge brokering proposals, randomly ordered, from the 60 reviews, ensuring no reviewer received a pre and post knowledge brokering proposal from the same review.

Results

The results showed that knowledge brokering significantly improved the scores for all six questions addressing the perceived clarity of the review proposal and confidence in meeting policy makers’ needs; with average changes of 0.68 to 1.23 from pre to post across the six domains.

Conclusions

This study found that knowledge brokering increased the perceived clarity of information provided in Evidence Check rapid review proposals and the confidence of reviewers that they could meet policy makers’ needs. Further research is needed to identify how the knowledge brokering process achieves these improvements and to test the applicability of the findings in other rapid review programs.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Campbell DM, Redman S, Jorm L, Cooke M, Zwi AB, Rychetnik L. Increasing the use of evidence in health policy: practice and views of policy makers and researchers. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2009;6(1):21.CrossRef
2.
LaRocca RL. The effectiveness of knowledge translation strategies in public health. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:751.
3.
de Goede J, van Bon-Martens MJ, Putters K, van Oers HA. Looking for interaction: quantitative measurement of research utilization by Dutch local health officials. Health Res Policy Syst. 2012;10(9).
4.
Ellen ME, Léon G, Bouchard G, Ouimet M, Grimshaw JM, Lavis JN. Barriers, facilitators and views about next steps to implementing supports for evidence-informed decision-making in health systems: a qualitative study. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):179.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):1.CrossRef
6.
Ellen ME, Lavis JN, Wilson MG, Grimshaw J, Haynes RB, Ouimet M, Raina P, Gruen R. Health system decision makers’ feedback on summaries and tools supporting the use of systematic reviews: a qualitative study. Evid Policy. 2014;10(3):337–59.CrossRef
7.
Moat KA, Lavis JN, Abelson J. How contexts and issues influence the use of policy-relevant research syntheses: a critical interpretive synthesis. Milbank Q. 2013;91(3):604–48.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Kastner M, Tricco AC, Soobiah C, Lillie E, Perrier L, Horsley T, Welch V, Cogo E, Antony J, Straus SE. What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review? Protocol for a scoping review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12(1):114.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, Grimshaw J, Moher D. Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev. 2012;1:10.
10.
11.
Wilson MG, Lavis JN, Gauvin F-P. Developing a rapid-response program for health system decision-makers in Canada: findings from an issue brief and stakeholder dialogue. Syst Rev. 2015;4:25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
13.
Collins AMCD, Miller J, Kirk S. The production of quick scoping reviews and rapid evidence assessments: a how to guide. London: Joint Water Evidence Group; 2015.
14.
15.
16.
Peterson K, Floyd N, Ferguson L, Christensen V, Helfand M. User survey finds rapid evidence reviews increased uptake of evidence by Veterans Health Administration leadership to inform fast-paced health-system decision-making. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):132.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
18.
19.
20.
Thomas J, Newman M, Oliver S. Rapid evidence assessments of research to inform social policy: taking stock and moving forward. Evid Policy. 2013;9(1):5–27.CrossRef
21.
22.
Featherstone RM, Dryden DM, Foisy M, Guise J-M, Mitchell MD, Paynter RA, Robinson KA, Umscheid CA, Hartling L. Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews: an analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1–8.CrossRef
23.
Moore G, Redman S, Haines M, Todd A. What works to increase the use of research in population health policy and programmes: a review. Evid Policy. 2011;7(3):277–305.CrossRef
24.
Moore G, Redman S, Turner T, Haines M. Rapid reviews in health policy: a study of intended use in the New South Wales’ Evidence Check program. Evid Policy In press.
25.
Hammami H, Amara N, Landry R. Organizational climate and its influence on brokers’ knowledge transfer activities: a structural equation modeling. Int J Inf Manage. 2013;33(1):105–18.CrossRef
26.
Meagher L, Lyall C. The invisible made visible: using impact evaluations to illuminate and inform the role of knowledge intermediaries. Evid Policy. 2013;9(3):409–18.
27.
Dagenais C, Laurendeau M-C, Briand-Lamarche M. Knowledge brokering in public health: a critical analysis of the results of a qualitative evaluation. Eval Program Plann. 2015;53:10–7.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Dwan KM, McInnes PC. Increasing the influence of one’s research on policy. Aust Health Rev. 2013;37(2):194–8.PubMed
29.
Traynor R, DeCorby K, Dobbins M. Knowledge brokering in public health: a tale of two studies. Public Health. 2014;128(6):533–44.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Dobbins M, Robeson P, Ciliska D, Hanna S, Cameron R, O’Mara L, DeCorby K, Mercer S. A description of a knowledge broker role implemented as part of a randomized controlled trial evaluating three knowledge translation strategies. Implement Sci. 2009;4(23):1–9.
31.
Urquhart R, Porter GA, Grunfeld E. Reflections on knowledge brokering within a multidisciplinary research team. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2011;31(4):283–90.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Long JC, Cunningham FC, Braithwaite J. Bridges, brokers and boundary spanners in collaborative networks: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13(1):1–13.CrossRef
33.
Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. The theory and practice of knowledge brokering in Canada’s health system, vol. 25. Ottawa: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation; 2003.
34.
Frost H, Geddes R, Haw S, Jackson CA, Jepson R, Mooney JD, Frank J. Experiences of knowledge brokering for evidence-informed public health policy and practice: three years of the Scottish Collaboration for Public Health Research and Policy. Evid Policy. 2012;8(3):347–59.CrossRef
35.
Dobbins M, Hanna SE, Ciliska D, Manske S, Cameron R, Mercer SL, O’Mara L, DeCorby K, Robeson P. A randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of knowledge translation and exchange strategies. Implement Sci. 2009;4(1):61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
36.
Bornbaum CC, Kornas K, Peirson L, Rosella LC. Exploring the function and effectiveness of knowledge brokers as facilitators of knowledge translation in health-related settings: a systematic review and thematic analysis. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):1–12.CrossRef
37.
Campbell D, Donald B, Moore G, Frew D. Evidence check: knowledge brokering to commission research reviews for policy. Evid Policy. 2011;7(1):97–107.CrossRef
38.
39.
Holden RR. Face Validity. In: The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology. Hoboken: Wiley; 2010.
40.
Goldstein H. Multilevel statistical models. London: Edward Arnold; 1995.
41.
Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A. Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata Third Edition Volume I: Continuous Responses. edn. Texas: Stata Press; 2012.
42.
Makkar SR, Turner T, Williamson A, Louviere J, Redman S, Haynes A, Green S, Brennan S. The development of ORACLe: a measure of an organisation’s capacity to engage in evidence-informed health policy. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016;14(4).
Metadata
Title
Does knowledge brokering improve the quality of rapid review proposals? A before and after study
Authors
Gabriel Moore
Sally Redman
Catherine D’Este
Steve Makkar
Tari Turner
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0411-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Systematic Reviews 1/2017 Go to the issue

Commentary

O’Connor et al. systematic review regarding animal feeding operations and public health: critical flaws may compromise conclusions

Protocol

Protocol for a scoping review to map evidence from randomised controlled trials on paediatric eye disease to disease burden

Protocol

The effect of psychological interventions on the prevention of chronic pain in adults: a systematic review protocol

Protocol

Physical frailty and functional status in patients with advanced kidney disease: a protocol for a systematic review

Protocol

N of 1 trials and the optimal individualisation of drug treatments: a systematic review protocol

Research

A systematic review of neonatal treatment intensity scores and their potential application in low-resource setting hospitals for predicting mortality, morbidity and estimating resource use