8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A deliberative dialogue as a knowledge translation strategy on road traffic injuries in Burkina Faso: a mixed-method evaluation

      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

          Introduction

          Deliberative dialogues are increasingly being used, particularly on the African continent. They are a promising interactive knowledge translation strategy that brings together and leverages the knowledge of diverse stakeholders important to the resolution of a societal issue. Following a research project carried out in Burkina Faso on road traffic injuries, a 1-day workshop in the form of a deliberative dialogue was organised in November 2015. The workshop brought together actors involved in road safety, such as researchers, police and fire brigades, health professionals, non-governmental and civil society organisations, and representatives of government structures. The objective was to present the research results, propose recommendations to improve the situation and develop a collective action plan.

          Method

          To better understand the workshop’s utility and effects, a mixed-method evaluation was conducted. Data were obtained from two questionnaires distributed at the end of the workshop ( n = 37) and 14 qualitative interviews with participants 6–10 weeks after the workshop. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the quantitative data, and a thematic analysis was conducted for the qualitative data.

          Results

          The data revealed several positive impacts of the workshop, such as the acquisition of new knowledge about road safety, the opportunity for participants to learn from each other, the creation of post-workshop collaborations, and individual behaviour changes. However, several challenges were encountered that constrained the potential effects of the workshop, including the limited presence of political actors, the lack of engagement among participants to develop an action plan, and the difficulty in setting up a monitoring committee following the workshop.

          Conclusion

          While the deliberative workshop is not the standard format for reporting research results in Burkina Faso, this model should be reproduced in different contexts. This interactive knowledge translation strategy is useful to benefit from the experiential knowledge of the various actors and to encourage their involvement in formulating recommendations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Stakeholder analysis: a review.

          R. Brugha (2000)
          The growing popularity of stakeholder analysis reflects an increasing recognition of how the characteristics of stakeholders--individuals, groups and organizations--influence decision-making processes. This paper reviews the origins and uses of stakeholder analysis, as described in the policy, health care management and development literature. Its roots are in the political and policy sciences, and in management theory where it has evolved into a systematic tool with clearly defined steps and applications for scanning the current and future organizational environment. Stakeholder analysis can be used to generate knowledge about the relevant actors so as to understand their behaviour, intentions, interrelations, agendas, interests, and the influence or resources they have brought--or could bring--to bear on decision-making processes. This information can then be used to develop strategies for managing these stakeholders, to facilitate the implementation of specific decisions or organizational objectives, or to understand the policy context and assess the feasibility of future policy directions. Policy development is a complex process which frequently takes place in an unstable and rapidly changing context, subject to unpredictable internal and external factors. As a cross-sectional view of an evolving picture, the utility of stakeholder analysis for predicting and managing the future is time-limited and it should be complemented by other policy analysis approaches.
            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: not found

              Which public and why deliberate?--A scoping review of public deliberation in public health and health policy research.

              Deliberative methods are of increasing interest to public health researchers and policymakers. We systematically searched the peer-reviewed literature to identify public health and health policy research involving deliberative methods and report how deliberative methods have been used. We applied a taxonomy developed with reference to health policy and science and technology studies literatures to distinguish how deliberative methods engage different publics: citizens (ordinary people who are unfamiliar with the issues), consumers (those with relevant personal experience e.g. of illness) and advocates (those with technical expertise or partisan interests). We searched four databases for empirical studies in English published 1996-2013. This identified 78 articles reporting on 62 distinct events from the UK, USA, Canada, Australasia, Europe, Israel, Asia and Africa. Ten different types of deliberative techniques were used to represent and capture the interests and preferences of different types of public. Citizens were typically directed to consider community interests and were treated as a resource to increase democratic legitimacy. Citizens were preferred in methodological studies (those focused on understanding the techniques). Consumers were directed to focus on personal preferences; thus convened not as a source of policy decisions, but of knowledge about what those affected by the issue would accept. Advocates-who are most commonly used as expert witnesses in juries-were sometimes engaged to deliberate with consumers or citizens. This almost always occurred in projects directly linked to policy processes. This suggests health policymakers may value deliberative methods as a way of understanding disagreement between perspectives. Overall however, the 'type' of public sought was often not explicit, and their role not specified. This review provides new insight into the heterogeneity and rising popularity of deliberative methods, and indicates a need for greater clarity regarding both the constitution of publics and the relative usefulness of different deliberative techniques.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                esther.mcsween-cadieux@umontreal.ca
                christian.dagenais@umontreal.ca
                valery.ridde@ird.fr
                Journal
                Health Res Policy Syst
                Health Res Policy Syst
                Health Research Policy and Systems
                BioMed Central (London )
                1478-4505
                20 November 2018
                20 November 2018
                2018
                : 16
                : 113
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2292 3357, GRID grid.14848.31, Department of Psychology, , University of Montreal, ; P.O. Box 6128, Centre-Ville Station, Montreal, QC H3C 3J7 Canada
                [2 ]ISNI 0000000122879528, GRID grid.4399.7, IRD (French Institute for Research on sustainable Development), CEPED (IRD-Université Paris Descartes), Universités Paris Sorbonne Cités, ERL INSERM SAGESUD, ; Paris, France
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2292 3357, GRID grid.14848.31, University of Montreal Public Health Research Institute (IRSPUM), ; 7101 Avenue du Parc, 3rd Floor, Montreal, QC H3N 1X9 Canada
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5403-0035
                Article
                388
                10.1186/s12961-018-0388-8
                6247528
                30458868
                a07234c2-5e4e-4eb9-b758-65d6e1c4457a
                © The Author(s). 2018

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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.

                History
                : 10 July 2018
                : 28 October 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000024, Canadian Institutes of Health Research;
                Award ID: ROH-115213
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Health & Social care
                deliberative workshop,knowledge translation,research dissemination,research utilisation,research use,evaluation,road safety,public health,burkina faso,west africa

                Comments

                Comment on this article