Effectively engaging stakeholders and the public in developing violence prevention messages

Background: Preventing family violence requires that stakeholders and the broader public be involved in developing evidence-based violence prevention strategies. However, gaps exist in between what we know (knowledge), what we do (action), and the structures supporting practice (policy). Discussion: We discuss the broad challenge of mobilizing knowledge-for-action in family violence, with a primary focus on the issue of how stakeholders and the public can be effectively engaged when developing and communicating evidence-based violence prevention messages. We suggest that a comprehensive approach to stakeholder and public engagement in developing violence prevention messages includes: 1) clear and consistent messaging; 2) identifying and using, as appropriate, lessons from campaigns that show evidence of reducing specific types of violence; and 3) evidence-informed approaches for communicating to specific groups. Components of a comprehensive approach must take into account the available research evidence, implementation feasibility, and the context-specific nature of family violence. Summary: While strategies exist for engaging stakeholders and the public in messaging about family violence prevention, knowledge mobilization must be informed by evidence, dialogue with stakeholders, and proactive media strategies. This paper will be of interest to public health practitioners or others involved in planning and implementing violence prevention programs because it highlights what is known about the issue, potential solutions, and implementation considerations

Evaluating deliberative dialogues focussed on healthy public policy

Background: Deliberative dialogues have recently captured attention in the public health policy arena because they have the potential to address several key factors that influence the use of research evidence in policymaking. We conducted an evaluation of three deliberative dialogues convened in Canada by the National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy in order to learn more about deliberative dialogues focussed on healthy public policy. Methods: The evaluation included a formative assessment of participants’ views about and experiences with ten key design features of the dialogues, and a summative assessment of participants’ intention to use research evidence of the type that was discussed at the dialogue. We surveyed participants immediately after each dialogue was completed and again six months later. We analyzed the ratings using descriptive statistics and the written comments by conducting a thematic analysis. Results: A total of 31 individuals participated in the three deliberative dialogues that we evaluated. The response rate was 94% (N = 29; policymakers (n = 9), stakeholders (n = 18), researchers (n = 2)) for the initial survey and 56% (n = 14) for the follow-up. All 10 of the design features that we examined as part of the formative evaluation were rated favourably by all participant groups. The findings of the summative evaluation demonstrated a mean behavioural intention score of 5.8 on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Conclusion: Our findings reinforce the promise of deliberative dialogues as a strategy for supporting evidence-informed public health policies. Additional work is needed to understand more about which design elements work in which situations and for different issues, and whether intention to use research evidence is a suitable substitute for measuring actual behaviour change

Developing and refining the methods for a ‘one-stop shop’ for research evidence about health systems

Background: Policymakers, stakeholders and researchers have not been able to find research evidence about health systems using an easily understood taxonomy of topics, know when they have conducted a comprehensive search of the many types of research evidence relevant to them, or rapidly identify decision-relevant information in their search results. Methods: To address these gaps, we developed an approach to building a ‘one-stop shop’ for research evidence about health systems. We developed a taxonomy of health system topics and iteratively refined it by drawing on existing categorization schemes and by using it to categorize progressively larger bundles of research evidence. We identified systematic reviews, systematic review protocols, and review-derived products through searches of Medline, hand searches of several databases indexing systematic reviews, hand searches of journals, and continuous scanning of listservs and websites. We developed an approach to providing ‘added value’ to existing content (e.g., coding systematic reviews according to the countries in which included studies were conducted) and to expanding the types of evidence eligible for inclusion (e.g., economic evaluations and health system descriptions). Lastly, we developed an approach to continuously updating the online one-stop shop in seven supported languages. Results: The taxonomy is organized by governance, financial, and delivery arrangements and by implementation strategies. The ‘one-stop shop’, called Health Systems Evidence, contains a comprehensive inventory of evidence briefs, overviews of systematic reviews, systematic reviews, systematic review protocols, registered systematic review titles, economic evaluations and costing studies, health reform descriptions and health system descriptions, and many types of added-value coding. It is continuously updated and new content is regularly translated into Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. Conclusions: Policymakers and stakeholders can now easily access and use a wide variety of types of research evidence about health systems to inform decision-making and advocacy. Researchers and research funding agencies can use Health Systems Evidence to identify gaps in the current stock of research evidence and domains that could benefit from primary research, systematic reviews, and review overviews. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1478-4505-13-10) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Breed-Specific Hematological Phenotypes in the Dog: A Natural Resource for the Genetic Dissection of Hematological Parameters in a Mammalian Species

Remarkably little has been published on hematological phenotypes of the domestic dog, the most polymorphic species on the planet. Information on the signalment and complete blood cell count of all dogs with normal red and white blood cell parameters judged by existing reference intervals was extracted from a veterinary database. Normal hematological profiles were available for 6046 dogs, 5447 of which also had machine platelet concentrations within the reference interval. Seventy-five pure breeds plus a mixed breed control group were represented by 10 or more dogs. All measured parameters except mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration (MCHC) varied with age. Concentrations of white blood cells (WBCs), neutrophils, monocytes, lymphocytes, eosinophils and platelets, but not red blood cell parameters, all varied with sex. Neutering status had an impact on hemoglobin concentration, mean corpuscular hemoglobin (MCH), MCHC, and concentrations of WBCs, neutrophils, monocytes, lymphocytes and platelets. Principal component analysis of hematological data revealed 37 pure breeds with distinctive phenotypes. Furthermore, all hematological parameters except MCHC showed significant differences between specific individual breeds and the mixed breed group. Twenty-nine breeds had distinctive phenotypes when assessed in this way, of which 19 had already been identified by principal component analysis. Tentative breed-specific reference intervals were generated for breeds with a distinctive phenotype identified by comparative analysis. This study represents the first large-scale analysis of hematological phenotypes in the dog and underlines the important potential of this species in the elucidation of genetic determinants of hematological traits, triangulating phenotype, breed and genetic predisposition

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 14: Organising and using policy dialogues to support evidence-informed policymaking

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers

Vanishing native American dog lineages

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Dogs were an important element in many native American cultures at the time Europeans arrived. Although previous ancient DNA studies revealed the existence of unique native American mitochondrial sequences, these have not been found in modern dogs, mainly purebred, studied so far.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We identified many previously undescribed mitochondrial control region sequences in 400 dogs from rural and isolated areas as well as street dogs from across the Americas. However, sequences of native American origin proved to be exceedingly rare, and we estimate that the native population contributed only a minor fraction of the gene pool that constitutes the modern population.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The high number of previously unidentified haplotypes in our sample suggests that a lot of unsampled genetic variation exists in non-breed dogs. Our results also suggest that the arrival of European colonists to the Americas may have led to an extensive replacement of the native American dog population by the dogs of the invaders.</p

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 7: Finding systematic reviews

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers

Reliability of a tool for measuring theory of planned behaviour constructs for use in evaluating research use in policymaking

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although measures of knowledge translation and exchange (KTE) effectiveness based on the theory of planned behavior (TPB) have been used among patients and providers, no measure has been developed for use among health system policymakers and stakeholders. A tool that measures the intention to use research evidence in policymaking could assist researchers in evaluating the effectiveness of KTE strategies that aim to support evidence-informed health system decision-making. Therefore, we developed a 15-item tool to measure four TPB constructs (intention, attitude, subjective norm and perceived control) and assessed its face validity through key informant interviews.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We carried out a reliability study to assess the tool's internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Our study sample consisted of 62 policymakers and stakeholders that participated in deliberative dialogues. We assessed internal consistency using Cronbach's alpha and generalizability (G) coefficients, and we assessed test-retest reliability by calculating Pearson correlation coefficients (<it>r</it>) and G coefficients for each construct and the tool overall.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The internal consistency of items within each construct was good with alpha ranging from 0.68 to alpha = 0.89. G-coefficients were lower for a single administration (G = 0.34 to G = 0.73) than for the average of two administrations (G = 0.79 to G = 0.89). Test-retest reliability coefficients for the constructs ranged from <it>r </it>= 0.26 to <it>r </it>= 0.77 and from G = 0.31 to G = 0.62 for a single administration, and from G = 0.47 to G = 0.86 for the average of two administrations. Test-retest reliability of the tool using G theory was moderate (G = 0.5) when we generalized across a single observation, but became strong (G = 0.9) when we averaged across both administrations.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study provides preliminary evidence for the reliability of a tool that can be used to measure TPB constructs in relation to research use in policymaking. Our findings suggest that the tool should be administered on more than one occasion when the intervention promotes an initial 'spike' in enthusiasm for using research evidence (as it seemed to do in this case with deliberative dialogues). The findings from this study will be used to modify the tool and inform further psychometric testing following different KTE interventions.</p