Search

Introduction: Power relations permeate research partnerships and compromise the ability of participatory research approaches to bring about transformational and sustainable change. This study aimed to explore how participatory health researchers engaged in co-production research perceive and experience 'power', and how it is discussed and addressed within the context of research partnerships., Methods: Five online workshops were carried out with participatory health researchers working in different global contexts. Transcripts of the workshops were analysed thematically against the 'Social Ecology of Power' framework and mapped at the micro (individual), meso (interpersonal) or macro (structural) level., Results: A total of 59 participants, with participatory experience in 24 different countries, attended the workshops. At the micro level, key findings included the rarity of explicit discussions on the meaning and impact of power, the use of reflexivity for examining assumptions and power differentials, and the perceived importance of strengthening co-researcher capacity to shift power. At the meso level, participants emphasised the need to manage co-researcher expectations, create spaces for trusted dialogue, and consider the potential risks faced by empowered community partners. Participants were divided over whether gatekeeper engagement aided the research process or acted to exclude marginalised groups from participating. At the macro level, colonial and 'traditional' research legacies were acknowledged to have generated and maintained power inequities within research partnerships., Conclusions: The 'Social Ecology of Power' framework is a useful tool for engaging with power inequities that cut across the social ecology, highlighting how they can operate at the micro, meso and macro level. This study reiterates that power is pervasive, and that while many researchers are intentional about engaging with power, actions and available tools must be used more systematically to identify and address power imbalances in participatory research partnerships, in order to contribute to improved equity and social justice outcomes., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Health-related organisations disseminate an abundance of clinical and implementation evidence that has potential to improve health outcomes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), but little is known about what influences a user decision to select particular evidence for action. Knowledge brokers (KBs) play a part as intermediaries supporting evidence-informed health policy and practice by selecting and synthesising evidence for research users, and therefore understanding the basis for KB decisions, can help inform knowledge translation strategies. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), a synthesis of psychological theories, was selected as a promising analysis approach because of its widespread use in identifying influences on decisions to act on evidence-based healthcare guidelines. This study explored its application in the context of KB decisions regarding evidence for use in LMICs., Methods: The study analysed data collected from participants of a 2015 global maternal and newborn health conference in Mexico. A total of 324 conference participants from 56 countries completed an online survey and 20 from 15 countries were interviewed about evidence use and sharing after the conference. TDF domains and constructs were retrospectively applied and adapted during coding of qualitative data to enhance understanding of the KB decision process in selecting evidence for action., Results: Application of the TDF involved challenges related to overlapping constructs, retrospective use, and complexities of global health settings and relevant knowledge. Codes needed to be added or adapted to account for how KBs' internal reflections on external factors influenced their actions in selecting evidence to share and use, and the decisions they made during the process. Four themes of the rationale for changing the TDF were identified during analysis, namely Influences from Beyond the Organisation, Knowledge Selection as a Process, Access and Packaging of Knowledge, and Fit for Use., Conclusions: Theories of individual behaviour, such as those in the TDF, can enhance understanding of the decisions made by actors such as KBs along dissemination and knowledge translation pathways. Understanding how KBs reflect on evidence and interact with their environment has the potential for improving global dissemination efforts and LMIC-to-LMIC exchange of implementation evidence.

Objectives: There have been increasing calls for more research on interventions to successfully translate evidence-based knowledge into improved health policy and practices. This paper reports on an exploratory study of knowledge translation interventions conducted with participants of global health meetings held in Bangladesh in 2012 and in South Africa in 2013. We measured stakeholders' uptake of evidence-based knowledge in terms of their translation of this knowledge into actions around public health policy and practice. The research sought to determine whether participants shared and used knowledge from the meetings to improve health policy and practices in their settings and the factors influencing sharing and use., Study Design: An exploratory study employed quantitative and qualitative methods of online surveys and in-depth interviews to collect data from all meeting participants., Methods: All participants in the Bangladesh and South Africa meetings were invited to complete an online survey during the meetings and over the following six weeks. Of 411 participants in the 2012 Bangladesh meeting, 148 participants from 22 countries completed the survey. Eleven of these respondents (from eight countries) were interviewed. Of the 436 participants in the 2013 South Africa meeting, 126 respondents from 33 countries completed an online survey; none of these respondents were interviewed., Results: The analysis revealed that most respondents used new knowledge to advocate for policy change (2012: 65.5%; 2013: 67.5%) or improve service quality (2012: 60.1%; 2013: 70.6%). The type of knowledge that respondents most commonly shared was clinical or scientific information (2012: 79.1%; 2013: 66.7%) and country-specific information (2012: 73.0%; 2013: 71.4%). Most 2012 respondents shared knowledge because they thought it would be useful to a co-worker or colleague (79.7%)., Discussion: Findings on knowledge use and sharing suggest that most respondents saw themselves as knowledge brokers or intermediaries in a position to influence the translation of knowledge into action in health policy and practices in their countries. Results suggest that supporting knowledge brokers working in a local and regional context to spur change, as described in the paper, has the potential to improve health outcomes. Further research is needed to isolate specific interventions and their knowledge translation outcomes., (Copyright © 2016 Jhpiego Corporation. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)