Background: Information exchange regarding the scope and content of health studies is becoming increasingly important. Digital methods, including study websites, can facilitate such an exchange. Objective: This scoping review aimed to describe how digital information exchange occurs between the public and researchers in health studies. Methods: This scoping review was prospectively registered and adheres to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. Eligibility was defined using the population (public and researchers), concept (digital information exchange), and context (health studies) framework. Bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science), bibliographies of the included studies, and Google Scholar were searched up to February 2024. Studies published in peer-reviewed journals were screened for inclusion based on the title, abstract, and full text. Data items charted from studies included bibliographic and PCC (Population, Concept, and Context) characteristics. Data were processed into categories that inductively emerged from the data and were synthesized into main themes using descriptive statistics. Results: Overall, 4072 records were screened, and 18 studies published between 2010 and 2021 were included. All studies evaluated or assessed the preferences for digital information exchange. The target populations included the public (mainly adults with any or specific diseases), researchers, or both. The digital information exchange methods included websites, emails, forums, platforms, social media, and portals. Interactivity (ie, if digital information exchange is or should be active or passive) was addressed in half of the studies. Exchange content included health information or data with the aim to inform, recruit, link, or gather innovative research ideas from participants in health studies. We identified 7 facilitators and 9 barriers to digital information exchange. The main facilitators were the consideration of any stakeholder perspectives and needs to clarify expectations and responsibilities, the use of modern or low-cost communication technologies and public-oriented language, and continuous communication of the health study process. The main barriers were that information exchange was not planned or not feasible due to inadequate resources, highly complex technical language was used, and ethical concerns (eg, breach of anonymity if study participants are brought together) were raised. Evidence gaps indicate that new studies should assess the methods and the receiver (ie, public) preferences and needs that are required to deliver and facilitate interactive digital information exchange. Conclusions: Few studies addressing digital information exchange in health studies could be identified in this review. There was little focus on interactivity in such an exchange. Digital information exchange was associated with more barriers than facilitators, suggesting that more effort is required to improve such an exchange between the public and researchers. Future studies should investigate interactive digital methods and the receiver preferences and needs required for such an exchange.

Background: There is a large number of research studies about the prevention of non-communicable diseases (NCD), with findings taking several years to be translated into practice. One reason for this lack of translation is a limited understanding of how to best disseminate NCD research findings to user-groups in a way that is salient and useful. An understanding of barriers and facilitators to dissemination is key to informing the development of strategies to increase dissemination. Therefore, this review aims to identify and synthesise the barriers and facilitators to dissemination of NCD research findings. Methods: A mixed studies systematic review was performed following JBI (formerly known as Joanna Briggs Institute) methodology. The search included articles from January 2000 until May 2021. We conducted a comprehensive search of bibliographic and grey literature of five databases to identify eligible studies. Studies were included if they involved end-users of public health research that were decision-makers in their setting and examined barriers/facilitators to disseminating research findings. Two pairs of reviewers mapped data from included studies against the Framework of Knowledge Translation (FKT) and used a convergent approach to synthesise the data. Results: The database search yielded 27,192 reports. Following screening and full text review, 15 studies (ten qualitative, one quantitative and four mixed methods) were included. Studies were conducted in 12 mostly high-income countries, with a total of 871 participants. We identified 12 barriers and 14 facilitators mapped to five elements of the FKT. Barriers related to: (i) the user-group (n = 3) such as not perceiving health as important and (ii) the dissemination strategies (n = 3) such as lack of understanding of content of guidelines. Several facilitators related to dissemination strategies (n = 5) such as using different channels of communication. Facilitators also related to the user-group (n = 4) such as the user-groups' interest in health and research. Conclusion: Researchers and government organisations should consider these factors when identifying ways to disseminate research findings to decision-maker audiences. Future research should aim to build the evidence base on different strategies to overcome these barriers. Systematic review registration: The protocol of this review was deposited in Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5QSGD).

Background There is a large number of research studies about the prevention of non-communicable diseases (NCD), with findings taking several years to be translated into practice. One reason for this lack of translation is a limited understanding of how to best disseminate NCD research findings to user-groups in a way that is salient and useful. An understanding of barriers and facilitators to dissemination is key to informing the development of strategies to increase dissemination. Therefore, this review aims to identify and synthesise the barriers and facilitators to dissemination of NCD research findings. Methods A mixed studies systematic review was performed following JBI (formerly known as Joanna Briggs Institute) methodology. The search included articles from January 2000 until May 2021. We conducted a comprehensive search of bibliographic and grey literature of five databases to identify eligible studies. Studies were included if they involved end-users of public health research that were decision-makers in their setting and examined barriers/facilitators to disseminating research findings. Two pairs of reviewers mapped data from included studies against the Framework of Knowledge Translation (FKT) and used a convergent approach to synthesise the data. Results The database search yielded 27,192 reports. Following screening and full text review, 15 studies (ten qualitative, one quantitative and four mixed methods) were included. Studies were conducted in 12 mostly high-income countries, with a total of 871 participants. We identified 12 barriers and 14 facilitators mapped to five elements of the FKT. Barriers related to: (i) the user-group (n = 3) such as not perceiving health as important and (ii) the dissemination strategies (n = 3) such as lack of understanding of content of guidelines. Several facilitators related to dissemination strategies (n = 5) such as using different channels of communication. Facilitators also related to the user-group (n = 4) such as the user-groups' interest in health and research. Conclusion Researchers and government organisations should consider these factors when identifying ways to disseminate research findings to decision-maker audiences. Future research should aim to build the evidence base on different strategies to overcome these barriers.

Background: Evidence networks facilitate the exchange of information and foster international relationships among researchers and stakeholders. These networks are instrumental in enabling the integration of scientific evidence into decision-making processes. While there is a global emphasis on evidence-based decision-making at policy and organisational levels, there exists a significant gap in our understanding of the most effective activities to exchange scientific knowledge and use it in practice. The objective of this rapid review was to explore the strategies employed by evidence networks to facilitate the translation of evidence into decision-making processes. This review makes a contribution to global health policymaking by mapping the landscape of knowledge translation in this context and identifying the evidence translation activities that evidence networks have found effective. Methods: The review was guided by standardised techniques for conducting rapid evidence reviews. Document searching was based on a phased approach, commencing with a comprehensive initial search strategy and progressively refining it with each subsequent search iterations. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement was followed. Results: The review identified 143 articles, after screening 1135 articles. Out of these, 35 articles were included in the review. The studies encompassed a diverse range of countries, with the majority originating from the United States (n = 14), followed by Canada (n = 5), Sweden (n = 2), and various other single locations (n = 14). These studies presented a varied set of implementation strategies such as research-related activities, the creation of teams/task forces/partnerships, meetings/consultations, mobilising/working with communities, influencing policy, activity evaluation, training, trust-building, and regular meetings, as well as community-academic-policymaker engagement. Conclusions: Evidence networks play a crucial role in developing, sharing, and implementing high-quality research for policy. These networks face challenges like coordinating diverse stakeholders, international collaboration, language barriers, research consistency, knowledge dissemination, capacity building, evaluation, and funding. To enhance their impact, sharing network efforts with wider audiences, including local, national, and international agencies, is essential for evidence-based decision-making to shape evidence-informed policies and programmes effectively.

Objectives: The aim of this study is to identify available reporting guidelines for traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), delineate their fundamental characteristics, assess the scientific rigor of their development process, and evaluate their dissemination. Study Design and Setting: A search was conducted in Medline (via PubMed), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), SinoMed, WANFANG DATA, and the EQUATOR Network to identify TCM reporting guidelines. A preprepared Excel database was used to extract information on the basic characteristics, development process, and dissemination information. The development process quality of TCM reporting guidelines was assessed by evaluating their compliance with the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines (GDHRRG). The extent of dissemination of these guidelines was analyzed by examining the number of citations received. Results: A total of 26 reporting guidelines for TCM were obtained from 20 academic journals, with 61.5% of them published in English journals. Among the guidelines, 14 (53.8%) were registered in the EQUATOR Network. On average, the compliance rate of GDHRRG guidelines was reported to be 63.3% ranging from 22.2% to 94.4%. Three steps showed poor compliance, namely guideline endorsement (23.1%), translated guidelines (19.2%), and developing a publication strategy (19.2%). Furthermore, the compliance rate of GDHRRG guidelines published in English journals was higher than that in Chinese journals. In terms of the dissemination, 15.4% of the guidelines had been cited over 100 times, while 73.1% had been cited less than 50 times. Conclusion: The development of TCM reporting guidelines still has limitations in terms of regarding scientific rigor and follow-up dissemination. Therefore, it is important to ensure adherence to the scientific process in the development of TCM reporting guidelines and to strengthen their promotion, dissemination, and implementation.

Background: Dissemination is a critical element of the knowledge translation pathway, and a necessary step to ensure research evidence is adopted and implemented by key end users in order to improve health outcomes. However, evidence-based guidance to inform dissemination activities in research is limited. This scoping review aimed to identify and describe the scientific literature examining strategies to disseminate public health evidence related to the prevention of non-communicable diseases. Methods: Medline, PsycInfo and EBSCO Search Ultimate were searched in May 2021 for studies published between January 2000 and the search date that reported on the dissemination of evidence to end users of public health evidence, within the context of the prevention of non-communicable diseases. Studies were synthesised according to the four components of Brownson and colleagues' Model for Dissemination of Research (source, message, channel and audience), as well as by study design. Results: Of the 107 included studies, only 14% (n = 15) directly tested dissemination strategies using experimental designs. The remainder primarily reported on dissemination preferences of different populations, or outcomes such as awareness, knowledge and intentions to adopt following evidence dissemination. Evidence related to diet, physical activity and/or obesity prevention was the most disseminated topic. Researchers were the source of disseminated evidence in over half the studies, and study findings/knowledge summaries were more frequently disseminated as the message compared to guidelines or an evidence-based program/intervention. A broad range of dissemination channels were utilised, although peer-reviewed publications/conferences and presentations/workshops predominated. Practitioners were the most commonly reported target audience. Conclusions: There is a significant gap in the peer reviewed literature, with few experimental studies published that analyse and evaluate the effect of different sources, messages and target audiences on the determinants of uptake of public health evidence for prevention. Such studies are important as they can help inform and improve the effectiveness of current and future dissemination practices in public health contexts.

Background: Research centers and programs focused on dissemination and implementation science (DIS) training, mentorship, and capacity building have proliferated in recent years. There has yet to be a comprehensive inventory of DIS capacity building program (CBP) cataloging information about activities, infrastructure, and priorities as well as opportunities for shared resources, collaboration, and growth. The purpose of this systematic review is to provide the first inventory of DIS CBPs and describe their key features and offerings. Methods: We defined DIS CBPs as organizations or groups with an explicit focus on building practical knowledge and skills to conduct DIS for health promotion. CBPs were included if they had at least one capacity building activity other than educational coursework or training alone. A multi-method strategy was used to identify DIS CBPs. Data about the characteristics of DIS CBPs were abstracted from each program's website. In addition, a survey instrument was developed and fielded to gather in-depth information about the structure, activities, and resources of each CBP. Results: In total, 165 DIS CBPs met our inclusion criteria and were included in the final CBP inventory. Of these, 68% are affiliated with a United States (US) institution and 32% are internationally based. There was one CBP identified in a low- and middle-income country (LMIC). Of the US-affiliated CBPs, 55% are embedded within a Clinical and Translational Science Award program. Eighty-seven CBPs (53%) responded to a follow-up survey. Of those who completed a survey, the majority used multiple DIS capacity building activities with the most popular being Training and Education (n=69, 79%) followed by Mentorship (n=58, 67%), provision of DIS Resources and Tools (n=57, 66%), Consultation (n=58, 67%), Professional Networking (n=54, 62%), Technical Assistance (n=46, 52%), and Grant Development Support (n=45, 52%). Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study to catalog DIS programs and synthesize learnings into a set of priorities and sustainment strategies to support DIS capacity building efforts. There is a need for formal certification, accessible options for learners in LMICs, opportunities for practitioners, and opportunities for mid/later stage researchers. Similarly, harmonized measures of reporting and evaluation would facilitate targeted cross-program comparison and collaboration.