Skip to main content

Table 2 Effectiveness statements for the dissemination strategies (categories 2 and 3)

From: Assessing the impact of knowledge communication and dissemination strategies targeted at health policy-makers and managers: an overview of systematic reviews

Some evidence Insufficient evidence
Increase reach
“Simply having access to an online registry of research evidence appeared to have no impact on evidence-informed decision making” (Dobbins 2009 cited in [30]) “…the extent to which these (knowledge-translation) resources are used and are found useful by policymakers is unclear” [38]
“Promising interventions include … an e-registry of reviews but these interventions need to be developed further” [19]
Increase people’s motivation
“While knowledge brokering did not have a significant effect generally, results suggested that it did have a positive effect [in terms of research uptake] on those organizations that at baseline perceived their organization to place little value on evidence-informed decision making” [30] “…knowledge brokering (KB) was more effective in those organizations that placed less value on research evidence and was less effective in those organizations that already recognized the importance of evidence-based decision making” [27]
“Only one cluster RCT [randomized controlled trial] evaluated an organisational intervention (which included a knowledge broker, access to a repository of systematic reviews and provision of tailored messages), and reported no statistically significant difference in evidence informed programme planning(mean change − 0.42; 95% CI − 1.10 to 0.26, P < 0.45) neither of having access to a knowledge broker (mean change − 0.09; 95% CI − 0.78 to 0.60) [24]
Increase people’s ability to use
“Tailored interactive workshops supported by goal-focused mentoring, and genuine collaboration, seem particularly promising” [29] “Training in the appraisal of research and its use appears to increase participants’ skills in critical appraisal and possibly their perceptions about the value of research, but not their use of research” [32]
“The findings of pre–post survey data suggest that a 1 day workshop training event for policy-makers and researchers may improve knowledge and understanding of key topics related to partnership research, evidence-informed policy-making and may enhance policy-makers’ research capacity” [35]
Multifaceted dissemination strategy
Multifaceted KT strategies led to changes in knowledge but not practice [30]
“The findings suggest that although a digital TEKT [technology-enhanced knowledge translation] intervention may improve knowledge, the effects of such interventions on other outcomes are equivocal” [21]. (Digital TEKT could make use of social media, email, internet, electronic databases, electronic prompts or reminders, web-based webinars, or training or interactive websites to facilitate research use by end users)
“…the multi-faceted ARC (Availability, Responsiveness and Continuity) organizational approach, which includes a focus on the social context of organizations and the social process of adopting innovations (which are linked to stimulate community support, stimulate better communication and relationships between stakeholders, increase the measure the organization and staff value research evidence, increase the extent to which staff have the knowledge and skills to use the evidence, and increase the extent to which organizations have the tools and systems necessary to support the participation and use of research) can be of great benefit in improving the use of evidence and evidence-based practices” [39]