4.6 Article

From research to evidence-informed decision making: a systematic approach

期刊

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 40, 期 -, 页码 I3-I12

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdx153

关键词

implementation science; knowledge translation; policy making; public health; science communication

资金

  1. European Union's Horizon research and innovation programme [680997]
  2. TRIAL [NTR5759]
  3. H2020 Societal Challenges Programme [680997] Funding Source: H2020 Societal Challenges Programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Knowledge creation forms an integral part of the knowledge-to-action framework aimed at bridging the gap between research and evidence-informed decision making. Although principles of science communication, data visualisation and user-centred design largely impact the effectiveness of communication, their role in knowledge creation is still limited. Hence, this article aims to provide researchers a systematic approach on how knowledge creation can be put into practice. Methods A systematic two-phased approach towards knowledge creation was formulated and executed. First, during a preparation phase the purpose and audience of the knowledge were defined. Subsequently, a developmental phase facilitated how the content is 'said' (language) and communicated (channel). This developmental phase proceeded via two pathways: a translational cycle and design cycle, during which core translational and design components were incorporated. The entire approach was demonstrated by a case study. Results The case study demonstrated how the phases in this systematic approach can be operationalised. It furthermore illustrated how created knowledge can be delivered. Conclusion The proposed approach offers researchers a systematic, practical and easy-to-implement tool to facilitate effective knowledge creation towards decision-makers in healthcare. Through the integration of core components of knowledge creation evidence-informed decision making will ultimately be optimized.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据