The in-between world of knowledge brokering
BMJ 2007; 334 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39038.593380.AE (Published 18 January 2007) Cite this as: BMJ 2007;334:129All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Jonathan Lomas omits to highlight a critical aspect of research
communication: systematic review. By doing so, his analysis risks
perpetuating the common and dangerous misconception that successful
research communication is equivalent to translating the conclusions of a
research study into practice. As Iain Chalmers and others have argued for
many years, successful research communication must, wherever possible, be
based on the scientific cumulation of research knowledge, not the
individual study. Communicators or 'knowledge brokers' who ignore this are
likely to end up misleading, advertently or inadvertently, the decision
makers they are seeking to inform.
Readers with an interest in research communication and healthcare in
developing countries are invited to join the global HIFA2015 email
discussion group (Healthcare Information For All by 2015): to join, send
your name, organisation and brief description of your professional
interests to hifa2015-admin@dgroups.org
Neil Pakenham-Walsh MB,BS
Coordinator, HIFA2015 Campaign
Coordinator, Global Healthcare Information Network
16 Woodfield Drive
Charlbury, Oxfordshire OX7 3SE, UK
Email: neil.pakenham-walsh@ghi-net.org
Web: http://www.ghi-net.org
Web (HIFA2015): http://www.hifa2015.org
HIFA2015 email group: http://www.dgroups.org/groups/hifa2015
CHILD2015 email group: http://www.dgroups.org/groups/child2015
"Healthcare Information For All by 2015: By 2015, every person
worldwide will have access to an informed healthcare provider"
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
The NHS has a network of knowledge brokers
Jonathan Lomas is right to identify the need for knowledge brokering,
and much the same point was made in the recent Cooksey review of UK health
research.
The NHS already has a network of knowledge brokers, for which it pays
well over £50m a year. The network consists of around 1000 library staff
and 500 access points, but is not sufficiently 'tuned' to provide
knowledge brokering. This is unfortunate, since the application of
knowledge to support quality of care should be the chief priority of NHS
expenditure on library and information services.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests