Citizen participants’ characteristics.

Little is known about knowledge transfer with the public. We explored how citizens, physicians, and communication specialists understand knowledge transfer in public spaces such as libraries. The initial study aimed at evaluating the scaling up of a program on disseminating research findings on potentially inappropriate medication. Twenty-two citizen workshops were offered by 16 physicians and facilitated by 6 communication specialists to 322 citizens in libraries during spring 2019. We did secondary analysis using the recorded workshop discussions to explore the type of knowledge participants used. Participants described four kinds of knowledge: biomedical, sociocultural beliefs, value-based reasoning, and institutional knowledge. Biomedical knowledge included scientific evidence, research methods, clinical guidelines, and access to research outcomes. Participants discussed beliefs in scientific progress, innovative clinical practices, and doctors’ behaviours. Participants discussed values related to reliability, transparency, respect for patient autonomy and participation in decision-making. All categories of participants used these four kinds of knowledge. However, their descriptions varied particularly for biomedical knowledge which was described by physician-speakers and communication specialists-facilitators as scientific evidence, epidemiological and clinical practice guidelines, and pathophysiological theories. Communication specialists-facilitators also described scientific journalistic sources and scientific journalistic reports as proxies of scientific evidence. Citizens described biomedical knowledge in terms of knowledge to make informed decisions. These findings offer insights for future scientific knowledge exchange interventions with the public.目前针对面向公众的知识转移的相关研究仍较为匮乏。本研究探讨了普通市民、医师及传播专员如何理解图书馆等公共空间中的知识转移行为。本研究的初始目标是评估一项针对潜在不适当用药相关研究成果的传播项目的规模化推广情况。2019年春季，16位医师于图书馆面向322名市民举办了22场市民工作坊，另有6位传播专员负责主持引导工作。本研究通过对工作坊的讨论录音进行二次分析，以探究参与者所使用的知识类型。参与者将所使用的知识划分为四类：生物医学知识（biomedical knowledge）、社会文化信念（sociocultural beliefs）、基于价值的推理（value-based reasoning）以及制度知识（institutional knowledge）。生物医学知识涵盖科学证据、研究方法、临床指南以及研究成果获取途径。参与者围绕科学进步信念、创新性临床实践以及医师行为展开了讨论。参与者还探讨了与可靠性、透明度、尊重患者自主权以及参与决策相关的价值理念。所有类别的参与者均用到了上述四类知识。但不同群体的描述存在差异，尤以生物医学知识为甚：作为发言者的医师与担任引导员的传播专员将其阐释为科学证据、流行病学与临床实践指南以及病理生理学理论。担任引导员的传播专员还将科学新闻来源与科学新闻报道视作科学证据的替代载体。而市民则将生物医学知识理解为用于做出知情决策的相关知识。本研究结果为未来开展面向公众的科学知识传播干预实践提供了参考依据。