PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
Appropriate dissemination of public health evidence is of high importance to ensure that scientific knowledge reaches potential stakeholders and relevant population groups. A wide distrust towards science and its findings indicates that communication thereof remains below its potential. Cochrane Public Health provides an important source of high-quality scientific evidence in the field of public health via reviews with systematic methodology. The aims of this study were to identify (1) dissemination strategies and (2) stakeholders of Cochrane Public Health reviews.
This is a bibliographic study with a cross-sectional design. All 68 records (reviews or review protocols) listed on the Cochrane Public Health website ( https://ph.cochrane.org/cph-reviews-and-topics ) up to 8 March 2022 were included. Record characteristics, dissemination strategies, and potential stakeholder details were coded by one author, and 10% of records were checked by another author. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics or narratively into common themes.
The 68 records were published between 2010 and 2022 and included 15 review protocols and 53 reviews with systematic methodology (46 systematic, 6 rapid, and 1 scoping review). All 53 reviews were disseminated via open-access plain language summaries (PLS) in English with translations into 3-13 other languages. Other dissemination strategies included information on Cochrane websites (e.g., clinical answers or guidelines) available for 41/53 reviews and Cochrane news or blogs that mentioned 19/53 reviews. Overall, 23/68 records mentioned the actual stakeholder involvement in review production, protocol development, or formulation of dissemination plans. The potential stakeholders included several highly diverse groups, such as the general population or specific communities (e.g., racial minority groups), policy and decision makers, and researchers and professionals in various fields (e.g., nutrition, physical activity, education, or care).
This study shows that Cochrane Public Health reviews are disseminated predominantly via PLS in different languages and via review information on Cochrane websites. Planned dissemination strategies were rarely reported although actual stakeholders were involved in the planning and production of some reviews. The relevance of Cochrane Public Health reviews for non-academic stakeholders and the general population highlights the need for the dissemination of evidence from such reviews beyond academia.
The study was prospectively registered at the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/ga9pt/ ).
This is a bibliographic study with a cross-sectional design. All 68 records (reviews or review protocols) listed on the Cochrane Public Health website ( https://ph.cochrane.org/cph-reviews-and-topics ) up to 8 March 2022 were included. Record characteristics, dissemination strategies, and potential stakeholder details were coded by one author, and 10% of records were checked by another author. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics or narratively into common themes.
The 68 records were published between 2010 and 2022 and included 15 review protocols and 53 reviews with systematic methodology (46 systematic, 6 rapid, and 1 scoping review). All 53 reviews were disseminated via open-access plain language summaries (PLS) in English with translations into 3-13 other languages. Other dissemination strategies included information on Cochrane websites (e.g., clinical answers or guidelines) available for 41/53 reviews and Cochrane news or blogs that mentioned 19/53 reviews. Overall, 23/68 records mentioned the actual stakeholder involvement in review production, protocol development, or formulation of dissemination plans. The potential stakeholders included several highly diverse groups, such as the general population or specific communities (e.g., racial minority groups), policy and decision makers, and researchers and professionals in various fields (e.g., nutrition, physical activity, education, or care).
This study shows that Cochrane Public Health reviews are disseminated predominantly via PLS in different languages and via review information on Cochrane websites. Planned dissemination strategies were rarely reported although actual stakeholders were involved in the planning and production of some reviews. The relevance of Cochrane Public Health reviews for non-academic stakeholders and the general population highlights the need for the dissemination of evidence from such reviews beyond academia.
The study was prospectively registered at the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/ga9pt/ ).
摘要：
背景：适当传播公共卫生证据对于确保科学知识到达潜在利益相关者和相关人群至关重要。对科学及其发现的广泛不信任表明，其交流仍低于其潜力。CochranePublicHealth通过系统方法的审查为公共卫生领域提供了高质量科学证据的重要来源。这项研究的目的是确定（1）传播策略和（2）Cochrane公共卫生评论的利益相关者。
方法：这是一项横断面设计的书目研究。Cochrane公共卫生网站（https://ph.cochrane.org/cph-reviews-and-topics)截至2022年3月8日。记录特性,传播策略,潜在的利益相关者细节由一位作者编码，10%的记录由另一位作者检查。使用描述性统计或对共同主题进行叙述分析。
结果：68个记录在2010年至2022年之间发表，包括15个审查方案和53个具有系统方法的审查（46个系统，6迅速,和1个范围审查)。所有53条评论均通过英语开放获取的简单语言摘要（PLS）传播，并翻译成3-13种其他语言。其他传播策略包括Cochrane网站上的信息(例如，临床答案或指南）可用于41/53评论和提到19/53评论的Cochrane新闻或博客。总的来说,23/68记录提到利益相关者实际参与审查制作，协议开发，或制定传播计划。潜在的利益相关者包括几个高度多样化的群体，例如普通人群或特定社区(例如，种族少数群体)，政策制定者和决策者，以及各个领域的研究人员和专业人士(例如，营养,身体活动,教育,或关心)。
结论：本研究表明，CochranePublicHealth评论主要通过PLS以不同的语言和Cochrane网站上的评论信息进行传播。尽管实际利益攸关方参与了一些评论的规划和制作，但很少报告计划的传播战略。CochranePublicHealth评论与非学术利益相关者和普通人群的相关性突出了将此类评论的证据传播到学术界以外的必要性。
背景：该研究在开放科学框架（https://osf.io/ga9pt/）中进行了前瞻性注册。
方法：这是一项横断面设计的书目研究。Cochrane公共卫生网站（https://ph.cochrane.org/cph-reviews-and-topics)截至2022年3月8日。记录特性,传播策略,潜在的利益相关者细节由一位作者编码，10%的记录由另一位作者检查。使用描述性统计或对共同主题进行叙述分析。
结果：68个记录在2010年至2022年之间发表，包括15个审查方案和53个具有系统方法的审查（46个系统，6迅速,和1个范围审查)。所有53条评论均通过英语开放获取的简单语言摘要（PLS）传播，并翻译成3-13种其他语言。其他传播策略包括Cochrane网站上的信息(例如，临床答案或指南）可用于41/53评论和提到19/53评论的Cochrane新闻或博客。总的来说,23/68记录提到利益相关者实际参与审查制作，协议开发，或制定传播计划。潜在的利益相关者包括几个高度多样化的群体，例如普通人群或特定社区(例如，种族少数群体)，政策制定者和决策者，以及各个领域的研究人员和专业人士(例如，营养,身体活动,教育,或关心)。
结论：本研究表明，CochranePublicHealth评论主要通过PLS以不同的语言和Cochrane网站上的评论信息进行传播。尽管实际利益攸关方参与了一些评论的规划和制作，但很少报告计划的传播战略。CochranePublicHealth评论与非学术利益相关者和普通人群的相关性突出了将此类评论的证据传播到学术界以外的必要性。
背景：该研究在开放科学框架（https://osf.io/ga9pt/）中进行了前瞻性注册。
