Knowledge exchange sessions on primary health care research findings in public libraries: A qualitative study with citizens in Quebec (pdf)

Article PDF cannot be displayed. You can download it here:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0289153&type=printable

Knowledge exchange sessions on primary health care research findings in public libraries: A qualitative study with citizens in Quebec

PLOS ONE RESEARCH ARTICLE Knowledge exchange sessions on primary health care research findings in public libraries: A qualitative study with citizens in Quebec a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 OPEN ACCESS Citation: Laberge M, Brundisini FK, Zomahoun HTV, Sawadogo J, Massougbodji J, Gogovor A, et al. (2023) Knowledge exchange sessions on primary health care research findings in public libraries: A qualitative study with citizens in Quebec. PLoS ONE 18(7): e0289153. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289153 Editor: Federica Canzan, University of Verona, ITALY Received: September 30, 2022 Accepted: July 12, 2023 Published: July 25, 2023 Copyright: © 2023 Laberge et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability Statement: As data were collected and stored, they were all de-identified using anonymous identifiers to ensure confidentiality. The raw data are not available for other purposes. The Ethics Committee approved the collection and analysis of the data only for the specific study and not for other purposes. The Ethics Committee requires that the data collected remains securely stored and not be shared. Future researchers may request access to data to the Comité d’éthique de la recherche du CIUSSS de la Maude Laberge ID1,2,3,4*, Francesca Katherine Brundisini1,2,4,5, Hervé Tchala Vignon Zomahoun2,4,6, Jasmine Sawadogo ID7, José Massougbodji4,5,6, Amédé Gogovor2,4,5, Geneviève David ID8,9, France Légaré ID2,3,4,5,6 1 Faculty of Medicine, Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada, 2 VITAM Centre de Recherche sur la Santé Durable, CIUSSS de la Capitale Nationale, Québec, Canada, 3 Centre de Recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Université Laval, Québec, Canada, 4 Quebec SPOR-SUPPORT Unit, Quebec, Canada, 5 Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Shared Decision Making and Knowledge Translation, Quebec, Canada, 6 Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada, 7 First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Health and Social Services Commission, Quebec, Canada, 8 Centre d’excellence sur le Partenariat avec les Patients et le Public, Centre de Recherche du CHUM, Québec, Canada, 9 École Nationale d’administration Publique, Québec, Canada * Abstract Little is known about knowledge transfer with the public. We explored how citizens, physicians, and communication specialists understand knowledge transfer in public spaces such as libraries. The initial study aimed at evaluating the scaling up of a program on disseminating research findings on potentially inappropriate medication. Twenty-two citizen workshops were offered by 16 physicians and facilitated by 6 communication specialists to 322 citizens in libraries during spring 2019. We did secondary analysis using the recorded workshop discussions to explore the type of knowledge participants used. Participants described four kinds of knowledge: biomedical, sociocultural beliefs, value-based reasoning, and institutional knowledge. Biomedical knowledge included scientific evidence, research methods, clinical guidelines, and access to research outcomes. Participants discussed beliefs in scientific progress, innovative clinical practices, and doctors’ behaviours. Participants discussed values related to reliability, transparency, respect for patient autonomy and participation in decision-making. All categories of participants used these four kinds of knowledge. However, their descriptions varied particularly for biomedical knowledge which was described by physician-speakers and communication specialists-facilitators as scientific evidence, epidemiological and clinical practice guidelines, and pathophysiological theories. Communication specialists-facilitators also described scientific journalistic sources and scientific journalistic reports as proxies of scientific evidence. Citizens described biomedical knowledge in terms of knowledge to make informed decisions. These findings offer insights for future scientific knowledge exchange interventions with the public. PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289153 July 25, 2023 1 / 18 PLOS ONE Capitale Nationale at Olivier Contensou 555, boul. Wilfrid-Hamel, bureau E-115 Québec (Québec) G1M 3X7 . qc.ca (more information on the ethics committee is available at https://www.ciusss-capitalenationale. gouv.qc.ca/mission-universitaire/recherche/ ethique-recherche/sante-population-premiereligne). Dr. France Légaré (france.legare@fmed. ulaval.ca) is the current data holder. We report all data relevant to answer our research question in the paper. No further data are available publicly other than what those reported in the results in the paper. Funding: This study was funded by the Quebec Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) Support for People and Patient-Oriented Research and Trials (SUPPORT) Unit. The Unit is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and provincial partners, including the Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux (MSSS) du Québec and the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Santé (FRQ-S). The information provided and views expressed in this article are the responsibility of the authors alone. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Abbreviations: FMG, Family Medicine Group; IKT, Integrated knowledge translation; KT, Knowledge transfer; PIMs, Potentially inappropriate medications; SDM, Shared decision-making. Knowledge exchange in public libraries Background Despite the growing body of evidence, research production has not automatically led to such knowledge being translated effectively in everyday decision making [1–5]. This divide is often described as the "evidence-to-practice" gap [4,6,7]. Researchers, decision-makers, managers, health practitioners and patients have started to develop effective knowledge translation (KT) strategies to bridge this gap [2,4–8]. Over time, KT approaches are bound to be continuously adapted and evolving to address the diverse barriers to uptake of research results in decision making [2,9,10]. Earlier KT models focused on passive, pre-packaged, and one-way transmission of knowledge from researchers to its users (i.e., the push approach) [9,11,12]. In contrast, other KT approaches have been ingrained in purely user-centric approaches (i.e., the pull approach) within which users of knowledge require actively the new knowledge being produced by researchers. However, in recent years, KT approaches have increasingly integrated knowledge production and dissemination in a transactional and interactive space d (...truncated)