One of the most consistent findings from clinical and health services research is the failure to translate research into practice and policy. As a result of these evidence-practice and policy gaps, patients fail to benefit optimally from advances in healthcare and are exposed to unnecessary risks of iatrogenic harms, and healthcare systems are exposed to unnecessary expenditure resulting in significant opportunity costs. Over the last decade, there has been increasing international policy and research attention on how to reduce the evidence-practice and policy gap. In this paper, we summarise the current concepts and evidence to guide knowledge translation activities, defined as T2 research (the translation of new clinical knowledge into improved health). We structure the article around five key questions: what should be transferred; to whom should research knowledge be transferred; by whom should research knowledge be transferred; how should research knowledge be transferred; and, with what effect should research knowledge be transferred?

There is increasing recognition that it is good practice to involve stakeholders (meaning patients, the public, health professionals and others) in systematic reviews, but limited evidence about how best to do this. We aimed to document the evidence-base relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews and to use this evidence to describe how stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. We carried out a scoping review, following a published protocol. We searched multiple electronic databases (2010–2016), using a stepwise searching approach, supplemented with hand searching. Two authors independently screened and discussed the first 500 abstracts and, after clarifying selection criteria, screened a further 500. Agreement on screening decisions was 97%, so screening was done by one reviewer only. Pre-planned data extraction was completed, and the comprehensiveness of the description of methods of involvement judged. Additional data extraction was completed for papers judged to have most comprehensive descriptions. Three stakeholder representatives were co-authors for this systematic review. We included 291 papers in which stakeholders were involved in a systematic review. Thirty percent involved patients and/or carers. Thirty-two percent were from the USA, 26% from the UK and 10% from Canada. Ten percent (32 reviews) were judged to provide a comprehensive description of methods of involving stakeholders. Sixty-nine percent (22/32) personally invited people to be involved; 22% (7/32) advertised opportunities to the general population. Eighty-one percent (26/32) had between 1 and 20 face-to-face meetings, with 83% of these holding ≤ 4 meetings. Meetings lasted 1 h to ½ day. Nineteen percent (6/32) used a Delphi method, most often involving three electronic rounds. Details of ethical approval were reported by 10/32. Expenses were reported to be paid to people involved in 8/32 systematic reviews. We identified a relatively large number (291) of papers reporting stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, but the quality of reporting was generally very poor. Information from a subset of papers judged to provide the best descriptions of stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews provide examples of different ways in which stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. These examples arguably currently provide the best available information to inform and guide decisions around the planning of stakeholder involvement within future systematic reviews. This evidence has been used to develop online learning resources. The protocol for this systematic review was published on 21 April 2017. Publication reference: Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, Goodare H, Watts C, Morley R: Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects. Research Involvement and Engagement 2017, 3:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0060-4 .

The role of health communication in vaccination programmes cannot be overemphasized: it has contributed significantly to creating and sustaining demand for vaccination services and improving vaccination coverage. In Nigeria, numerous communication approaches have been deployed but these interventions are not without challenges. We therefore aimed to explore factors affecting the delivery of vaccination communication in Nigeria. We used a qualitative approach and conducted the study in two states: Bauchi and Cross River States in northern and southern Nigeria respectively. We identified factors affecting the implementation of communication interventions through interviews with relevant stakeholders involved in vaccination communication in the health services. We also reviewed relevant documents. Data generated were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. We used the SURE framework to organise the identified factors (barriers and facilitators) affecting vaccination communication delivery. We then grouped these into health systems and community level factors. Some of the commonly reported health system barriers amongst stakeholders interviewed included: funding constraints, human resource factors (health worker shortages, training deficiencies, poor attitude of health workers and vaccination teams), inadequate infrastructure and equipment and weak political will. Community level factors included the attitudes of community stakeholders and of parents and caregivers. We also identified factors that appeared to facilitate communication activities. These included political support, engagement of traditional and religious institutions and the use of organised communication committees. Communication activities are a crucial element of immunization programmes. It is therefore important for policy makers and programme managers to understand the barriers and facilitators affecting the delivery of vaccination communication so as to be able to implement communication interventions more effectively.

We compared face-to-face focus groups and an online forum in qualitative research with people with multiple sclerosis (MS) and family members. Although the merits and challenges of online qualitative research have been considered by others, there is limited literature directly comparing these two data collection methods for people with disability or chronic illness. Twenty-seven people participated in one of four focus groups and 33 people took part in an online forum. Demographic and MS-related characteristics were similar between the two groups, with a slight nonsignificant trend toward nonmetropolitan residence in online forum participants. There was a high level of overlap in the themes generated between groups. Participant responses in the online forum were more succinct and on-topic, yet in the focus groups interaction was greater. Online qualitative research methods can facilitate research participation for people with chronic illness or disability, yielding generally comparable information to that gathered via face-to-face methods.

Communicating risk is part of primary prevention of coronary heart disease and stroke, collectively referred to as cardiovascular disease (CVD). In Australia, health organisations have promoted an absolute risk approach, thereby raising the question of suitable standardised formats for risk communication.