Evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues: perceptions and intentions to act on what was learnt
To develop and implement a method for the evaluation of "evidence briefs" and "deliberative dialogues" that could be applied to comparative studies of similar strategies used in the support of evidence-informed policy-making. Participants who read evidence briefs and attended del...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2014-01, Vol.92 (1), p.20-28 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | eng ; por |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| recordid |
cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_297955038c4d423cb92ef70fabbf9bbf |
|---|---|
| title |
Evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues: perceptions and intentions to act on what was learnt |
| format |
Article |
| creator |
MOAT, Kaelan A LAVIS, John N CLANCY, Sarah J EL-JARDALI, Fadi PANTOJA, Tomas |
| subjects |
Africa Assessments Austenitic stainless steels Biological and medical sciences Burkina Faso Cameroons Comparative analysis Decision Making Developing Countries Evaluation Studies as Topic Evidence-Based Medicine - methods Evidence-Based Medicine - standards General aspects Health Policy Health Policy & Services Humans Information Dissemination - methods Low income groups Medical research Medical sciences Miscellaneous Perception Perceptions Policy Making Public health Public health. Hygiene Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine Questionnaires Regression Regression analysis Statistical analysis Strategy Studies Surveys and Questionnaires Translational Medical Research - methods Translational Medical Research - standards |
| ispartof |
Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2014-01, Vol.92 (1), p.20-28 |
| description |
To develop and implement a method for the evaluation of "evidence briefs" and "deliberative dialogues" that could be applied to comparative studies of similar strategies used in the support of evidence-informed policy-making.
Participants who read evidence briefs and attended deliberative dialogues in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Uganda and Zambia were surveyed before the start of the dialogues - to collect their views on pre-circulated evidence briefs - and at the end of the dialogues - to collect their views on the dialogues. The respondents' assessments of the briefs and dialogues and the respondents' intentions to act on what they had learned were then investigated in descriptive statistical analyses and regression models.
Of the 530 individuals who read the evidence briefs and attended dialogues, 304 (57%) and 303 (57%) completed questionnaires about the briefs and dialogues, respectively. Respondents viewed the evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues - as well as each of their key features - very favourably, regardless of the country, issue or group involved. Overall, "not concluding with recommendations" and "not aiming for a consensus" were identified as the least helpful features of the briefs and dialogues, respectively. Respondents generally reported strong intentions to act on what they had learnt.
Although some aspects of their design may need to be improved or, at least, explained and justified to policy-makers and stakeholders, evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues appear to be highly regarded and to lead to intentions to act. |
| language |
eng ; por |
| source |
International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); ABI/INFORM Global (ProQuest); Social Science Database; Politics Collection; Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3); PAIS Index; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection; Political Science Database |
| identifier |
ISSN: 0042-9686 |
| fulltext |
fulltext |
| issn |
0042-9686 1564-0604 |
| url |
http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-05-21T22%3A44%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evidence%20briefs%20and%20deliberative%20dialogues:%20perceptions%20and%20intentions%20to%20act%20on%20what%20was%20learnt&rft.jtitle=Bulletin%20of%20the%20World%20Health%20Organization&rft.au=MOAT,%20Kaelan%20A&rft.aucorp=Knowledge%20Translation%20Platform%20Evaluation%20study%20team&rft.date=2014-01-01&rft.volume=92&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=20&rft.epage=28&rft.pages=20-28&rft.issn=0042-9686&rft.eissn=1564-0604&rft.coden=BWHOA6&rft_id=info:doi/10.2471/BLT.12.116806&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E1490697052%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c546t-3806e3fae508455158e5ccc5b97df6de2cf7735b2a70e823746697484842d27e3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1492892376&rft_id=info:pmid/24391297&rft_scielo_id=S0042_96862014000100020 |
| container_title |
Bulletin of the World Health Organization |
| container_volume |
92 |
| container_issue |
1 |
| container_start_page |
20 |
| container_end_page |
28 |
| fullrecord |
<record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_297955038c4d423cb92ef70fabbf9bbf</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><scielo_id>S0042_96862014000100020</scielo_id><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_297955038c4d423cb92ef70fabbf9bbf</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>1490697052</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c546t-3806e3fae508455158e5ccc5b97df6de2cf7735b2a70e823746697484842d27e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkk2P0zAQhiMEYsvCkSuKhJC4tPjbMQckWC2wUiUOLGfjOJOuq9QudtoV_54pKYXlAoksK8njVzNPpqqeUrJgQtNX75bXC8oWlKqGqHvVjEol5kQRcb-aESLY3KhGnVWPSlkTvIwgD6szJrihzOhZ9fVyHzqIHuo2B-hL7WJXdzCEFrIbwx7qLrghrXZQXtdbyB62Y0hx4kIcIU6PY6qdH-sU69sbN9a3rtQDuBzHx9WD3g0Fnhz38-rL-8vri4_z5acPVxdvl3MvhRrnHKsH3juQpBFSUtmA9N7L1uiuVx0w32vNZcucJtAwroVSRosGb9YxDfy8uppyu-TWdpvDxuXvNrlgf75IeWVdHoMfwGLjRkrCGy86wbhvDYNek961bW9wYdZiyio-wJDsOu1yxOLt54NRezDKCBWok-JiBA-8mQ5sd-0GOo9WshvuVHH3Sww3dpX2ljdKYv8Y8PIYkNM3dD3aTSgehsFFSLtiqaRcaC20_A8UDTIjjf43KgxBi0QyRJ__hZ6aRoo1BpUfypxPlM-plAz9qUVK7GEcLY6jpcxO44j8sz-9nOhf84fAiyPgindDn130ofzm8E9LTgj_ARYz4-A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><isCDI>true</isCDI><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1492892376</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues: perceptions and intentions to act on what was learnt</title><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>ABI/INFORM Global (ProQuest)</source><source>Social Science Database</source><source>Politics Collection</source><source>Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><source>Political Science Database</source><creator>MOAT, Kaelan A ; LAVIS, John N ; CLANCY, Sarah J ; EL-JARDALI, Fadi ; PANTOJA, Tomas</creator><creatorcontrib>MOAT, Kaelan A ; LAVIS, John N ; CLANCY, Sarah J ; EL-JARDALI, Fadi ; PANTOJA, Tomas ; Knowledge Translation Platform Evaluation study team ; for the Knowledge Translation Platform Evaluation study team</creatorcontrib><description>To develop and implement a method for the evaluation of "evidence briefs" and "deliberative dialogues" that could be applied to comparative studies of similar strategies used in the support of evidence-informed policy-making.
Participants who read evidence briefs and attended deliberative dialogues in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Uganda and Zambia were surveyed before the start of the dialogues - to collect their views on pre-circulated evidence briefs - and at the end of the dialogues - to collect their views on the dialogues. The respondents' assessments of the briefs and dialogues and the respondents' intentions to act on what they had learned were then investigated in descriptive statistical analyses and regression models.
Of the 530 individuals who read the evidence briefs and attended dialogues, 304 (57%) and 303 (57%) completed questionnaires about the briefs and dialogues, respectively. Respondents viewed the evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues - as well as each of their key features - very favourably, regardless of the country, issue or group involved. Overall, "not concluding with recommendations" and "not aiming for a consensus" were identified as the least helpful features of the briefs and dialogues, respectively. Respondents generally reported strong intentions to act on what they had learnt.
Although some aspects of their design may need to be improved or, at least, explained and justified to policy-makers and stakeholders, evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues appear to be highly regarded and to lead to intentions to act.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0042-9686</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1564-0604</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2471/BLT.12.116806</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24391297</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BWHOA6</identifier><language>eng ; por</language><publisher>Genève: Organisation mondiale de la santé</publisher><subject>Africa ; Assessments ; Austenitic stainless steels ; Biological and medical sciences ; Burkina Faso ; Cameroons ; Comparative analysis ; Decision Making ; Developing Countries ; Evaluation Studies as Topic ; Evidence-Based Medicine - methods ; Evidence-Based Medicine - standards ; General aspects ; Health Policy ; Health Policy & Services ; Humans ; Information Dissemination - methods ; Low income groups ; Medical research ; Medical sciences ; Miscellaneous ; Perception ; Perceptions ; Policy Making ; Public health ; Public health. Hygiene ; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine ; Questionnaires ; Regression ; Regression analysis ; Statistical analysis ; Strategy ; Studies ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Translational Medical Research - methods ; Translational Medical Research - standards</subject><ispartof>Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2014-01, Vol.92 (1), p.20-28</ispartof><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright World Health Organization Jan 2014</rights><rights>(c) World Health Organization (WHO) 2014. All rights reserved. 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c546t-3806e3fae508455158e5ccc5b97df6de2cf7735b2a70e823746697484842d27e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c546t-3806e3fae508455158e5ccc5b97df6de2cf7735b2a70e823746697484842d27e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1492892376/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1492892376?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,734,787,791,892,11727,11771,12121,12886,21429,21436,27927,27985,27986,33288,33289,33676,33677,34050,34051,36125,36126,36315,36316,36340,36341,43382,43762,43928,44153,44709,44748,44753,54176,54178,74441,74820,75039,75297,75868,75907,75912</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=28235300$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24391297$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>MOAT, Kaelan A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LAVIS, John N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>CLANCY, Sarah J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>EL-JARDALI, Fadi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PANTOJA, Tomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Knowledge Translation Platform Evaluation study team</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>for the Knowledge Translation Platform Evaluation study team</creatorcontrib><title>Evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues: perceptions and intentions to act on what was learnt</title><title>Bulletin of the World Health Organization</title><addtitle>Bull World Health Organ</addtitle><description>To develop and implement a method for the evaluation of "evidence briefs" and "deliberative dialogues" that could be applied to comparative studies of similar strategies used in the support of evidence-informed policy-making.
Participants who read evidence briefs and attended deliberative dialogues in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Uganda and Zambia were surveyed before the start of the dialogues - to collect their views on pre-circulated evidence briefs - and at the end of the dialogues - to collect their views on the dialogues. The respondents' assessments of the briefs and dialogues and the respondents' intentions to act on what they had learned were then investigated in descriptive statistical analyses and regression models.
Of the 530 individuals who read the evidence briefs and attended dialogues, 304 (57%) and 303 (57%) completed questionnaires about the briefs and dialogues, respectively. Respondents viewed the evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues - as well as each of their key features - very favourably, regardless of the country, issue or group involved. Overall, "not concluding with recommendations" and "not aiming for a consensus" were identified as the least helpful features of the briefs and dialogues, respectively. Respondents generally reported strong intentions to act on what they had learnt.
Although some aspects of their design may need to be improved or, at least, explained and justified to policy-makers and stakeholders, evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues appear to be highly regarded and to lead to intentions to act.</description><subject>Africa</subject><subject>Assessments</subject><subject>Austenitic stainless steels</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Burkina Faso</subject><subject>Cameroons</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Decision Making</subject><subject>Developing Countries</subject><subject>Evaluation Studies as Topic</subject><subject>Evidence-Based Medicine - methods</subject><subject>Evidence-Based Medicine - standards</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>Health Policy</subject><subject>Health Policy & Services</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Information Dissemination - methods</subject><subject>Low income groups</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Miscellaneous</subject><subject>Perception</subject><subject>Perceptions</subject><subject>Policy Making</subject><subject>Public health</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Regression</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Strategy</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Translational Medical Research - methods</subject><subject>Translational Medical Research - standards</subject><issn>0042-9686</issn><issn>1564-0604</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><sourceid>ALSLI</sourceid><sourceid>DPSOV</sourceid><sourceid>M0C</sourceid><sourceid>M2L</sourceid><sourceid>M2R</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkk2P0zAQhiMEYsvCkSuKhJC4tPjbMQckWC2wUiUOLGfjOJOuq9QudtoV_54pKYXlAoksK8njVzNPpqqeUrJgQtNX75bXC8oWlKqGqHvVjEol5kQRcb-aESLY3KhGnVWPSlkTvIwgD6szJrihzOhZ9fVyHzqIHuo2B-hL7WJXdzCEFrIbwx7qLrghrXZQXtdbyB62Y0hx4kIcIU6PY6qdH-sU69sbN9a3rtQDuBzHx9WD3g0Fnhz38-rL-8vri4_z5acPVxdvl3MvhRrnHKsH3juQpBFSUtmA9N7L1uiuVx0w32vNZcucJtAwroVSRosGb9YxDfy8uppyu-TWdpvDxuXvNrlgf75IeWVdHoMfwGLjRkrCGy86wbhvDYNek961bW9wYdZiyio-wJDsOu1yxOLt54NRezDKCBWok-JiBA-8mQ5sd-0GOo9WshvuVHH3Sww3dpX2ljdKYv8Y8PIYkNM3dD3aTSgehsFFSLtiqaRcaC20_A8UDTIjjf43KgxBi0QyRJ__hZ6aRoo1BpUfypxPlM-plAz9qUVK7GEcLY6jpcxO44j8sz-9nOhf84fAiyPgindDn130ofzm8E9LTgj_ARYz4-A</recordid><startdate>20140101</startdate><enddate>20140101</enddate><creator>MOAT, Kaelan A</creator><creator>LAVIS, John N</creator><creator>CLANCY, Sarah J</creator><creator>EL-JARDALI, Fadi</creator><creator>PANTOJA, Tomas</creator><general>Organisation mondiale de la santé</general><general>World Health Organization</general><general>The World Health Organization</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>GPN</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140101</creationdate><title>Evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues: perceptions and intentions to act on what was learnt</title><author>MOAT, Kaelan A ; LAVIS, John N ; CLANCY, Sarah J ; EL-JARDALI, Fadi ; PANTOJA, Tomas</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c546t-3806e3fae508455158e5ccc5b97df6de2cf7735b2a70e823746697484842d27e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng ; por</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Africa</topic><topic>Assessments</topic><topic>Austenitic stainless steels</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Burkina Faso</topic><topic>Cameroons</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Decision Making</topic><topic>Developing Countries</topic><topic>Evaluation Studies as Topic</topic><topic>Evidence-Based Medicine - methods</topic><topic>Evidence-Based Medicine - standards</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>Health Policy</topic><topic>Health Policy & Services</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Information Dissemination - methods</topic><topic>Low income groups</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Miscellaneous</topic><topic>Perception</topic><topic>Perceptions</topic><topic>Policy Making</topic><topic>Public health</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Regression</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Strategy</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Translational Medical Research - methods</topic><topic>Translational Medical Research - standards</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>MOAT, Kaelan A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LAVIS, John N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>CLANCY, Sarah J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>EL-JARDALI, Fadi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PANTOJA, Tomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Knowledge Translation Platform Evaluation study team</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>for the Knowledge Translation Platform Evaluation study team</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection【キャンパス外アクセス可】</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Family Health Database (Proquest)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>SciELO</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Bulletin of the World Health Organization</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>MOAT, Kaelan A</au><au>LAVIS, John N</au><au>CLANCY, Sarah J</au><au>EL-JARDALI, Fadi</au><au>PANTOJA, Tomas</au><aucorp>Knowledge Translation Platform Evaluation study team</aucorp><aucorp>for the Knowledge Translation Platform Evaluation study team</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues: perceptions and intentions to act on what was learnt</atitle><jtitle>Bulletin of the World Health Organization</jtitle><addtitle>Bull World Health Organ</addtitle><date>2014-01-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>92</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>20</spage><epage>28</epage><pages>20-28</pages><issn>0042-9686</issn><eissn>1564-0604</eissn><coden>BWHOA6</coden><notes>ObjectType-Article-1</notes><notes>SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1</notes><notes>ObjectType-Feature-2</notes><notes>content type line 23</notes><notes>ObjectType-Article-2</notes><notes>ObjectType-Feature-1</notes><abstract>To develop and implement a method for the evaluation of "evidence briefs" and "deliberative dialogues" that could be applied to comparative studies of similar strategies used in the support of evidence-informed policy-making.
Participants who read evidence briefs and attended deliberative dialogues in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Uganda and Zambia were surveyed before the start of the dialogues - to collect their views on pre-circulated evidence briefs - and at the end of the dialogues - to collect their views on the dialogues. The respondents' assessments of the briefs and dialogues and the respondents' intentions to act on what they had learned were then investigated in descriptive statistical analyses and regression models.
Of the 530 individuals who read the evidence briefs and attended dialogues, 304 (57%) and 303 (57%) completed questionnaires about the briefs and dialogues, respectively. Respondents viewed the evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues - as well as each of their key features - very favourably, regardless of the country, issue or group involved. Overall, "not concluding with recommendations" and "not aiming for a consensus" were identified as the least helpful features of the briefs and dialogues, respectively. Respondents generally reported strong intentions to act on what they had learnt.
Although some aspects of their design may need to be improved or, at least, explained and justified to policy-makers and stakeholders, evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues appear to be highly regarded and to lead to intentions to act.</abstract><cop>Genève</cop><pub>Organisation mondiale de la santé</pub><pmid>24391297</pmid><doi>10.2471/BLT.12.116806</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |