Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Ensuring that research findings reach their intended audience so that they may make a difference to health care is a challenge that is gaining greater emphasis. Traditional methods of dissemination may result in limited communication.
Method: Following the completion of a systematic review about the use of gardens by people with dementia resident in care homes, we produced a range of dissemination products containing the findings of the review: a peer-reviewed academic paper, an A4 hand-out of a conference poster, a tri-fold leaflet and a video clip. At a multi-disciplinary dementia conference we asked individuals to choose which format they preferred and to give their reasons for this choice.
Results: The activity attracted a lot of attention from conference attendees who were keen to participate and help to identify approaches to make research findings more readily accessible to them. A total of 40 people took part; 16 health care professionals (including nurses, occupational therapists and social workers), four carers/members of the public, four lecturer/researchers, two policy makers, four students (social work, nursing), three trainers of healthcare professionals, three members of other support organisations (housing, memory café) and three who did not specify. The leaflet was the most popular option (18 votes), followed by the video (9 votes), the poster (8 votes) and the peer-reviewed paper (5 votes). The most common reasons for preferring the leaflet were that it was easy to read and easy to access.
Conclusions: These pilot results suggest that consumers of systematic review findings are seeking to engage with them in a variety of different formats. Ease of access and the use of lay language are important considerations. Further work is planned to explore preferred level of content, the layout of dissemination products and methods of distribution.
Method: Following the completion of a systematic review about the use of gardens by people with dementia resident in care homes, we produced a range of dissemination products containing the findings of the review: a peer-reviewed academic paper, an A4 hand-out of a conference poster, a tri-fold leaflet and a video clip. At a multi-disciplinary dementia conference we asked individuals to choose which format they preferred and to give their reasons for this choice.
Results: The activity attracted a lot of attention from conference attendees who were keen to participate and help to identify approaches to make research findings more readily accessible to them. A total of 40 people took part; 16 health care professionals (including nurses, occupational therapists and social workers), four carers/members of the public, four lecturer/researchers, two policy makers, four students (social work, nursing), three trainers of healthcare professionals, three members of other support organisations (housing, memory café) and three who did not specify. The leaflet was the most popular option (18 votes), followed by the video (9 votes), the poster (8 votes) and the peer-reviewed paper (5 votes). The most common reasons for preferring the leaflet were that it was easy to read and easy to access.
Conclusions: These pilot results suggest that consumers of systematic review findings are seeking to engage with them in a variety of different formats. Ease of access and the use of lay language are important considerations. Further work is planned to explore preferred level of content, the layout of dissemination products and methods of distribution.