Science and knowledge translation strategies to the public during health emergencies: systematic review of RCTs
Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Introduction
Effective science and knowledge translation is essential during public health emergencies. During the COVID-19 pandemic, rapidly evolving research had to be translated to the public under challenging conditions.
Objectives
This review aimed to identify randomised trials of COVID-19 science and knowledge translation strategies targeting the public and evaluated their effectiveness in improving psychological, behavioural and/or health outcomes.
Methods
A literature search was done across PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycINFO in July 2023 and November 2024. Studies were screened and extracted according to PRISMA guidelines. Interventions reporting behavioural outcomes were coded using the Behaviour Change Technique (BCT) taxonomy and the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to assess study quality.
Results
Of 345 records screened, 48 eligible studies were included. Most were online experiments testing message framing, with a smaller number conducted in applied settings such as health professional–delivered education. Significant positive effects were reported in most studies; 30 out of 40 studies with psychological outcomes (e.g. knowledge), 28 out of 40 studies with behavioural outcomes (e.g. intention to mask). Only one study measured a health outcome, with no significant effect. Effective features commonly included video and animation formats and messages from health experts and credible sources. The most frequent BCTs were ‘information about health consequences’ (33 studies) and ‘credible source’ (19 studies). Risk of bias was low in 42 studies.
Conclusions
These findings highlight a diverse range of strategies that improved outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Better use of behavioural science taxonomies and core outcome sets could help researchers advance the field further during future emergencies.
PROSPERO registration number
CRD42023446093.
ARTICLE SUMMARY
Strengths and limitations of this study
-
This study followed rigorous, pre-registered protocol based on PRISMA guidelines, and included a theory-based behavioural science taxonomy to compare studies in a standardised way.
-
Due to the heterogeneity of the studies, meta-analyses were inappropriate for this data.
-
The complex interventions and study designs made it difficult to isolate the effects of specific intervention components across studies.
-
Inconsistencies in author use of science and knowledge translation terms may have affected the comprehensiveness of the search.
-
Most studies measured behavioural intentions rather than actual behaviour, and actual behaviour outcomes were self-reported.
