Search

Dissemination and communication of research should be considered as an integral part of any research project. Both help in increasing the visibility of research outputs, public engagement in science and innovation, and confidence of society in research. Effective dissemination and communication are vital to ensure that the conducted research has a social, political, or economical impact. They draw attention of governments and stakeholders to research results and conclusions, enhancing their visibility, comprehension, and implementation. In the European project SOPHIE (Evaluating the Impact of Structural Policies on Health Inequalities and Their Social Determinants and Fostering Change), dissemination was an essential component of the project in order to achieve the purpose of fostering policy change based on research findings. Here we provide our experience and make some recommendations based on our learning. A strong use of online communication (website, Twitter, and Slideshare accounts), the production of informative videos, the research partnership with civil society organizations, and the organization of final concluding scientific events, among other instruments, helped to reach a large public within the scientific community, civil society, and the policy making arena and to influence the public view on the impact on health and equity of certain policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: European city councils are increasingly developing interventions against health inequalities. There is little knowledge about how they are perceived. This study describes and analyses good practices and challenges for local interventions on inequalities in health through the narratives of European city managers. Methods: A qualitative study was conducted. Each participating city (Amsterdam, Barcelona, Cluj-Napoca, Helsinki, Lisbon, London, Madrid, Rotterdam) selected interventions following these criteria: at least 6 months of implementation; an evaluation performed or foreseen; the reduction of health inequalities among their objectives, and only one of the interventions selected could be based on health care. Managers of these local interventions were interviewed following an outline. Eleven individual in-depth interviews describing nine local interventions were obtained. A thematic content analysis was performed. Results: One or more local interventions against health inequalities were identified in each city. Most relied on quantitative data and were linked to national strategies. Few interventions addressed socio-economic determinants. Health care, employment and education were the main determinants addressed. With variable depth, evidence-base, participation and intersectorality were regular components of the interventions. Half of them targeted the city and half some deprived neighbourhoods. Few interventions had been evaluated. Scarcity of funding and sustainability of the projects were the main perceived barriers by the managers. Conclusions: City intervention managers were familiar with health inequalities and concepts as intersectorality, participation and evidence-based action, but others such as socioeconomic aims, gradient approach, evaluation and sustainability were not so widely applied. Managers’ capacities and political leadership in governance for health should be reinforced. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]