IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0314461.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Knowledge mobilisation of rapid evidence reviews to inform health and social care policy and practice in a public health emergency: Appraisal of the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre processes and impact, 2021–23

Author

Listed:
  • Micaela Gal
  • Alison Cooper
  • Natalie Joseph-Williams
  • Elizabeth Doe
  • Ruth Lewis
  • Rebecca Jane Law
  • Sally Anstey
  • Nathan Davies
  • Amy Walters
  • Robert Orford
  • Brendan Collins
  • Lisa Trigg
  • Chris Roberts
  • Sarah Meredith
  • Steven Macey
  • Andrew Carson-Stevens
  • Jane Greenwell
  • Ffion Coomber
  • Adrian Edwards

Abstract

Background: The Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre (WCEC) was established from 2021–23 to ensure that the latest coronavirus (COVID-19) relevant research evidence was readily available to inform health and social care policy and practice decision-makers. Although decisions need to be evidence-based, ensuring that accessible and relevant research evidence is available to decision-makers is challenging, especially in a rapidly evolving pandemic environment when timeframes for decision-making are days or weeks rather than months or years. We set up knowledge mobilisation processes to bridge the gap between evidence review and informing decisions, making sure that the right information reaches the right people at the right time. Aims and objectives: To describe the knowledge mobilisation processes used by the WCEC, evaluate the impact of the WCEC rapid evidence reviews, and share lessons learned. Methods: Our knowledge mobilisation methods were flexible and tailored to meet stakeholders’ needs. They included stakeholder co-production in our rapid evidence review processes, stakeholder-informed and participatory knowledge mobilisation, wider dissemination of outputs and associated activities including public engagement, capacity building and sharing of methodologies. Feedback on processes and evidence of impact was collected via stakeholder engagement and a stakeholder survey. Results: Findings indicate that knowledge mobilisation processes successfully enabled use of the WCEC’s rapid evidence reviews to inform policy and practice decision-makers during the COVID-19 pandemic in Wales. Realising actual public and patient benefit from this ‘pathway to impact’ work will take further time and resources. Discussion and conclusion: The WCEC knowledge mobilisation processes successfully supported co-production and use of rapid evidence review findings by scientific advisors and policy and practice decision-makers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Identified barriers and facilitators are of potential relevance to wider evidence initiatives, for setting up similar Centres during crisis situations, and supporting future evidence-based policy and practice decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Micaela Gal & Alison Cooper & Natalie Joseph-Williams & Elizabeth Doe & Ruth Lewis & Rebecca Jane Law & Sally Anstey & Nathan Davies & Amy Walters & Robert Orford & Brendan Collins & Lisa Trigg & Chri, 2024. "Knowledge mobilisation of rapid evidence reviews to inform health and social care policy and practice in a public health emergency: Appraisal of the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre processes and impact," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(11), pages 1-29, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0314461
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0314461
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0314461
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0314461&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0314461?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Cairney & Richard Kwiatkowski, 2017. "How to communicate effectively with policymakers: combine insights from psychology and policy studies," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-8, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ruth Mayne & Duncan Green & Irene Guijt & Martin Walsh & Richard English & Paul Cairney, 2018. "Using evidence to influence policy: Oxfam’s experience," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-10, December.
    2. Lowes, Richard & Woodman, Bridget, 2020. "Disruptive and uncertain: Policy makers’ perceptions on UK heat decarbonisation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    3. Temilade Sesan & Willie Siyanbola, 2021. "“These are the realities”: insights from facilitating researcher-policymaker engagement in Nigeria’s household energy sector," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    4. Antonopoulou, Vivi & chadwick, paul & McGee, O & Sniehotta, Falko & Lorencatto, Fabiana & Meyer, Carly & O'Donnell, Amy & Lecouturier, Jan & Kelly, Michael P & Michie, Susan, 2021. "Research Engagement with Policy Makers: a practical guide to writing policy briefs," OSF Preprints m25qp, Center for Open Science.
    5. Jessica H. Phoenix & Lucy G. Atkinson & Hannah Baker, 2019. "Creating and communicating social research for policymakers in government," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-11, December.
    6. Fabio Ashtar Telarico, 2023. "Опростяване И Усъвършенстване [Simplifying and Improving]," Post-Print hal-03989969, HAL.
    7. Megan C Evans & Christopher Cvitanovic, 2018. "An introduction to achieving policy impact for early career researchers," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-12, December.
    8. Lindsay Blair Bochon & Janet Dean & Tanja Rosteck & Jiaying Zhao, 2023. "Nudging policymakers on gendered impacts of policy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(10), pages 1-12, October.
    9. Otieno, James Origa, 2019. "The Public Policy process: A conceptual framework for understanding policy processes and opportunities for influencing policy outcomes," EconStor Preprints 191527, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    10. Joe Duggan & Christopher Cvitanovic & Ingrid van Putten & Sarah Clement, 2025. "A Heuristic for Integrating Sense of Place Into Ocean Governance," Ocean and Society, Cogitatio Press, vol. 2.
    11. Lene Topp & David Mair & Laura Smillie & Paul Cairney, 2018. "Knowledge management for policy impact: the case of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-10, December.
    12. Kathryn Oliver & Paul Cairney, 2019. "The dos and don’ts of influencing policy: a systematic review of advice to academics," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-11, December.
    13. Falko T. Buschke & Christine Estreguil & Lucia Mancini & Fabrice Mathieux & Hugh Eva & Luca Battistella & Stephen Peedell, 2023. "Digital Storytelling Through the European Commission’s Africa Knowledge Platform to Bridge the Science-Policy Interface for Raw Materials," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 1141-1154, June.
    14. Cameron Brick & Alexandra L. J. Freeman & Steven Wooding & William J. Skylark & Theresa M. Marteau & David J. Spiegelhalter, 2018. "Winners and losers: communicating the potential impacts of policies," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-13, December.
    15. John Øvretveit, 2023. "Recognizing and Responding to Anti-Science in Environmental and Public Health Research and Practice," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-4, February.
    16. Ilias Krystallis & Sarah Jasim, 2023. "Charting the path towards a long-term knowledge brokerage function: an ecosystems view," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, December.
    17. Valéry Ridde & Pierre Yaméogo, 2018. "How Burkina Faso used evidence in deciding to launch its policy of free healthcare for children under five and women in 2016," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-9, December.
    18. Frank L.K. Ohemeng & Osee Kamga, 2020. "Administrative leaders as institutional entrepreneurs in developing countries: A study of the development and institutionalization of performance management in Ghana's public service," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 40(1), pages 87-100, February.
    19. Renata Anibaldi & Sharyn Rundle-Thiele & Patricia David & Carina Roemer, 2021. "Theoretical Underpinnings in Research Investigating Barriers for Implementing Environmentally Sustainable Farming Practices: Insights from a Systematic Literature Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-24, April.
    20. Fabio Ashtar Telarico, 2022. "Simplify and Improve: Revisiting Bulgaria's Revenue Forecasting Models," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 633-654.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0314461. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.