背景:证据网络促进了信息交流并促进了研究人员和利益相关者之间的国际关系。这些网络有助于将科学证据纳入决策过程。虽然全球都强调政策和组织层面的循证决策,我们对交流科学知识和在实践中使用科学知识的最有效活动的理解存在显著差距。这项快速审查的目的是探索证据网络采用的策略,以促进将证据转化为决策过程。本评论通过在这种情况下绘制知识翻译的格局并确定证据网络发现有效的证据翻译活动,为全球卫生政策制定做出了贡献。
方法:本综述采用标准化技术进行快速证据综述。文档搜索是基于分阶段的方法,从全面的初始搜索策略开始,并在随后的每次搜索迭代中逐步完善。遵循系统审查和荟萃分析(PRISMA)声明的首选报告项目。
结果:评论确定了143篇文章,经过筛选1135篇文章。在这些中,审查中包括35篇文章。这些研究涵盖了不同的国家,大多数来自美国(n=14),其次是加拿大(n=5),瑞典(n=2),和各种其他单一位置(n=14)。这些研究提出了一套不同的实施战略,如与研究有关的活动,创建团队/工作队/伙伴关系,会议/磋商,动员/与社区合作,影响政策,活动评估,培训,建立信任,和定期会议,以及社区-学术-决策者的参与。
结论:证据网络在发展中起着至关重要的作用,分享,实施高质量的政策研究。这些网络面临着各种挑战,如协调不同的利益相关者,国际合作,语言障碍,研究一致性,知识传播,能力建设,评估,和资金。为了增强他们的影响力,与更广泛的受众分享网络努力,包括当地,国家,和国际机构,对于以证据为基础的决策,以有效地制定以证据为依据的政策和计划至关重要。
BACKGROUND: Evidence networks facilitate the exchange of information and foster international relationships among researchers and stakeholders. These networks are instrumental in enabling the integration of scientific evidence into decision-making processes. While there is a global emphasis on evidence-based decision-making at policy and organisational levels, there exists a significant gap in our understanding of the most effective activities to exchange scientific knowledge and use it in practice. The objective of this rapid review was to explore the strategies employed by evidence networks to facilitate the translation of evidence into decision-making processes. This review makes a contribution to global health policymaking by mapping the landscape of knowledge translation in this context and identifying the evidence translation activities that evidence networks have found effective.
METHODS: The review was guided by standardised techniques for conducting rapid evidence reviews. Document searching was based on a phased approach, commencing with a comprehensive initial search strategy and progressively refining it with each subsequent search iterations. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement was followed.
RESULTS: The review identified 143 articles, after screening 1135 articles. Out of these, 35 articles were included in the review. The studies encompassed a diverse range of countries, with the majority originating from the United States (n = 14), followed by Canada (n = 5), Sweden (n = 2), and various other single locations (n = 14). These studies presented a varied set of implementation strategies such as research-related activities, the creation of teams/task forces/partnerships, meetings/consultations, mobilising/working with communities, influencing policy, activity evaluation, training, trust-building, and regular meetings, as well as community-academic-policymaker engagement.
CONCLUSIONS: Evidence networks play a crucial role in developing, sharing, and implementing high-quality research for policy. These networks face challenges like coordinating diverse stakeholders, international collaboration, language barriers, research consistency, knowledge dissemination, capacity building, evaluation, and funding. To enhance their impact, sharing network efforts with wider audiences, including local, national, and international agencies, is essential for evidence-based decision-making to shape evidence-informed policies and programmes effectively.