Competency profiles for Evidence-Informed Policymaking (EIPM): a rapid scoping review

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2080837/v1

Background

Evidence-Informed Policymaking (EIPM) require a set of individual and organizational capabilities, articulated with background factors and needs. The identification of essential Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes for EIPM can support the formulation of competency profiles and their application in different contexts.

Purpose

To identify elements of competency (Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes) for EIPM, according to different professional profiles.

Methods

Rapid scoping review. A structured search was led, and later updated in two comprehensive repositories (BVSalud and PubMed). Review studies with different designs, published from 2010 onwards, without language restriction were included. Assessment of the methodological quality of the studies was not performed. A meta-aggregative narrative synthesis consolidated the findings.

Results

Ten reviews were included. Eight elements were categorized as Knowledge, 19 as Skills and 10 as Attitudes were identified, totaling 37 elements of competency. These elements were aggregated into four competency profiles (Researcher, Health Professional, Decision-maker and Citizen). The competency profiles included different sets of EIPM-related Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes.

Strengths and limitations

This study is innovative because it aggregates different profiles of competency and uses a practical perspective, favoring the application of its results in different contexts, to support EIPM. Methodological limitations are related to the shortcuts adopted in this review, especially as it does not include complementary searches of the grey literature and does not carry out, in duplicate, the stages of study selection and data extraction.

Final considerations: conclusions and implications of the findings

EIPMs require the development of individual and organizational capacities. This rapid scoping review contributes to the discussion on the institutionalization of EIPM in health systems. The competency profiles presented here can support discussions about the availability and need for capacity development in different contexts.

Evidence-Informed Policymaking

Evidence-Informed Decision Making

Knowledge Translation

Competency Profiles

Knowledge

Skills and Attitudes

In the context of health systems, Evidence-Informed Policymaking (EIPM) results from systematic and transparent processes to access, assess, adapt and apply scientific evidence in decision-making processes (1). EIPM promotes the use of scientific knowledge in decision-making processes and in the development of innovative health methods and strategies. It also fosters technical cooperation between organizations and other interested social groups that produce and apply this scientific knowledge (2).

Thus, EIPM advocates the incorporation of scientific evidence as a subsidy for decision-making processes in the formulation and implementation of health policies. In this context, evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) emphasizes that decisions should be informed by the best available evidence, as well as other factors such as context, public opinion, equity, feasibility of implementation, accessibility, sustainability and acceptability to stakeholders (3).

In this context, Knowledge Translation (KT) to promote EIDM is a prior foundation to be considered (3). Knowledge Translation is a dynamic and interactive process that includes synthesis, dissemination, exchange and ethical application of knowledge to improve population health, provide more effective health services and products and strengthen the health system (4). This definition is part of a complex system of interactions, also known as Knowledge Translation platforms (5), which articulates producers, mediators and users of scientific knowledge, in different intensities, complexities and levels of involvement, depending on the nature of the research and the needs in different contexts.

In this way, four elements of Knowledge Translation are emphasized: synthesis, dissemination, exchange and practical application of knowledge in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of health policies, at any level of management of health systems and services.

In order to include scientific evidence in decision-making processes, through systematic, transparent and balanced Knowledge Translation approaches, it is necessary that individual and institutional capacities are recognized and available. These capacities aim not only to support the use of structured and replicable methods, but also to consider the different factors that influence a priority public health problem and the process of implementing interventions to address it. Thus, one seeks to inform decisions to act on the causes and consequences of the problem, in a comprehensive way (6,7,8).

This set of capacities constitutes a profile, considered from the perspective of professional competencies (9, 10). The concept of competency considers cognitive, psychomotor, and attitudinal attributes as elements of a competent practice (11). For that matter, competency includes the mobilization of different resources to solve, with relevance and success, problems of professional practice. These resources or attributes are the Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes mobilized, in an integrated way, to carry out professional actions (12,13).

Defining the essential competencies for EIPM professionals is key for identifying individual and institutional capacity development needs. This is necessary for establishing Knowledge Translation platforms in different organizational contexts.

In addition, an EIPM competency profile also contributes to the theoretical discussion, but from an applied perspective, supporting the planning and implementation of EIPM initiatives in different contexts.

This study is part of an initiative commissioned by the Brazilian Ministry of Health to support EIPM development in Brazil and aimed to identify EIPM-related competency (Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes). The competency elements were classified according to different professional profiles (Researcher, Health Professional and Decision-maker and Citizen), considered from a broad conceptual perspective, which can be applied to different socioeconomic contexts and organizational scenarios. The results of this study also supported the development of a specific competency profile for EIPM adapted to the Brazilian context.

This study is a rapid scoping review (14), which followed a prospective protocol (https://zenodo.org/record/6539137), according to the steps described in this section, including deviations from the protocol. The planning and execution of this review followed the recommendations of the World Health Organization manual for rapid reviews (14) and its report adheres to PRISMA (15).

Selection criteria

The following study types were included: overviews of systematic reviews, systematic reviews, scoping reviews and reviews of qualitative studies (systematic or narrative), without language restriction, from 2010 onwards, that analyzed and/or described competencies for EIPM.

Review question

The review question was: what are the general and specific competencies (Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes) for professional performance in EIPM? The question was structured according to the PCC acronym, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Question (Population, Concept, Context)

Population	Professionals working in EIPM
Concept	Competency profile (skills, knowledge and attitudes)
Context	Any context

Search strategy and indexed databases

Searches were conducted on two comprehensive and up-to-date databases, BVSalud and PubMed, on March 16, 2022. The search strategies are shown in Table 2.

According to the protocol of this review, manual searches would be conducted in the references of the selected studies and in relevant institutional websites. However, the authors did not perform this complementary search in the references of the studies included, nor in grey literature, given the sufficiency of the information obtained in the retrieved studies, for the purpose of this rapid scoping review.

Table 2. Databases and search strategies used

Data Base	Search strategy
BVSalud	(knowledge transfer OR knowledge utilization OR knowledge use OR knowledge translation OR knowledge implementation OR research in practice OR knowledge mobilization OR knowledge exchange OR research transfer OR research utilization OR research use OR research dissemination OR knowledge dissemination OR research exchange OR research translation OR knowledge TO action OR know do gap OR evidence informed OR diffusion of knowledge OR research into practice OR knowledge into practice OR evidence into practice OR translational science) AND (competence OR capacity building OR skill OR ability OR training OR curriculum OR learning) AND (type_of_study:("policy_brief" OR "sysrev_observational_studies" OR "systematic_reviews"))
PubMed	((knowledge transfer[Title/Abstract] OR knowledge utilization[Title/Abstract] OR knowledge use[Title/Abstract] OR knowledge translation[Title/Abstract] OR knowledge implementation[Title/Abstract] OR research in practice[Title/Abstract] OR knowledge mobilization[Title/Abstract] OR knowledge exchange[Title/Abstract] OR research transfer[Title/Abstract] OR research utilization[Title/Abstract] OR research use[Title/Abstract] OR research dissemination[Title/Abstract] OR knowledge dissemination[Title/Abstract] OR research exchange[Title/Abstract] OR research translation[Title/Abstract] OR knowledge to action[Title/Abstract] OR know do gap[Title/Abstract] OR evidence informed[Title/Abstract] OR diffusion of knowledge[Title/Abstract] OR research into practice[Title/Abstract] OR knowledge into practice[Title/Abstract] OR evidence into practice[Title/Abstract] OR translational science[Title/Abstract]) AND (competenc*[Title/Abstract] OR capacity building[Title/Abstract] OR skill[Title/Abstract] OR ability[Title/Abstract] OR training[Title/Abstract] OR curriculum[Title/Abstract] OR learning[Title/Abstract]))

Screening and selection of studies

Duplicates were excluded and the adequacy to the inclusion criteria was assessed by reading the titles and abstracts, independently and complementary by three reviewers (JOMB, DMMR, CS), supported by the Rayyan platform (16). Individual doubts were resolved by consensus, with a second reviewer (JOMB). Prior to data extraction, a reviewer (CS) read the selected studies in full, to confirm eligibility.

Data Extraction

One reviewer (CS) extracted data and two other reviewers (JOMB and DMMR) verified the extraction. An electronic spreadsheet supported the systematization of the following data from the individual studies selected: author, year of publication, purpose of the study, study design, country where the study was carried out, context, target population, competencies identified, barriers and facilitators (when mentioned), knowledge gaps identified by the study, study limitations, conflict of interests declared and funding (when available).

Data synthesis

The authors performed a meta-aggregative narrative synthesis, in order to consolidate the individual findings. Two classifications were used to categorize the findings. The first, regarding the competency element, considered the following categories, usually applied in the definition of competency profiles, as the KSA model: 1) Knowledge: different types of knowledge and information; 2) Skills: improved movements and non-verbal communication intertwined with knowledge, expressed as the psychomotor domain in the manipulation and construction of processes and products; 3) Attitudes: feelings, positioning and values linked to skills and knowledge in the performance of professional tasks (17). The second classification took four professional profiles of interest: 1) Researcher: professional who works in the production of scientific research; 2) Health Professional: professional who works in the provision of health services; 3) Health systems and services decision-maker: professional who works in the management of health services and/or systems, at any level and 4) Citizen: individual inserted in civil society, participating or not in organizations representing specific groups.

These categories were used to aggregate the different competency elements identified in this review. This process often led to overlapping elements in the different professional profiles, i. e., the same element may be present in more than one profile.

Methodological quality assessment

We did not perform a methodological quality assessment of the included studies. In the protocol of this review, the evaluation was anticipated, but the authors decided not to proceed with this step, because it is not a requirement for scope reviews and given the little contribution of this information to our practical objective.

Shortcuts adopted and deviations from the protocol

We adopted some methodological shortcuts to reduce the time to carry out this rapid scoping review, considering that its purpose was to inform institutional deliberations belonging to a pre-defined schedule. Among the adopted shortcuts, we highlight those that potentially influence the completeness and reliability of the findings presented: 1) the searches were performed in two repositories, including studies published from 2010 onwards, while neither the grey literature nor the reference list of included studies was considered. This also is a deviation from the protocol, which foresaw complementary searches. Restricting the grey literature search is a common shortcut for rapid reviews for policy topics and tailoring, generally to adjust the selection of literature databases to the topic, because the addition of a grey literature search depends on the topic, purpose and timeline (14). In this review, we consider the potential contribution to the topic addressed and the time required for the complementary search, to decide not to extend the searches for grey literature. 2) selection and data extraction was not duplicated, but performed individually and verified by another reviewer; 3) the evaluation of the methodological quality of the selected studies was not carried out, consisting of the second deviation from the protocol. While an assessment of the methodological quality of included studies is desirable in a review, scoping reviews do not require this step, given the potential variety of methodological designs and the nature of the topic or issue addressed (14). Therefore, we decided not to carry out an assessment of the methodological quality of the included studies; and 4) the results were synthesized with a meta-aggregative approach and presented only descriptively in synthetic tables.

Although these shortcuts and deviations from the protocol suggest caution in the interpretation of the results of this review, they are recognized as potential opportunities to reduce the time to be applied for the development of rapid reviews that are still reliable (14,18,19).

Study selection

The searches retrieved 714 documents. After eliminating nine duplicates, 705 documents were screened by reading titles and abstracts, and 35 publications were considered eligible for full text reading. After a complete reading of the documents, 25 were excluded for not meeting the inclusion criteria, and of these, two were excluded after data extraction, by consensus of the authors on their eligibility. The list of excluded studies, as well as the respective reasons for exclusion, can be found in Appendix 1. Ten studies were ultimately included in this rapid scoping review (Figure 1).

Studies characteristics

Among the ten studies included, seven were systematic reviews (20-26), one scoping review (6), one rapid review (27) and one evidence map (28). The countries of the studies were: South Africa (28), Australia (21,23,26,27), Canada (6), United States (25), Netherlands (22), Iran (20), Norway and Spain (24). Regarding the target audience, health professionals (6,22,23,25,26,27), researchers (21) and policymakers (21.28), managers (6.20) and citizens (24) were identified. Finally, regarding the researched context, health systems (6,26,28), health care services (6,20,22,24,28) and health education sites (21) are included.

Synthesis of findings

General elements of competency in EIPM

Most of the studies included in this rapid scoping review did not explicitly present a framework of ideal competencies for EIPM professionals. However, all included studies report, according to their purposes, elements that were interpreted to identify competencies in EIPM. Thus, the allocation of competencies in the categories adopted (Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes) was made observing the best suitability, according to the authors' understanding and consensus, as compiled in Appendix 2.

Competencies were also coded and aggregated, whenever possible, in order to provide a summarized description of each identified element. The description resulting from this categorization and synthesis process is presented in Table 3, based on the findings of the included studies. More details on the extracted data can be found in Appendix 2, as already mentioned.

Table 3. General list and description of the competency elements (Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes) identified.

Knowledge	Description
Knowing the health system context	Knowing the structure and dynamics of the health system, the role of institutions, workers, managers and users (6, 20)
Knowing the organizational context	Knowing the structure and dynamics of the organization(s) in which the policy will be implemented (20)
Knowing basic aspects of health policies	Knowing the basic aspects of health policy formulation, including what they are, how they are designed and how they are implemented (21)
Knowing the fundamentals of academic research	Knowing the basic processes of academic research production, including knowledge of research development tools, research data sources, how to set research priorities and how to carry out research (6, 21, 22)
Knowing group facilitation techniques	Knowing techniques to facilitate group processes, exchange of information, collective construction of knowledge and health practices (6)
Knowing communication techniques	Knowing communication techniques in the context of the health system (6)
Knowing KT* methods	Knowing basic processes and methods in KT (6, 7)
Having prior formal education	Having completed higher education and having prior knowledge of foreign languages (6, 22)
Skills	Description
Gaining proficiency in research skills	Gaining proficiency in research skills, knowing how to produce, search, critically assess and synthesize evidence (6, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28)
Gaining proficiency in management of KT activities	Gaining proficiency in skills related to planning, executing and applying KT strategies (6, 20, 21)
Knowing how to pose relevant questions	Knowing how to identify and prioritize questions relevant to the context of health policies and systems (21, 23)
Knowing how to contextualize evidence	Making use of evidence considering the context of implementation and making the necessary adaptations (6, 21)
Knowing how to apply evidence	Gaining proficiency in ways of applying appropriate evidence in decision-making processes. Knowing how to apply them in accordance with legal practices, recognizing the risks, benefits, biases, effects and costs, maintaining rigor, transparency and considering the priorities listed (6, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28)
Knowing how to support the use of evidence by institutions and their key actors	Gaining proficiency in KT strategies to: a) facilitate the flow of knowledge; b) improve practice and policy; c) create demand for evidence; d) build the policymaker's confidence; d) offer technical support to the needs under discussion; e) build capacity among stakeholders for evidence-based participatory decision-making; f) build consensus and support negotiations; g) assist stakeholders in applying, analyzing and evaluating knowledge in appropriate contexts (6, 21, 25)
Knowing how to communicate evidence to relevant target audiences	Being able to communicate and disseminate the knowledge produced, in order to promote its use by relevant actors (6, 21)
Knowing how to manage organizations	Knowing how to manage institutions of the public health system (6)
Knowing how to manage people	Knowing how to coordinate teams to achieve institutional goals (6)
Knowing how to manage networks and engage stakeholders	Fostering, developing and nurturing networks between stakeholders, to collaborate in the production and exchange of knowledge (including transdisciplinary), respecting cultural norms and practices, cultivating beneficial and synergistic long-term partnerships whenever possible (21, 25)
Knowing how to manage projects in the public sector	Knowing how to manage resources, processes, risks, and monitor and evaluate projects in the public sector (6, 20, 21, 25)
Knowing how to design public policies	Having the ability to plan and develop programs and policies for the public sector (25)
Knowing how to implement public policies	Facilitating the implementation of programs and policies, promoting innovation and the improvement of health practices (6, 21, 25)
Knowing how to do advocacy	Having rhetorical, argumentative, or material capacity or potential to negotiate, sustain, defend or propose a certain cause or project with civil society, research groups or institutionally (21)
Knowing how to evaluate public policies	Knowing how to evaluate institutional decisions, processes and results of the policies adopted (20, 21, 23, 25)
Knowing how to establish good interpersonal relationships	Knowing how to establish good interpersonal relationships, through: a) ethical and respectful practices, based on non-violent communication; b) self-control, self-knowledge, balance and emotional self-management; c) ability to report and understand information received respectfully, regardless of the hierarchical position occupied (6, 20)
Knowing how to promote cooperative actions	Knowing how to promote, establish and encourage the creation of bonds, partnerships and effective exchanges through cooperation and teamwork between health policy makers and researchers (6, 21)
Knowing how to lead processes and projects	Knowing how to lead processes and projects, promoting the engagement of the responsible team and relevant key actors (6, 20, 21, 27)
Having basic computer skills	Having basic computer skills, being able to handle essential software and other important information technologies for the practice and development of tasks related to EIPM (6, 22)
Attitudes	Description
Acting with professionalism	Acting with high ethical and professional standards, which include integrity, responsibility towards the community, service orientation, commitment to lifelong learning and improvement (6, 20)
Valuing research	Valuing research as an important resource for the elaboration of public policies in all of its stages (6, 26)
Valuing learning	Having a lifelong self-directed commitment to learning (having an attitude that values experiential learning and persistence, commitment to developing a learning culture and continuous improvement; utilizing critical thinking) (6)
Reflecting carefully	Carefully, judiciously and sensibly reflecting on problems and dilemmas, with balance in judgment (6)
Acting with creativity	Adopting a creative attitude, seeking to experiment and combine different forms and resources in order to solve problems (6)
Acting with confidence in their own abilities	Making assertive use of one's already developed Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes (6, 27)
Trusting the other actors in the system	Acting with confidence in the character, integrity and competency of the other actors involved (6)
Appreciating teamwork	Having practices and behaviors that promote and encourage teamwork (6)
Appreciating the possibility of change	Having a flexible personal and professional attitude, accepting, valuing, enabling and managing the occurrence of situations that bring change (20)
Acting with motivation and initiative	Acting with motivation and initiative, proactively seeking opportunities to, in addition to meeting the demands received, contribute to improving the general mood of the environment (22, 27)

*Note: KT: knowledge translation.

Specific elements of competency in EIPM, per professional profile

From the included studies, competency elements were identified and assigned to each professional profile in EIPM: 1) Researcher; 2) Health Professional; 3) Decision-maker and 4) Citizen. The following tables present this classification. The studies not always explicitly associated the competencies with the different profiles. When this association was not mentioned, the authors of this review assessed the relevance of the competency for each profile and classified them accordingly. This evaluation was based on the authors' understanding of the EIPM field. In the tables, it is indicated whether the competency elements were assigned to each professional profile by the included studies (“Assigned by the studies)” or, in a complementary way, according to the interpretation of the authors of this rapid scoping review (“Assigned by the authors”)

Table 4. Elements of competency in EIPM, Researcher profile

Knowledge

Skills

Attitudes

Assigned by the studies: Knowing the context of the health system (6,20) Knowing basic aspects of health policies (21) Knowing the fundamentals of academic research (6,21,22)

Knowing group facilitation techniques (6) Knowing communication techniques (6) Knowing KT methods (6,21)

Having prior formal education (6)

Assigned by the authors: Knowing the organizational context

Assigned by the studies: Gaining proficiency in research Skills (6,21,28)

Gaining proficiency in KT actions management (6,21)

Knowing how to pose relevant questions (21)

Knowing how to contextualize evidence (6,21)

Knowing how to apply evidence (6,21,28)

Knowing how to support the use of evidence by institutions and their key actors (6,21,25) Knowing how to communicate evidence to relevant target audiences (6,21)

Knowing how to manage networks and engage stakeholders (21.25)

Knowing how to manage projects in the public sector (6,20,21,25)

Knowing how to design public policies (25)

Knowing how to implement public policies (6,21,25)

Knowing how to do advocacy

(21)

Knowing how to assess public policies (21,25)

Knowing how to establish good interpersonal relationships (6)

Knowing how to promote cooperative actions (6,21) Knowing how to lead processes and projects (6,21)

Having basic computer skills (6)

Assigned by the authors: Knowing how to manage people

Assigned by the studies: Acting with professionalism (6)

Valuing research (6) Valuing learning (6)

Reflecting carefully (6)

Acting with creativity (6) Acting with confidence in their own abilities (6) Trusting the other actors in the system (6)

Appreciating teamwork (6)

Assigned by the authors: Appreciating the possibility of change

Acting with motivation and initiative

Note: KT: knowledge translation.

Table 5. Elements of competency in EIPM, Health Professional profile

Knowledge

Skills

Attitudes

Assigned by the studies: Knowing the fundamentals of academic research (22) Having prior formal education (22)

Assigned by the authors: Knowing the context of the health system Knowing the organizational context

Knowing basic aspects of health policies Knowing group facilitation techniques Knowing communication techniques

Knowing KT* methods

Assigned by the studies: Gaining proficiency in research skills (22,23,27) Knowing how to apply evidence (23,27)

Knowing how to assess public policies (23)

Knowing how to lead processes and projects (27)

Having basic computer skills (22)

Assigned by the authors: Knowing how to implement public policies

Knowing how to do advocacy

Assigned by the studies: Valuing research (26) Valuing learning (22)

Act with confidence in their own abilities (27) Acting with motivation and initiative (22,27)

Assigned by the authors: Act with professionalism Reflecting carefully Acting with creativity

Trusting the other actors in the system

Appreciating teamwork

Appreciating the possibility of change

*Note: KT: knowledge translation.

Table 6. Elements of competency in EIPM, Decision-maker profile

Knowledge

Skills

Attitudes

Assigned by the studies: Knowing the context of the health system (6,20) Knowing the organizational context (6) Knowing the fundamentals of academic research (6) Knowing group facilitation techniques (6) Knowing communication techniques (6) Knowing KT* methods (6)

Having prior formal education (6)

Assigned by the authors: Knowing basic aspects of health policies

Assigned by the studies: Gaining proficiency in research skills (6,20,28)

Gaining proficiency in KT actions management (6)

Knowing how to contextualize evidence (6)

Knowing how to apply evidence (6,20,28)

Knowing how to support the use of evidence by institutions and their key actors (6,25)

Knowing how to communicate evidence to relevant target audiences (6)

Knowing how to manage organizations (20)

Knowing how to manage people (20)

Knowing how to manage networks and engage stakeholders (25)

Knowing how to manage projects in the public sector (6,20,25)

Knowing how to design public policies (25)

Knowing how to implement public policies (6,25)

Knowing how to assess public policies (20.25)

Knowing how to establish good interpersonal relationships (6,20)

Knowing how to promote cooperative actions (6)

Knowing how to lead processes and projects (21,27)

Having basic computer skills (6)

Assigned by the authors: Knowing how to pose relevant questions

Knowing how to do advocacy

Assigned by the studies:

Acting with professionalism (6,20)

Valuing research (6)

Valuing learning (6)

Reflecting carefully (6)

Acting with creativity (6)

Acting with confidence in their own abilities (6)

Trusting the other actors in the system (6)

Appreciating teamwork (6)

Appreciating the possibility of change (20)

Assigned by the authors: Acting with motivation and initiative

*Note: KT: knowledge translation

Table 7. Elements of competency in EIPM, Citizen profile

Knowledge

Skills

Attitudes

Assigned by the studies: Not found

Assigned by the authors: Knowing the context of the health system

Knowing basic aspects of health policies

Knowing the fundamentals of academic research

Knowing group facilitation techniques

Knowing communication techniques

Knowing KT* methods

Assigned by the studies:

Gaining proficiency in research skills (24)

Knowing how to apply evidence (24)

Assigned by the authors: Knowing how to do advocacy

Knowing how to establish good interpersonal relationships

Knowing how to promote cooperative actions

Assigned by the studies:

Not found

Assigned by the authors:

Acting with professionalism

Valuing research

Valuing learning

Reflecting carefully

Acting with creativity

Acting with confidence in their own abilities

Trusting the other actors in the system

Appreciating teamwork

Appreciating the possibility of change

Acting with motivation and initiative

*Note: KT: knowledge translation

This rapid scoping review addressed a topic of high relevance for EIPM at a global level. The adoption of competency profiles is a critical strategy to support the institutionalization of scientific evidence as an input for decision-making in the formulation and implementation of health policies, in all contexts. A rigorous process was adopted to identify the relevant elements to develop of competency profiles for professionals who work in Knowledge Translation and EIPM.

Some previous studies included in this comprehensive review presented competencies related to Knowledge Translation and EIPM, but with approaches limited to specific profiles (20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25). To our knowledge, this is the first study that aggregates different competency profiles.

The findings of this review showed that there are previous frameworks on competencies in EIPM that can be incorporated into contextualized discussions, at different levels of health policies and systems. These frameworks present elements of competencies that can be classified as Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes (KSA). These competencies, in turn, must be seen as an integrated and interactive set of individual capabilities, which interact with the organizational environment, to constitute professional profiles with different areas of activity. Despite the profiles being different from each other, the overlapping of some elements was common, as well as the acknowledgement by the authors of this review of the need to carry out the reclassification and supplement the gaps that a rigid classification could produce on these results.

It is also important to emphasize that the practical application of this competencies profile must be broadly anchored in the local needs of each institution and/or professional. Advancing the institutionalization of EIPM requires the recognition of the capabilities already available in an institution, which must be compared with the organization's tasks and attributions. It is this contextualization process that will generate the appropriate competency profile for each situation. Therefore, this study should be seen as an initial subsidy. Its application requires understand the relevance of each element here described to each organization. For example, the competency elements presented above do not need to be associated with a single professional, but can guide the composition of a team that contains the necessary set of skills.

Within the EIPM scope, there is a relevant movement aimed at strengthening the institutionalization of Knowledge Translation processes within governments, civil society organizations and academic institutions (29, 30, 31). However, the lack of tools and frameworks focused on institutional and individual capacities is still a barrier to be surpassed. The results of this review provide acknowledgement of the global literature related to the individual capacities needed and information that can be immediately applied in discussions and deliberations on the institutionalization of EIPM, in all parts of the world.

Strengths and limitations

The strengths of this rapid scoping review include: 1) to be the first to cover different professional profiles and to adopt a friendly format in the categorization and presentation of the findings, allowing the immediate use of its results; 2) adopting rigorous methods to provide, in a timely manner, a body of evidence on an issue of high interest in the current EIPM field, inside and outside Brazil; and 3) contributing to acknowledging and filling of gaps related to the situational diagnosis of individual and organizational competencies for EIPM.

As previously mentioned, methodological limitations include: 1) being a rapid scoping review, the authors adopted shortcuts and deviations from the protocol, which may have led to the loss of relevant documents, especially from the grey literature. However, we believe that the set of published literature, gathered in this review, has sufficiently provided an overview of the available competency elements; 2) the meta-aggregative synthesis carried out to consolidate the results of the different studies included had a narrative character and may have oversimplified the concepts and definitions presented in the description tables of the competency elements. We believe that the guidance to use the findings of this review in a manner adapted to each contexts’ needs can minimize this limitation, as it will imply a process of re-signification of the findings; 3) the categories used to classify the competency profiles may not be so distinguishable in practice, including elements that are dynamically and interactively correlated. Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes should be seen as an integrated set of capabilities, in the same way that the profiles presented here can often present overlaps and intersections that imply the need to recognize areas of activity, rather than actual professional profiles.

This rapid scoping review presented elements for professional competency profiles applied to EIPM, contributing to the discussion on the institutionalization of scientific evidence as subsidies for systematic, transparent, and balanced processes, within the scope of public health policies. The use of these findings will demonstrate their usefulness to support strategic planning in health organizations as well as civil society and academic organizations.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

Available in appendices 1 and 2.

Competing interests

All authors received remuneration from the Instituto Sírio-Libanês de Ensino e Pesquisa do Hospital Sírio-Libanês (IEP/HSL) for the development of this study, however, the authors declare that there is no conflict of interest, as well as no influence from the funding institution on the development of the study or on the results presented.

Funding

This study was funded with resources from the Support for the Formulation and Implementation of Public Health Policies Informed by Evidence (ESPIE) project, developed by Instituto Sírio-Libanês de Ensino e Pesquisa do Hospital Sírio-Libanês (IEP/HSL), within the scope of the Support Program for Institutional Development of the Unified Health System (PROADI-SUS), in partnership with the Department of Science and Technology of the Department of Science, Technology, Innovation and Strategic Inputs of the Ministry of Health (DECIT/SCTIE/MS).

Authors' contributions

JOMB: study design; data collection, analysis, and interpretation; elaboration of the first version of the manuscript; approval of the final version of the manuscript; and responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of all aspects of the research.

DMMR: data collection, analysis, and interpretation; elaboration of the manuscript; approval of the final version of the manuscript.

CS: data collection, analysis, and interpretation; elaboration of the manuscript; approval of the final version of the manuscript.

MLTM: data interpretation; elaboration of the manuscript; approval of the final version of the manuscript.

RR: data interpretation; elaboration of the manuscript; approval of the final version of the manuscript.

RG: study design; data interpretation; elaboration of the manuscript; approval of the final version of the manuscript.

SFS: study design; elaboration of the manuscript; approval of the final version of the manuscript; and responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of all aspects of the research.

Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Lewin S et al. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 1: What is Evidence-Informed Policymaking? Health Res Policy Sys. 2009. 7, S1. DOI: 10.1186/1478-4505-7-S1-S1
Lavis JN, Røttingen JA, Bosch-Capblanch X, Atun R, El-Jardali F, Gilson L, Lewin S, Oliver S, Ongolo-Zogo P, Haines A. Guidance for evidence-informed policies about health systems: linking guidance development to policy development. PLoS Med. 2012.9(3):e1001186. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001186.
World Health Organization. Evidence, policy, impact. WHO guide for evidence-informed decision-making. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021. Available on: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/350994/9789240039872-eng.pdf. [Cited in 2021 Jul 30]
Straus SE, Tetroe J, Graham I. Defining knowledge translation. CMAJ. 2009. 181(3-4):165- 168. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.081229
Partridge ACR, Mansilla, C., Randhawa, H. et al. Lessons learned from descriptions and evaluations of knowledge translation platforms supporting Evidence-Informed Policymaking-making in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Health Res Policy Sys. 2020. 18, 127. DOI: 10.1186/s12961-020-00626-5
Mallidou AA, Atherton P, Chan L, et al. Core knowledge translation competencies: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. Jun 2018. 18, 502. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-018-3314-4
Tait H, Williamson A. A literature review of knowledge translation and partnership research training programs for health researchers. Health Res Policy Syst. Dec 2019. 17(1):98. DOI: 10.1186/s12961-019-0497-z
Edwards A, Zweigenthal V, Olivier J. Evidence map of knowledge translation strategies, outcomes, facilitators and barriers in African health systems. Health Res Policy Syst. [internet]. Feb 2019. 17(1):16. DOI: 10.1186/s12961- 019-0419-0
Chouhan V S, Srivastava S. Understanding competencies and competency modeling - A literature survey. IOSR Journal of Business and Management. 2014. 16(1), 14-22. 10.9790/487X-16111422
Won SC. Competency Definitions, Development and Assessment: A Brief Review. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development. 2020. 9(3):95-114. DOI: 10.6007/IJARPED/v9-i3/8223
Frank JR, Mungroo R, Ahmad Y, Wang M, De Rossi S, Horsley T. Toward a definition of competency-based education in medicine: a systematic review of published definitions. Medical teacher. 2010. 32(8):631-637. DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2010.500898
Lima VV, Ribeiro EC, Padilha RQ e Gomes R. Processo de construção de perfil de competência de profissionais. São Paulo: Instituto Sírio-Libanês de Ensino e Pesquisa, 2014. Available on: https://iep.hospitalsiriolibanes.org.br/Documents/LatoSensu/nota-tecnica-competencia-profissionais.pdf. [Cited in 2021 Jul 30]
Huang X, Li Z, Wang J, Cao E, Zhuang G, Xiao F, Zheng C, Zhang X, Chen M, Gao L, Guo P, Lin P, Zheng S, Xin G. A KSA system for competency-based assessment of clinicians' professional development in China and quality gap analysis. Med Educ Online. 2022. 27(1):2037401. DOI: 10.1080/10872981.2022.2037401.
Tricco AC, Langlois EV, Straus SE, editors. Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: a practical guide. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017. Available on: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/258698/9789241512763-eng.pdf. [Cited in 2021 Jul 30]
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al. Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2021. 134:103-112. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.003
Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan - a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016. 5, 210. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
Baartman LK, De Bruijn E. Integrating knowledge, skills and attitudes: Conceptualising learning processes towards vocational competence. Educational Research Review. 2011. 6(2):125-134. DOI: 10.1016/j.edurev.2011.03.001
Haby MM, Chapman E, Clark R, Barreto J, Reveiz L, Lavis JN. What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016. 14(1):83. DOI: 10.1186/s12961-016-0155-7
Silva M T, Silva E, Barreto J. Rapid response in health technology assessment: a Delphi study for a Brazilian guideline. BMC medical research methodology, 2018. 18, 51. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-018-0512-z
Kakemam E, Liang Z, Janati A, et al. Leadership and Management Competencies for Hospital Managers: A Systematic Review and Best-Fit Framework Synthesis. J Healthc Leadersh. [internet]. 2020. 12:59-68. DOI: 10.2147/JHL.S265825
Tait H, Williamson A. A literature review of knowledge translation and partnership research training programs for health researchers. Health Res Policy Syst. 2019. 17, 98. DOI: 10.1186/s12961-019-0497-z
van Dijk N, Hooft L, Wieringa-de Waard M. What Are the Barriers to Residents' Practicing Evidence-Based Medicine? A Systematic Review, Academic Med. 2010. 85(7):1163-1170. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181d4152f.
Albarqouni L, Hoffmann T, Glasziou P. Evidence-based practice educational intervention studies: a systematic review of what is taught and how it is measured. BMC Med Educ. 2018. 18, 177. DOI: 10.1186/s12909-018-1284-1
Oxman AD, García LM. Comparison of the Informed Health Choices Key Concepts Framework to other frameworks relevant to teaching and learning how to think critically about health claims and choices: a systematic review. F1000Res. 2020. 9:164. 10.12688/f1000research.21858.1
Thompson MR, Schwartz BD. The role of the nurse scientist as a knowledge broker. Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 2019. 51(1): 26-39. DOI: 10.1111/jnu.12439.
Matus J, Walker A, Mickan S. Research capacity building frameworks for allied health professionals - a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018. 18(1):716. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-018-3518-7
Slade SC, Philip K, Morris ME. Frameworks for embedding a research culture in allied health practice: a rapid review. Health Res Policy Sys. 2018. 16, 29. 10.1186/s12961-018-0304-2.
Edwards A, Zweigenthal V, Olivier J. Evidence map of knowledge translation strategies, outcomes, facilitators and barriers in African health systems. Health Res Policy Syst. 2019. 17(1):16. DOI:10.1186/s12961- 019-0419-0
Global Commission on Evidence to Address Societal Challenges. The Evidence Commission report: A wake-up call and path forward for decision makers, evidence intermediaries, and impact-oriented evidence producers. Hamilton: McMaster Health Forum, 2022. Available on: https://www.mcmasterforum.org/docs/default-source/evidence- commission/evidence-commission-report.pdf. [Cited in 2021 Jul 30]
World Health Organization. Together on the road to evidence-informed decision-making for health in the post-pandemic era: a call for action. 2021. Available on: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/350883/WHO-SCI-RFH-2021.08-eng.pdf. [Cited in 2021 Jul 30]
Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Convenes: Preparing for and responding to global health emergencies. What have we learnt from COVID-19? Reflections and recommendations from the evidence synthesis community. London: Cochrane. 2022. Available on: https://convenes.cochrane.org/sites/convenes.cochrane.org/files/uploads/Cochrane_LP_23J an.pdf. [Cited in 2021 Jul 30]

Competency profiles for Evidence-Informed Policymaking (EIPM): a rapid scoping review

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1 Introduction

2 Methods

Selection criteria

Search strategy and indexed databases

Screening and selection of studies

Data Extraction

Data synthesis

Shortcuts adopted and deviations from the protocol

3 Results

Study selection

Studies characteristics

Synthesis of findings

Specific elements of competency in EIPM, per professional profile

4 Discussion

Strengths and limitations

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Supplementary Files

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1