Adding to Samuel Sieber’s mention of SUPPORT tools [https://www.hifa.org/dgroups-rss/communicating-health-research-81-q2-wha..., I’d like to point to another study from the SUPPORT project, where we developed a template for presenting evidence from systematic reviews to policy makers in LMIC’s:
Evidence summaries tailored to health policy-makers in low- and middle-income countries
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3040014/
We carried out this work through extensive user testing of an early prototype in several countries, where researchers in our network interviewed policy makers in their local contexts. My role was as information designer and researcher. Some of the more persistent challenges we encountered are echoed many comments in this forum:
- participants had a poor understanding of what a systematic review was
- they expected information not found in the systematic reviews (e.g. recommendations, broader scope)
- they wanted shorter, clearer summaries.
We addressed these issues in using several strategies, outlined in the article (too much to write here).
I would like to point to one of most appreciated features in these summaries was the a table we added with authors’ interpretation of the relevance of the evidence and intervention for LMICs, which I was reminded of when reading the article Irina pointed to about localizing and tailoring research. By explicitly mapping findings to researcher’s interpretations of the possible applicability of each of these, you can transparently provide an opinion about possible applicability, something users found very valuable.
The other highly appreciated feature was the front page with key messages up front. We based this on a graded-entry principle of presenting in layers: key messages in a top layer, a middle layer with more information, and access to the full text for those who want unedited information. In my view, this is one of the most robust principles people can use in presenting research evidence in any kind of format, because it caters to the very different needs of both expert and less-expert audiences.
Something that is not included in the article is the reaction of the researchers who did user testing of these formats with policy makers in their settings. Several mentioned that it was a really good opportunity to engage with those stakeholders, observe first hand their reactions when reading research results, and strengthen a relationship. I would recommend this as a technique for opening doors, especially since user testing of any dissemination formats you develop is an invaluable method to improving them.
This last bit reminds me of a paper about communication theory in implementation science, describing two paradigms of communication as transactional (transferring information) and transformative (building shared understanding). https://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13012-.... I would venture to say that optimizing evidence presentation falls under “transactional” communication, while listening to how people experience your evidence dissemination falls under “transformative”. A good read for anyone following this thread.
I’ve uploaded a copy of the template file here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/4ibonr558nhiz0m/SUPPORT%20Summary%20template_C...
More about the SUPPORT Summary work here: https://www.cochrane.no/support-summaries
Best regards,
Sarah Rosenbaum
Sarah Rosenbaum
Design forsker/ Design researcher
Centre for Epidemic Interventions Research
Folkehelseinstituttet/Norwegian Institute of Public Health
saro@fhi.no<mailto:saro@fhi.no> | www.fhi.no<http://www.fhi.no>
HIFA profile: Sarah Rosenbaum works at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. sarah AT rosenbaum.no
