19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues: perceptions and intentions to act on what was learnt Translated title: : Translated title: Comptes rendus de preuves et reunions deliberatoires: perceptions et intentions d'agir sur ce qui a ete decouvert Translated title: : Translated title: : Translated title: Escritos de pruebas y dialogos deliberativos: percepciones y voluntad de actuar en base a lo aprendido

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective To develop and implement a method for the evaluation of “evidence briefs” and “deliberative dialogues” that could be applied to comparative studies of similar strategies used in the support of evidence-informed policy-making. Methods Participants who read evidence briefs and attended deliberative dialogues in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Uganda and Zambia were surveyed before the start of the dialogues – to collect their views on pre-circulated evidence briefs – and at the end of the dialogues – to collect their views on the dialogues. The respondents' assessments of the briefs and dialogues and the respondents' intentions to act on what they had learned were then investigated in descriptive statistical analyses and regression models. Findings Of the 530 individuals who read the evidence briefs and attended dialogues, 304 (57%) and 303 (57%) completed questionnaires about the briefs and dialogues, respectively. Respondents viewed the evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues – as well as each of their key features – very favourably, regardless of the country, issue or group involved. Overall, “not concluding with recommendations” and “not aiming for a consensus” were identified as the least helpful features of the briefs and dialogues, respectively. Respondents generally reported strong intentions to act on what they had learnt. Conclusion Although some aspects of their design may need to be improved or, at least, explained and justified to policy-makers and stakeholders, evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues appear to be highly regarded and to lead to intentions to act.

          Translated abstract

          Résumé Objectif Développer et mettre en œuvre une méthode pour évaluer les «comptes rendus de preuves» et les «réunions délibératoires», qui pourrait être appliquée aux études comparatives de stratégies similaires utilisées pour appuyer l'élaboration de politiques basée sur des données probantes. Méthodes Les participants qui ont lu des comptes rendus de preuves et qui ont assisté à des réunions délibératoires au Burkina Faso, au Cameroun, en Éthiopie, au Nigeria, en Ouganda et en Zambie ont été interrogés avant le début des réunions (pour recueillir leurs points de vue sur les comptes rendus de preuves déjà distribués) et à la fin des réunions (pour recueillir leurs points de vue sur leur contenu). Les évaluations des comptes rendus de preuves et des réunions des répondants, ainsi que les intentions des répondants d'agir sur ce qu'ils avaient appris ont ensuite été étudiées dans des analyses statistiques descriptives et des modèles de régression. Résultats Sur les 530 personnes qui ont lu les comptes rendus de preuves et qui ont assisté aux réunions délibératoires, 304 (57%) et 303 (57%) des répondants ont rempli des questionnaires sur les comptes rendus et sur les dialogues, respectivement. Les répondants ont perçu les comptes rendus de preuves et les réunions délibératoires (ainsi que chacune de leurs principales caractéristiques) de manière très favorable, quel que soit le pays, le sujet ou le groupe impliqué. Dans l'ensemble, les caractéristiques «aucune conclusion avec des recommandations» et «aucun objectif de consensus» ont été identifiées comme celles étant les moins utiles dans les comptes rendus et les réunions, respectivement. Les répondants ont généralement affirmé avoir une forte intention d'agir sur ce qu'ils avaient appris. Conclusion Bien que certains aspects de leur structure aient certainement besoin d'être améliorés ou, tout du moins, expliqués et justifiés auprès des décideurs politiques et des parties prenantes, les comptes rendus de preuves et les réunions délibératoires semblent être hautement considérés, mais aussi stimuler les intentions d'agir.

          Translated abstract

          Resumen Objetivo Desarrollar e implementar un método para evaluar los «escritos de pruebas» y los «diálogos deliberativos» que podrían aplicarse a los estudios comparativos de estrategias similares destinadas a apoyar las políticas basadas en pruebas. Métodos Se encuestó a los participantes que leyeron los escritos de pruebas y asistieron a diálogos deliberativos en Burkina Faso, Camerún, Etiopía, Nigeria, Uganda y Zambia antes del inicio de los diálogos a fin de recoger sus opiniones sobre los escritos de pruebas predistribuidos y, al término de los diálogos, recopilar sus puntos de vista sobre los mismos. Se examinaron las evaluaciones de los escritos y los diálogos de los encuestados, así como la voluntad de actuar en base a lo aprendido por parte de los encuestados en análisis estadísticos descriptivos y modelos de regresión. Resultados De las 530 personas que leyeron los escritos de pruebas y asistieron a los diálogos, 304 (57 %) y 303 (57 %) completaron cuestionarios sobre los escritos y diálogos, respectivamente. Los encuestados mostraron una opinión favorable sobre los escritos de pruebas y los diálogos deliberativos, así como de sus características principales, con independencia del país, tema o grupo involucrado. En general, las características menos útiles de los escritos y diálogos fueron «no concluye con recomendaciones» y «no aspira al consenso», respectivamente. Los encuestados, por lo general, señalaron su firme voluntad de actuar en base a lo aprendido. Conclusión Aunque ciertos aspectos del diseño quizá deben mejorarse o, como mínimo, explicarse y justificarse ante los responsables políticos y las partes interesadas, los escritos de pruebas y los diálogos deliberativos parecen gozar de gran reputación y fomentar la voluntad de actuar.

          Related collections

          Most cited references41

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 1: What is evidence-informed policymaking?

          This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. In this article, we discuss the following three questions: What is evidence? What is the role of research evidence in informing health policy decisions? What is evidence-informed policymaking? Evidence-informed health policymaking is an approach to policy decisions that aims to ensure that decision making is well-informed by the best available research evidence. It is characterised by the systematic and transparent access to, and appraisal of, evidence as an input into the policymaking process. The overall process of policymaking is not assumed to be systematic and transparent. However, within the overall process of policymaking, systematic processes are used to ensure that relevant research is identified, appraised and used appropriately. These processes are transparent in order to ensure that others can examine what research evidence was used to inform policy decisions, as well as the judgements made about the evidence and its implications. Evidence-informed policymaking helps policymakers gain an understanding of these processes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Deliberative dialogues as a mechanism for knowledge translation and exchange in health systems decision-making.

            Models that describe the key features and intended effects of specific knowledge translation and exchange (KTE) interventions are much less prominent than models that provide a more general understanding of KTE. Our aim was to develop a model in order to describe the key features and intended effects of deliberative dialogues used as a KTE strategy and to understand how deliberative dialogues can support evidence-informed policymaking. By using critical interpretive synthesis, we identified 17 papers representing four fields of enquiry and integrated our findings into a model. The key features described in the model are: 1) an appropriate (i.e., conducive to the particular dialogue) meeting environment; 2) an appropriate mix of participants; and, 3) an appropriate use of research evidence. These features combine to create three types of intended effects: 1) short-term individual-level; 3) medium-term community/organizational-level; and, 3) long-term system-level. The concept of capacity building helps to explain the relationship between features and effects. The model is a useful contribution to the KTE field because it is a practical tool that could be used to guide the development and evaluation of deliberative dialogues in order to understand more about achieving particular outcomes in relation to specific issues or contexts. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 13: Preparing and using policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking

              This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. Policy briefs are a relatively new approach to packaging research evidence for policymakers. The first step in a policy brief is to prioritise a policy issue. Once an issue is prioritised, the focus then turns to mobilising the full range of research evidence relevant to the various features of the issue. Drawing on available systematic reviews makes the process of mobilising evidence feasible in a way that would not otherwise be possible if individual relevant studies had to be identified and synthesised for every feature of the issue under consideration. In this article, we suggest questions that can be used to guide those preparing and using policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking. These are: 1. Does the policy brief address a high-priority issue and describe the relevant context of the issue being addressed? 2. Does the policy brief describe the problem, costs and consequences of options to address the problem, and the key implementation considerations? 3. Does the policy brief employ systematic and transparent methods to identify, select, and assess synthesised research evidence? 4. Does the policy brief take quality, local applicability, and equity considerations into account when discussing the synthesised research evidence? 5. Does the policy brief employ a graded-entry format? 6. Was the policy brief reviewed for both scientific quality and system relevance?
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Journal
                bwho
                Bulletin of the World Health Organization
                Bull World Health Organ
                World Health Organization (Genebra )
                0042-9686
                January 2014
                : 92
                : 1
                : 20-28
                Affiliations
                [1 ] McMaster University Canada
                [2 ] McMaster University Canada
                [3 ] McMaster University Canada
                [4 ] American University of Beirut Lebanon
                [5 ] Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile Chile
                Article
                S0042-96862014000100020
                10.2471/BLT.12.116806
                3865546
                24391297
                018e48c0-1833-4af9-bca5-b3e27829ec52

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History
                Product

                SciELO Public Health

                Self URI (journal page): http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?script=sci_serial&pid=0042-9686&lng=en
                Categories
                Health Policy & Services

                Public health
                Public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article