4.7.3 Forms of direct communication
Findings were more likely to be taken up if communicated in the form of a report (z= 3.5,
df=347,p=<0.001) or public meeting (marginally,z=2,df=347,p=0.048). The two most
important explanatory variables were personal communication (z=3.51,df=347,p=<0.001), and
policy documents (z=4.18,df=347,p=<0.001).
59
4.7.4 Minimum adequate model for all dissemination variables
Media, stakeholders, and forms of communication were combined to identify the most
important predictors of uptake of findings (table 11).
Table 11. Minimum adequate model for the main dissemination forms influencing the implementation of
research findings (logistic regression (df=334). The factor levels of significance are shown in detail P(>|z|),
and the significance of the factor in the model is represented P(>|Chi|)
Factor
Factor level
Direction
P(>|z|)
P(>|Chi|)
Communities (Q48R1)
Local NGO (Q48R2
Intl NGO
(Q48R3)
Local Govt (Q48R4)
Personal Communication
Policy Document
Q48R1No:Q48R2No
Q48R3No:Q48R4No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Positive
Positive
Negative
Positive
Positive
Positive
Negative
Negative
0.62
0.36
0.08
0.28
0.047
0.002
0.048
0.040
6.022e-06
8.299e-04
3.371e-04
3.518e-05
0.03
2.123e-04
0.04
0.02
The significant explanatory variables of uptake of findings are: dissemination to communities,
local and international NGOs, and local governments, and the most important forms of
communication were policy documents and personal communication. Local media
dissemination, public meetings, and reports no longer had sufficient explanatory power to
remain in the minimum adequate model. This suggests that local forms of communication are
most important to promote implementation of research findings.
4.7.5 Number of different forms of dissemination
There was a significant relationship between the number of different stakeholders the
information was communicated to (including media) and implementation of findings
(X
2
=81.6,df = 5,p=<0.001). The apparent anomaly that levels of implementation were lower
with only one outlet of dissemination than when there was no dissemination (fig. 32) is
perhaps due to the fact that further analysis of the data revealed most of these cases to be those
in which findings were communicated to scientists only, which would not be expected to
60
facilitate dissemination of findings. After 3 forms of dissemination, there was no further
significant increase in levels of implementation (fig. 32).
Dostları ilə paylaş: |
