Dear HIFA colleagues,
Thank you for your inputs to our discussion on Communicating health research (Sept-Oct-2022). The outputs from the discussion are now available on the HIFA website:
1. Full compilation (156 pages) https://www.hifa.org/sites/default/files/publications_pdf/Communicating_...
2. Structured summary (54 pages) https://www.hifa.org/sites/default/files/publications_pdf/Communicating_...
3. Highlights (4 pages) https://www.hifa.org/sites/default/files/publications_pdf/Communicating_...
METRICS: There were 125 messages from 30 contributors in 20 countries (Canada, Croatia, Ghana, Honduras, Hungary, Iraq, Japan, Kenya, Malawi, Mexico, Myanmar, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Solomon Islands, Switzerland, Tanzania, UK, USA). Contributors included: Communication professionals/knowledge managers (3), Health systems researchers (4), Health workers (7), Library and information professionals (3), Patient representative (1) and Public health professionals (5) representing a range of universities, public health departments, NGOs and healthcare facilities.
KEY POINTS:
- All agree that research should be freely accessible, robust, relevant, reliable, clear, easy to understand, and in the right language
- The aim of research communication can be seen in at least 2 ways. The motivation of some researchers might be to get *their* finding into policy and practice. This may not align with a public health perspective, whereby the aim might be to empower policymakers to consider all relevant evidence.
- Interaction with the mass media is critical, but this can be done appropriately (where motivation is to inform) or inappropriately (where the motivation is to persuade, exaggerate or even mislead)
- More could be done to guide researchers in effective communication
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
1. What are the pros and cons of different methods (e.g. academic journals, policy briefs, interaction with policymakers, press releases, social media, television, radio...)? When and how can they be most effectively used by researchers to inform and/or persuade?
2. More case studies would be helpful to demonstrate effective and ineffective research communication of primary and secondary research
3. Global/local synthesis: Can we learn from examples where WHO guidance was adapted to inform national policy?
4. Guidance: What practical guidance exists on effective communication for health research?
If you would like to comment on any of the above, please send a brief email to: hifa@hifaforums.org
We would be especially interested in your thoughts on "What next?". In particular, can anyone recommend communication guidance for health researchers? Does good guidance already exist or is there a need for new guidance?
We are grateful to TDR/WHO (Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases) for supporting this discussion.
Best wishes, Neil
Joint Coordinator, HIFA Communicating health research (sponsored by TDR/WHO)
https://www.hifa.org/projects/new-effective-communication-health-researc...
Dr Neil Pakenham-Walsh, HIFA Coordinator
Healthcare Information For All
Global Healthcare Information Network
Working in Official Relations with the World Health Organization
20,000 members, 400 supporting organisations, 180 countries, 6 forums, 4 languages
www.hifa.org neil@hifa.org
