Mapping the knowledge needs of Cochrane Field stakeholders: a gaps analysis

Article type
Year
Authors
Lockwood C1, Weiland S2, Rees S3, Kunz R4, Howe T5, Champion C6
1Cochrane Nursing Care, Australia
2Cochrane Complementary Medicine, USA
3Cochrane Child Health, Canada
4Cochrane Insurance Medicine, Switzerland
5Cochrane Global Ageing, UK
6Cochrane Central, UK
Abstract
Background: Cochrane’s Strategy to 2020 emphasizes the critical need for external facing and cross-cutting engagement with clinical communities, professional bodies and other external stakeholders. These concepts are embedded in engagement, dissemination and transfer or translation of knowledge (KT), and much of this activity already occurs across Cochrane entities. Fields are active in dissemination and education, however, measurement of the scope of this activity and its perceived value and utility among key stakeholders has not been established. This multi-phase study sought to address questions related to types of educational content and activities, and to identify the perspectives of key Fields stakeholders in relation to awareness, impact and unmet needs.

Objectives: To provide an overarching framework that describes the current educational resources and activities of Cochrane Fields and identify the unmet knowledge needs of Field stakeholders.

Methods: This multi-phase study began with a comprehensive audit of current Field educational activities and resources using a cross-sectional design. This was supplemented by a series of purposive, short answer interviews conducted with key Fields stakeholders, that focused on identifying their self-reported knowledge needs and preferences. A final conceptual mapping process indicated the degree of overlap between current Field resources and educational activity and the knowledge requirements of stakeholders.

Results: Descriptive analysis of the survey data was mapped against stakeholder views and perspectives. These results show Fields deliver a range of training, with a focus on understanding systematic reviews, while stakeholders are interested in a broader range of knowledge.

Conclusions: Fields engage widely across external stakeholder groups, primarily promoting knowledge of Cochrane Reviews. Stakeholders have broader knowledge needs and priorities. These findings may inform future collaboration between Fields, Centres and Cochrane Central to deliver on these knowledge needs while minimizing duplication of effort.