PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Sandy Oliver

Publications and source records attributed to Sandy Oliver.

9 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

The role and theoretical evolution of knowledge translation and exchange in public health.

BACKGROUND: There is an increased emphasis in public health research on effective models and strategies to support knowledge translation (KT), the exchange, synthesis and ethically sound application of research findings within a complex set of interactions among researchers and knowledge users. In other words, KT can be seen as an acceleration of the knowledge cycle-an acceleration of the natural transformation of knowledge into use (Canadian Institutes of Health Services Research. Knowledge Translation Strategy, 2004). The most recent conceptualizations consider the complexities of public health decision-making. The role of practitioners and communities is increasingly considered. METHODS: We identify, describe and discuss the theoretical underpinnings of KT and recommend a way forward to build the evidence for more effective practice. RESULTS: Theoretical perspectives increasingly influence research on KT in public health. A range of innovative work is being conducted to explore methods for KT using practical tools, often with the support of government. CONCLUSIONS: KT describes a crucial and to date under-developed element of the research process. There is an important gap in theoretically informed empirical studies of effectiveness of proposed approaches in public health, health promotion and preventive medicine, and thus much of the debate remains abstract. There is clearly an urgent policy need to establish the effectiveness of KT models in a range of contexts. This must include both the consideration of development and the utilization of knowledge.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗
PubMed2006

DISCERN-Genetics: quality criteria for information on genetic testing.

Information currently available to the public is inadequate to support those deciding to consent to a genetic test. As genetic knowledge continues to evolve, more people will be forced to consider the complex issues raised by genetic testing. We developed and tested criteria to guide the production and appraisal of information resources produced for the public on genetic testing. Lay people with and without experience of a genetic condition, and providers and producers of health information appraised and listed the criteria they used to rate the quality of a sample of information on cystic fibrosis, Down's syndrome, familial breast cancer, familial colon cancer, haemochromatosis, Huntington's disease, sickle cell disease, and thalassaemia. These genetic conditions represent different populations, disease pathways, and treatment decisions. The information medium could be written, electronic, CD, audio or video. The quality criteria were tested iteratively (using the weighted kappa statistic) for the level of agreement between users applying successive drafts of the criteria to different samples of information. The final set of criteria consisted of 19 questions plus an overall quality rating. Chance corrected agreement (weighted kappa) among the appraisers for the overall quality rating was 0.61 (0.60-0.62). The criteria cover the scope of the information resources, information on the condition, the test procedure and results, decision making, and the reliability of the information. The DISCERN-Genetics criteria will guide the production and appraisal of information produced for the public, and will facilitate the involvement of the public in decisions around genetic screening and testing.

Female↗
PubMed2006

Reviewing the potential for critical appraisal training to cater for professional practice.

Critical appraisal training aims to encourage evidence-based decision-making and ultimately improve health outcomes for patients. Such training must arguably be participatory, multi-disciplinary and problem-based if it is to equip health professionals for problem solving within a modern health service. To explore whether critical appraisal training has the potential to achieve its aims we systematically reviewed reports of critical appraisal training. We identified 58 critical appraisal training programmes, identified through two recently published systematic reviews. Of these, only 15 were identified as multi-disciplinary. Similarly, whilst many of the 58 interventions included some level of participation this was often limited in scope. Around a third of the identified training programmes were problem-based. Only a very small number of the 58 interventions might be described as facilitating cross-disciplinary participatory working. These were by no means all problem-based. We recommend that providers of medical training consider how they might encourage the use of problem-based, mixed, participatory training to encourage evidence-based patient-centered care. More research is also needed to understand how mixed and participatory problem-based learning might influence working practice.

Decision Making↗
PubMed2006

Patient involvement in setting research agendas.

Patient groups already support funding of trials and patient recruitment for colitis research. Patient and public engagement in setting research agendas for health research more generally is growing, particularly about the effects of treatment. Patient priorities for colitis research span a wide range of interests. Opportunities exist to build on strategic alliances between patient groups, clinicians and researchers for more open debate about what research should be done and how. Traditionally, patients and their families have two roles in health research: as research subjects, providing data at the request of researchers, and as fundraisers, supporting research and researchers. These roles are readily apparent in the area of research into inflammatory bowel disease, including colitis, and Crohn's disease, on both sides of the Atlantic. Growing evidence, however, suggests that health research agendas do not always reflect patients' priorities. Welfare et al. (this issue) add to the evidence by eliciting patients' priorities for colitis research. Methods for bridging patients' views and research agendas range from social science to deliberative public debate. In the first of these, social researchers, such as Welfare et al. (this issue), elicit and interpret patients' views and compare these with current research agendas. In the second, patients are supported and encouraged to engage in debates about research, whereby they bring their own interpretations and influence to the health research community. Organized colitis patient groups, with their current interests and alliances with research, are well placed to build on the work of Welfare et al., in partnership with researchers with the aim of planning research that meets the full range of their needs.

Colitis, Ulcerative↗
PubMed2006

Health visitors' role in newborn blood spot screening.

New national policies and standards for newborn blood spot screening for some uncommon but serious conditions indicate that health visitors may have an increasingly important role in supporting parents. This may include offering support and guidance through times of uncertainty and hearing bad news about their baby's screening result. The U.K. Newborn Screening Programme Centre (UKNSPC) has developed resources for health professionals to support them in communicating with parents about newborn blood spot screening at different times in the screening pathway. In an era of informed choice in health care, including screening, effective communication and the provision of evidence-based information are increasingly highlighted. This paper draws attention to the importance of effective communication between health professionals and parents, and describes the resources developed specifically to support this. It outlines the communication guidelines developed by the UKNSPC, paying particular attention to the role of health visitors at critical times in parents' screening journey.

Adaptation, Psychological↗
PubMed2005

Exploring the evidence-practice gap: a workshop report on mixed and participatory training for HIV prevention in Southern Africa.

BACKGROUND: The gap between what is known and what is done about public health (the evidence-practice gap) needs addressing. One solution may be through mixed and participatory training in accessing and appraising research. APPROACH: Residential workshops trained policy-makers, practitioners and researchers from seven southern-African countries in evidence-based decision-making for HIV prevention. They included training in accessing, critiquing and summarizing research, whilst remaining responsive to the priorities of the participants. REFLECTIONS: Drawing on the participants' feedback and our observations, we reflected on how these workshops may have addressed the evidence-practice gap. We identified three areas: access to research, understanding of research and the relevance of research. The workshops enabled a small group of people to access relevant research in a timely manner. However, more needs to be done to disseminate research findings appropriately as any long-term impact will be affected by the political and economic context in which participants work. We are confident that the participants went away with increased understanding of the purposes and processes of research, but for research to make a difference, the research community needs to emphasise more the publication of research findings written for potential users. The workshops were most successful in influencing researchers to consider bridging the evidence-practice gap by producing more relevant research, applicable to policy-makers and practitioners. CONCLUSION: This intensive intervention has the potential to reduce the evidence-practice gap for HIV prevention in southern Africa by training non-researchers to engage with research, whilst providing an opportunity for researchers to engage with policy-makers and practitioners.

Africa, Southern↗
PubMed2004

Consumer involvement in the health technology assessment program.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to describe a cycle of development leading to sustainable methods for involving consumers in the management of a program commissioning health technology assessment. METHODS: Staff time was dedicated to developing procedures for recruiting and briefing consumers to participate in prioritizing, commissioning, and reporting research. Resources and support were developed in light of early feedback from consumers and those working with them. These were piloted and amended before being used routinely. RESULTS: Over 4 years, procedures and resources have been developed to support six consumers attending seven to eight prioritization meetings a year; thirty to forty-five consumers each year commenting on research need for particular topics; thirty consumers a year commenting on research proposals, and twenty a year commenting on research reports. The procedures include clear job descriptions, induction and development days, clear briefing materials, payment for substantial tasks, and regularly seeking feedback to improve procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Explicit, inclusive, and reproducible methods for supporting consumer involvement that satisfy National Health Service policy recommendations for involving consumers in research require dedicated staff time to support a cycle of organizational development.

Community Participation↗
PubMed2004

Applying systematic review methods to studies of people's views: an example from public health research.

Methods for systematic reviews are well developed for trials, but not for non-experimental or qualitative research. This paper describes the methods developed for reviewing research on people's perspectives and experiences ("views" studies) alongside trials within a series of reviews on young people's mental health, physical activity, and healthy eating. Reports of views studies were difficult to locate; could not easily be classified as "qualitative" or "quantitative"; and often failed to meet seven basic methodological reporting standards used in a newly developed quality assessment tool. Synthesising views studies required the adaptation of qualitative analysis techniques. The benefits of bringing together views studies in a systematic way included gaining a greater breadth of perspectives and a deeper understanding of public health issues from the point of view of those targeted by interventions. A systematic approach also aided reflection on study methods that may distort, misrepresent, or fail to pick up people's views. This methodology is likely to create greater opportunities for people's own perspectives and experiences to inform policies to promote their health.

Adolescent↗