dedup_wf_001--a7136ef2bbd25575d018691e5751d9e9

Background For the prevention and control of chronic diseases, two strategies are frequently highlighted: that public health should be evidence based, and that it should develop a multisectoral approach. At the end of a natural experimental study of the health impacts of new transport infrastructure, we took the opportunity of a knowledge exchange forum to explore how stakeholders assessed, negotiated and intended to apply multisectoral evidence in policy and practice at the intersection of transport and health. We aimed to better understand the challenges they faced in knowledge exchange, as well as their everyday experiences with working in multisectoral remits. Methods In 2015, we conducted participant observation during an interactive event with 41 stakeholders from national and local government, the third sector and academia in Cambridge, UK. Formal and informal interactions between stakeholders were recorded in observational field notes. We also conducted 18 semistructured interviews reflecting on the event and on knowledge exchange in general. Results We found that stakeholders negotiated a variety of challenges. First, stakeholders had to negotiate relatively new formal and informal multisectoral remits; and how to reconcile the differing expectations of transport specialists, who tended to emphasise the importance of precedence in guiding action, and health specialists’ concern for the rigour and synthesis of research evidence. Second, research in this field involved complex study designs, and often produced evidence with uncertain transferability to other settings. Third, health outcomes of transport schemes had political traction and were used strategically but not easily translated into cost-benefit ratios. Finally, knowledge exchange meant multiple directions of influence. Stakeholders were concerned that researchers did not always have skills to translate their findings into understandable evidence, and some stakeholders would welcome opportunities to influence research agendas. Conclusions This case study of stakeholders’ experiences indicates that multisectoral research, practice and policymaking requires the ability and capacity to locate, understand and communicate complex evidence from a variety of disciplines, and integrate different types of evidence into clear business cases beyond sectoral boundaries. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3940-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Tags
Data and Resources
To access the resources you must log in

This item has no data

Identity

Description: The Identity category includes attributes that support the identification of the resource.

Field Value
PID https://www.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3940-x
PID pmid:28056895
PID https://www.doi.org/10.17863/cam.6918
PID pmc:PMC5217628
PID https://www.doi.org/10.17863/cam.6972
URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3940-x
URL https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/handle/10871/31997
URL https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1534662/
URL https://paperity.org/p/79103605/negotiating-multisectoral-evidence-a-qualitative-study-of-knowledge-exchange-at-the
URL https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/261715
URL http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/28056895
URL https://academic.microsoft.com/#/detail/2571348385
URL https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12889-016-3940-x
URL http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s12889-016-3940-x.pdf
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.17863/cam.6972
URL http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12889-016-3940-x
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.17863/cam.6918
URL https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28056895
URL https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2458
URL https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s12889-016-3940-x
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3940-x
URL https://core.ac.uk/display/81714052
URL http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5217628
URL https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-016-3940-x
Access Modality

Description: The Access Modality category includes attributes that report the modality of exploitation of the resource.

Field Value
Access Right Open Access
Attribution

Description: Authorships and contributors

Field Value
Author Guell-Unwin, Cornelia, 0000-0003-0105-410X
Author Mackett, Roger, 0000-0002-2729-1915
Author Ogilvie, David, 0000-0002-0270-4672
Contributor Apollo-University Of Cambridge Repository
Publishing

Description: Attributes about the publishing venue (e.g. journal) and deposit location (e.g. repository)

Field Value
Collected From OpenAPC Initiative; Europe PubMed Central; PubMed Central; ORCID; Datacite; UnpayWall; DOAJ-Articles; Crossref; Microsoft Academic Graph; CORE (RIOXX-UK Aggregator)
Hosted By OpenAPC Initiative; Europe PubMed Central; SpringerOpen; BMC Public Health
Journal BMC Public Health, ,
Publication Date 2017-01-01
Additional Info
Field Value
Language UNKNOWN
Resource Type Other literature type; Conference object; Article; UNKNOWN
keyword Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
system:type publication
Management Info
Field Value
Source https://science-innovation-policy.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=dedup_wf_001::a7136ef2bbd25575d018691e5751d9e9
Author jsonws_user
Last Updated 23 December 2020, 02:49 (CET)
Created 23 December 2020, 02:49 (CET)