JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Knowledge translation (KT) aims to facilitate the use of research evidence in decision making. Changes in technology over recent decades has provided considerable opportunities for KT strategies to improve access and use of evidence in decision making by public health policy makers and practitioners. Despite this opportunity, there have been no reviews that have assessed the effects of technology enabled knowledge translation (TEKT) on the use of research in the field of public health.

Objective:

To examine the effectiveness of TEKT strategies in i) improving capacity for evidence informed decision making by public health policy makers and practitioners; ii) changing public health policy or practice and iii) changes in individual or population health outcomes.

Methods:

A comprehensive search strategy was developed to identify randomised trials assessing the effectiveness of TEKT strategies in public health. Searches for eligible studies were undertaken in multiple electronic bibliographic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Cinahl, Scopus) and the reference lists of included studies. A hand search of two journals (Implementation Science and Journal of Medical Internet Research), and a grey literature search was also conducted. Pairs of independent review authors screened studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data from relevant studies.

Results:

Of the 6819 citations screened, eight eligible randomised trials were included in the review. The studies examined the impact of TEKT strategies on a range of health professionals including nurses, childcare health consultants, physiotherapists, primary health care workers and public health practitioners. Five of the interventions were web-training programs. The remaining three interventions included simulation games, access to digital resource materials and the use of tailored messaging, and an online registry. The findings suggest that TEKT interventions may be effective in improving public health professionals’ knowledge, relative to control and may be as effective at improving knowledge as face to face KT approaches. The effectiveness of TEKT strategies relative to control or other KT interventions on measures of health professional self-efficacy to utilise evidence to enhance practice behaviour or behavioural intentions outcomes were mixed. The evidence regarding the effects on changes to healthy policy or practice following exposure to TEKT were mixed. No trials assessed effects on individual or population level health outcomes.

Conclusions:

This review is the first to synthesise the effectiveness of TEKT interventions in the public health setting. Despite its potential, relative few trials have been undertaken investigating the impacts of TEKT interventions. The findings suggest that while TEKT intervention may improve knowledge, the effects of such interventions on other outcomes is equivocal. Clinical Trial: PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018112715