IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v75y2012i11p1938-1945.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deliberative dialogues as a mechanism for knowledge translation and exchange in health systems decision-making

Author

Listed:
  • Boyko, Jennifer A.
  • Lavis, John N.
  • Abelson, Julia
  • Dobbins, Maureen
  • Carter, Nancy

Abstract

Models that describe the key features and intended effects of specific knowledge translation and exchange (KTE) interventions are much less prominent than models that provide a more general understanding of KTE. Our aim was to develop a model in order to describe the key features and intended effects of deliberative dialogues used as a KTE strategy and to understand how deliberative dialogues can support evidence-informed policymaking. By using critical interpretive synthesis, we identified 17 papers representing four fields of enquiry and integrated our findings into a model. The key features described in the model are: 1) an appropriate (i.e., conducive to the particular dialogue) meeting environment; 2) an appropriate mix of participants; and, 3) an appropriate use of research evidence. These features combine to create three types of intended effects: 1) short-term individual-level; 3) medium-term community/organizational-level; and, 3) long-term system-level. The concept of capacity building helps to explain the relationship between features and effects. The model is a useful contribution to the KTE field because it is a practical tool that could be used to guide the development and evaluation of deliberative dialogues in order to understand more about achieving particular outcomes in relation to specific issues or contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Boyko, Jennifer A. & Lavis, John N. & Abelson, Julia & Dobbins, Maureen & Carter, Nancy, 2012. "Deliberative dialogues as a mechanism for knowledge translation and exchange in health systems decision-making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(11), pages 1938-1945.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:75:y:2012:i:11:p:1938-1945
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.06.016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953612005114
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.06.016?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Deng, Chung-Yeh & Wu, Chia-Ling, 2010. "An innovative participatory method for newly democratic societies: The "civic groups forum" on national health insurance reform in Taiwan," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 896-903, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hamid Golhasany & Blane Harvey, 2023. "Capacity development for knowledge mobilization: a scoping review of the concepts and practices," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, December.
    2. Mulvale, Gillian & Chodos, Howard & Bartram, Mary & MacKinnon, Mary Pat & Abud, Manon, 2014. "Engaging civil society through deliberative dialogue to create the first Mental Health Strategy for Canada: Changing Directions, Changing Lives," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 262-268.
    3. Schoemaker, Casper G. & van Loon, Jeanne & Achterberg, Peter W. & van den Berg, Matthijs & Harbers, Maartje M. & den Hertog, Frank R.J. & Hilderink, Henk & Kommer, Geertjan & Melse, Johan & van Oers, , 2019. "The Public Health Status and Foresight report 2014: Four normative perspectives on a healthier Netherlands in 2040," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(3), pages 252-259.
    4. Bruen, Carlos & Brugha, Ruairi, 2020. "“We’re not there to protect ourselves, we’re there to talk about workforce planning”: A qualitative study of policy dialogues as a mechanism to inform medical workforce planning," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(7), pages 736-742.
    5. Evans, Sarah & Scarbrough, Harry, 2014. "Supporting knowledge translation through collaborative translational research initiatives: ‘Bridging’ versus ‘blurring’ boundary-spanning approaches in the UK CLAHRC initiative," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 119-127.
    6. Mathieu J. P. Poirier & Karen A. Grépin & Michel Grignon, 2020. "Approaches and Alternatives to the Wealth Index to Measure Socioeconomic Status Using Survey Data: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 1-46, February.
    7. Dorota Sienkiewicz & Alison Maassen & Iñaki Imaz-Iglesia & Elisa Poses-Ferrer & Helen McAvoy & Rita Horgan & Miguel Telo de Arriaga & Andrew Barnfield, 2020. "Shaping Policy on Chronic Diseases through National Policy Dialogs in CHRODIS PLUS," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-20, September.
    8. Hoelting, Kristin R. & Morse, Joshua W. & Gould, Rachelle K. & Martinez, Doreen E. & Hauptfeld, Rina S. & Cravens, Amanda E. & Breslow, Sara J. & Bair, Lucas S. & Schuster, Rudy M. & Gavin, Michael C., 2024. "Opportunities for improved consideration of cultural benefits in environmental decision-Making," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    9. Joanne Lawrence-Bourne & Hazel Dalton & David Perkins & Jane Farmer & Georgina Luscombe & Nelly Oelke & Nasser Bagheri, 2020. "What Is Rural Adversity, How Does It Affect Wellbeing and What Are the Implications for Action?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-13, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Carman, Kristin L. & Mallery, Coretta & Maurer, Maureen & Wang, Grace & Garfinkel, Steve & Yang, Manshu & Gilmore, Dierdre & Windham, Amy & Ginsburg, Marjorie & Sofaer, Shoshanna & Gold, Marthe & Path, 2015. "Effectiveness of public deliberation methods for gathering input on issues in healthcare: Results from a randomized trial," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 11-20.
    2. Baumann, Lisa Ann & Reinhold, Anna Katharina & Brütt, Anna Levke, 2022. "Public and patient involvement in health policy decision-making on the health system level – A scoping review," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(10), pages 1023-1038.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:75:y:2012:i:11:p:1938-1945. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.