National policy-makers speak out: are researchers giving them what they need?

Perspectives of policy and political decision makers on access to formal dementia care: expert interviews in eight European countries

Background

As part of the ActifCare (ACcess to Timely Formal Care) project, we conducted expert interviews in eight European countries with policy and political decision makers, or representatives of relevant institutions, to determine their perspectives on access to formal care for people with dementia and their carers.

Methods

Each ActifCare country (Germany, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, United Kingdom) conducted semi-structured interviews with 4–7 experts (total N = 38). The interview guide addressed the topics “Complexity and Continuity of Care”, “Formal Services”, and “Public Awareness”. Country-specific analysis of interview transcripts used an inductive qualitative content analysis. Cross-national synthesis focused on similarities in themes across the ActifCare countries.

Results

The analysis revealed ten common themes and two additional sub-themes across countries. Among others, the experts highlighted the need for a coordinating role and the necessity of information to address issues of complexity and continuity of care, demanded person-centred, tailored, and multidisciplinary formal services, and referred to education, mass media and campaigns as means to raise public awareness.

Conclusions

Policy and political decision makers appear well acquainted with current discussions among both researchers and practitioners of possible approaches to improve access to dementia care. Experts described pragmatic, realistic strategies to influence dementia care. Suggested innovations concerned how to achieve improved dementia care, rather than transforming the nature of the services provided. Knowledge gained in these expert interviews may be useful to national decision makers when they consider reshaping the organisation of dementia care, and may thus help to develop best-practice strategies and recommendations.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2456-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Assessing the capacity of ministries of health to use research in decision-making: conceptual framework and tool

Background

The capacity to demand and use research is critical for governments if they are to develop policies that are informed by evidence. Existing tools designed to assess how government officials use evidence in decision-making have significant limitations for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs); they are rarely tested in LMICs and focus only on individual capacity. This paper introduces an instrument that was developed to assess Ministry of Health (MoH) capacity to demand and use research evidence for decision-making, which was tested for reliability and validity in eight LMICs (Bangladesh, Fiji, India, Lebanon, Moldova, Pakistan, South Africa, Zambia).

Methods

Instrument development was based on a new conceptual framework that addresses individual, organisational and systems capacities, and items were drawn from existing instruments and a literature review. After initial item development and pre-testing to address face validity and item phrasing, the instrument was reduced to 54 items for further validation and item reduction. In-country study teams interviewed a systematic sample of 203 MoH officials. Exploratory factor analysis was used in addition to standard reliability and validity measures to further assess the items.

Results

Thirty items divided between two factors representing organisational and individual capacity constructs were identified. South Africa and Zambia demonstrated the highest level of organisational capacity to use research, whereas Pakistan and Bangladesh were the lowest two. In contrast, individual capacity was highest in Pakistan, followed by South Africa, whereas Bangladesh and Lebanon were the lowest.

Conclusion

The framework and related instrument represent a new opportunity for MoHs to identify ways to understand and improve capacities to incorporate research evidence in decision-making, as well as to provide a basis for tracking change.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-017-0227-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A Qualitative Assessment of the Evidence Utilization for Health Policy-Making on the Basis of SUPPORT Tools in a Developing Country

Background: SUPPORT tools consist of 18 articles addressing the health policy-makers so that they can learn how to make evidence-informed health policies. These tools have been particularly recommended for developing countries. The present study tries to explain the process of evidence utilization for developing policy documents in the Iranian Ministry of Health and Medical Education (MoHME) and to compare the findings with those of SUPPORT tools.

Methods: A qualitative research was conducted, using the framework analysis approach. Participants consisted of senior managers and technicians in MoHME. Purposeful sampling was done, with a maximum variety, for the selection of research participants: individuals having at least 5 years of experience in preparing evidence-based policy documents. Face-to-face interviews were conducted for data collection. As a guideline for the interviews, ‘the Utilization of Evidence in Policy-Making Organizations’ procedure was used. The data were analyzed through the analysis of the framework method using MAXQDA 10 software.

Results: The participants acquired the research evidence in a topic-based form, and they were less likely to search on the basis of the evidence pyramid. To assess the quality of evidence, they did not use standard critical tools; to adapt the evidence and interventions with the local setting, they did not use the ideas and experiences of all stakeholders, and in preparing the evidence-based policy documents, they did not take into consideration the window of opportunity, did not refrain from using highly technical terms, did not write user-friendly summaries, and did not present alternative policy options. In order to develop health policies, however, they used the following innovations: attention to the financial burden of policy issues on the agenda, sensitivity analysis of the preferred policy option on the basis of technical, sociopolitical, and economic feasibility, advocacy from other scholars, using the multi-criteria decision-making models for the prioritization of policy options, implementation of policy based on the degree of readiness of policy-implementing units, and the classification of policy documents on the basis of different conditions of policy-making (urgent, short-term, and long-term).

Conclusion: Findings showed that the process of evidence utilization in IR-MoH enjoys some innovations for the support of health policy development. The present study provides IR-MoH with considerable opportunities for the improvement of evidence-informed health policy-making. Moreover, the SUPPORT process and tools are recommended to be used in developing countries.

Suggestions for the promotion of evidence-based public health in South Korea

Evidence-based public health (EBPH) is defined as public health decision-making based on current best evidence. Debates about the latent tuberculosis infection control program suggested by the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2017 highlight the need to promote EBPH. Three strategies have been proposed, including providing necessary evidence by evaluating policy-evidence gaps; delivering high-quality, relevant, and timely evidence by conducting systematic reviews and adapting public health guidelines; and making value-driven decisions by training and educating public health policymakers.

Influence of Research on Health Policy and Clinical Practice

Clinical research is a type of biomedical research conducted to aid and support the development of knowledge wherein there is involvement of patient. One of the key duties of healthcare professionals is to involve in research and change existing practice, when there is robust evidence in favour of new strategies that can have better patient care. Knowledge derived from research and experience may be of little value unless it is put into practice. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is the diligent, clear, and wise use of current best research evidence in making decisions about clinical care of patients. The practice of EBM is incorporating clinician's expertise with the best available clinical evidence from research. It leads to improved patient outcomes and promote critical thinking and reflective practice. Effective research utilization can enhance policy decisions, resource allocation for programmes, and decisions about how to deliver those services.

Evidence-based management of Caribbean health systems: barriers and opportunities

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to explore and assess barriers and opportunities for evidence-based management (EBMgt) and decision-making in healthcare systems of the small island developing states (SIDSs) of English-speaking Caribbean.

Design/methodology/approach

The study utilized grounded theory to collect and analyze data on experiences and perceptions of 20 senior managers/leaders from seven Ministries of health in the region. It used semi-structured, in-depth interviews comprising open-ended questions. Data analysis comprised open, focused and theoretical coding.

Findings

EBMgt and decision-making is not a prominent approach taken by top officials of health systems because of internal and external barriers to its use. Indeed the absence of a culture of decision-making based on evidence pervades the public services of Caribbean island states. Notwithstanding, there are opportunities for meaningful application of this management/leadership strategy.

Originality/value

To the author’s knowledge, this is the first assessment of the application of EBMgt to health systems of SIDSs of the Caribbean. This paper is concerned with the approach to decision-making in health systems across island states and lends support to the use of evidence in decision-making and policy development. It provides useful direction for policy makers, and senior managers/leaders of these systems.

Deliberative Dialogues Between Policy Makers and Researchers in Canada and Australia

Knowledge translation (KT) and implementation science are growing fields in Canada, Australia, and worldwide. Many audiences are targeted as KT knowledge users—policy makers represent one key knowledge user in the health care field. The need for policy makers to understand research and for researchers to understand policy processes is commonly recognized. There is also increasing interest in health policy that focuses on KT as a framework for understanding the use of evidence and, in particular, describing the influence of research on policy along with concepts of coproduction and user involvement. With relationship building central to successful evidence-informed policy, this article explores deliberative dialogue as a potential approach to enhancing KT. It describes two examples of researcher efforts to cultivate relationships and contacts with policy and decision makers via such dialogues and illustrates the inherent opportunities and challenges of doing so.

Operations research in global health: a scoping review with a focus on the themes of health equity and impact

BACKGROUND

Operations research (OR) is a discipline that uses advanced analytical methods (e.g. simulation, optimisation, decision analysis) to better understand complex systems and aid in decision-making. Herein, we present a scoping review of the use of OR to analyse issues in global health, with an emphasis on health equity and research impact. A systematic search of five databases was designed to identify relevant published literature. A global overview of 1099 studies highlights the geographic distribution of OR and common OR methods used. From this collection of literature, a narrative description of the use of OR across four main application areas of global health - health systems and operations, clinical medicine, public health and health innovation - is also presented. The theme of health equity is then explored in detail through a subset of 44 studies. Health equity is a critical element of global health that cuts across all four application areas, and is an issue particularly amenable to analysis through OR. Finally, we present seven select cases of OR analyses that have been implemented or have influenced decision-making in global health policy or practice. Based on these cases, we identify three key drivers for success in bridging the gap between OR and global health policy, namely international collaboration with stakeholders, use of contextually appropriate data, and varied communication outlets for research findings. Such cases, however, represent a very small proportion of the literature found.

CONCLUSION

Poor availability of representative and quality data, and a lack of collaboration between those who develop OR models and stakeholders in the contexts where OR analyses are intended to serve, were found to be common challenges for effective OR modelling in global health.

Using a multimethod approach to develop implementation strategies for a cervical self-sampling program in Kenya

BACKGROUND

Numerous health policy makers/researchers are concerned about the limitations of research being applied to support informed decision/policy making and the implementation of practical solutions. The aim of the Chaguo Letu project (which means our choice in Swahili) was to determine how local decision makers could apply a multimethod approach to make strategic decisions to effectively implement a Cervical Self-Sampling Program in Kenya.

METHODS

A multimethod approach, involving participatory action research, scenario based planning, and phenomenology, was applied in conjunction with two tools to identify relevant factors (negative or positive) that could impact Cervical Self-Sampling Program implementation. A total of 107 stakeholders participated in interviews, focus groups, workshops, and informal interactions. Content analysis, an affinity exercise, and impact analysis were used to analyze data and develop robust strategic directions and supporting implementation strategies.

RESULTS

A total of 57 factors thought to impact the implementation of the Cervical Self-Sampling Program were identified and grouped into 13 thematic categories. These themes were instrumental in developing 10 strategic directions and 22 implementation strategies deemed necessary to implement a technically viable, politically supported, affordable, logistically feasible, socially acceptable, and transformative Program.

CONCLUSIONS

This study made three conclusions: 1) there is political will and a desire to improve cervical screening across Kenya, but in a period of dynamic change resources are constrained; 2) implementing the Program in urban/rural settings is logistically feasible, but the majority of Kenyan women could not afford screening without some form of a subsidy, and 3) self-sampling is perceived to be much more socially acceptable than the current Pap screening process. The Chaguo Letu study went beyond the traditional strategy development process of determining "what" needs to do done by describing in detail "how" the Program should be implemented to be relevant and accessible to all Kenyan women at risk of cervical cancer. This work could potentially facilitate communities of practice and knowledge sharing when addressing other types of health decisions in other low resource settings beyond Kenya.

Evidence-informed policymaking in practice: country-level examples of use of evidence for iCCM policy

Integrated Community Case Management of Childhood Illness (iCCM) is a policy for providing treatment for malaria, diarrhoea and pneumonia for children below 5 years at the community level, which is generating increasing evidence and support at the global level. As countries move to adopt iCCM, it becomes important to understand how this growing evidence base is viewed and used by national stakeholders. This article explores whether, how and why evidence influenced policy formulation for iCCM in Niger, Kenya and Mozambique, and uses Carol Weiss’ models of research utilization to further explain the use of evidence in these contexts. A documentary review and in-depth stakeholder interviews were conducted as part of retrospective case studies in each study country. Findings indicate that all three countries used national monitoring data to identify the issue of children dying in the community prior to reaching health facilities, whereas international research evidence was used to identify policy options. Nevertheless, policymakers greatly valued local evidence and pilot projects proved critical in advancing iCCM. World Health Organization and United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) functioned as knowledge brokers, bringing research evidence and experiences from other countries to the attention of local policymakers as well as sponsoring site visits and meetings. In terms of country-specific findings, Niger demonstrated both Interactive and Political models of research utilization by using iCCM to capitalize on the existing health infrastructure. Both Mozambique and Kenya exhibit Problem-Solving research utilization with different outcomes. Furthermore, the persistent quest for additional evidence suggests a Tactical use of research in Kenya. Results presented here indicate that while evidence from research studies and other contexts can be critical to policy development, local evidence is often needed to answer key policymaker questions. In the end, evidence may not be enough to overcome resistance if the policy is viewed as incompatible with national goals.

Practical lessons for bringing policy-makers on board in sexual and reproductive health research

BACKGROUND

The need to translate research into policy, i.e. making research findings a driving force in agenda-setting and policy change, is increasingly acknowledged. However, little is known about translation mechanisms in the field of sexual and reproductive health (SRH) outside North American or European contexts. This paper seeks to give an overview of the existing knowledge on this topic as well as to document practical challenges and remedies from the perspectives of researchers involved in four SRH research consortium projects in Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, China and India.

METHODS

A literature review and relevant project documents were used to develop an interview guide through which researchers could reflect on their experiences in engaging with policy-makers, and particularly on the obstacles met and the strategies deployed by the four project consortia to circumvent them.

RESULTS

Our findings confirm current recommendations on an early and steady involvement of policy-makers, however they also suggest that local barriers between researchers and policy-making spheres and individuals can represent major hindrances to the realization of translation objectives. Although many of the challenges might be common to different contexts, creating locally-adapted responses is deemed key to overcome them. Researchers' experiences also indicate that - although inevitable - recognizing and addressing these challenges is a difficult, time- and energy-consuming process for all partners involved. Despite a lack of existing knowledge on translation efforts in SRH research outside North American or European contexts, and more particularly in low and middle-income countries, it is clear that existing pressure on health and policy systems in these settings further complicates them.

CONCLUSIONS

This article brings together literature findings and researchers' own experiences in translating research results into policy and highlights the major challenges research conducted on sexual and reproductive health outside North American or European contexts can meet. Future SRH projects should be particularly attentive to these potential obstacles in order to tailor appropriate and consistent strategies within their existing resources.

Comparative analysis of quantity and quality of biomedical publications in Gulf Cooperation Council countries from 2011-2013

Objectives:

To compare the research productivity of different Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries in the field of biomedical sciences from 2011-2013.

Methods:

This is a retrospective study conducted in the College of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Data on the biomedical publications originating from GCC countries published between January 2011 to December 2013 was searched via MEDLINE using PubMed. The total number of publications emanating from each country was normalized with the country’s population. The mean impact factor (IF) of all the publications in a year was calculated for comparative analysis.

Results:

A total of 11,000 publications were retrieved via MEDLINE using PubMed, out of which, 9222 were selected for analysis. A successive increase in the number of publications by every country was observed. The most striking increase in the number of publications was from Saudi Arabia. However, after normalization with population, the performance of Oman, Qatar, and Kuwait looks far better than Saudi Arabia in terms of research productivity. Data on mean IF showed that the overall mean IF of all GCC countries has remained largely unchanged except Oman. Although Oman had a comparatively low mean IF value in 2011, they recorded a tremendous improvement in successive years.

Conclusion:

All GCC countries underwent an increase in quantitative research productivity over the last 3 years. However, no increase in quality of research publications was noted based on the proxy reports of mean journal IF.

When There Is Not Enough Evidence and When Evidence Is Not Enough: An Australian Indigenous Smoking Policy Study

BACKGROUND

The Indigenous Tobacco Control Initiative and Tackling Indigenous Smoking Measure were both announced by the Australian Government at a time when its rhetoric around the importance of evidence-based policy making was strong. This article will (1) examine how the Rudd Government used evidence in Indigenous tobacco control policy making and (2) explore the facilitators of and barriers to the use of evidence.

METHODS

Data were collected through (1) a review of primary documents largely obtained under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Commonwealth of Australia) and (2) interviews with senior politicians, senior bureaucrats, government advisors, Indigenous health advocates, and academics. Through the Freedom of Information Act process, 24 previously undisclosed government documents relevant to the making of Indigenous tobacco control policies were identified. Interviewees (n = 31, response rate 62%) were identified through both purposive and snowball recruitment strategies. The Framework Analysis method was used to analyze documentary and interview data.

RESULTS

Government policy design was heavily influenced by the recommendations presented in government authored/commissioned literature reviews. Resulting policies were led by equivocal evidence for improved tobacco control outcomes among Indigenous Australians. Many of the cited studies had methodological limitations. In the absence of high-quality evidence, some policy makers supported policy recommendations that were perceived to be popular among the Indigenous community. Other policy makers recognized that there were barriers to accumulating rigorous, generalizable evidence; in the absence of such evidence, the policy makers considered that the "need for action" could be combined with the "need for research" by introducing innovative strategies and evaluating them.

DISCUSSION

Despite the absence of high-quality evidence, the formulation and adoption of Indigenous tobacco policy was neither irrational nor reckless. The decision to adopt an innovate and evaluate strategy was justifiable given (a) the potential for the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous health outcomes to worsen in the absence of an imminent policy response; (b) the existence of circumstances, which made it difficult to obtain high-quality evidence to guide policy; and (c) the need for policy solutions to reflect community preferences, given sociohistorical sensitivities.

EMERGENCE OF "DRIVERS" FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

BACKGROUND

Health technology assessment (HTA) examines the consequences of the application of health technologies and is aimed at better informing decision-makers. Over the past 30 years, different countries have implemented HTA organizations. Colombia established by law its own HTA agency (IETS) in 2011 which started operations in November 2012. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of conducting and using HTA to inform decision-making in this context. Through a qualitative approach, ten "drivers" emerged with the ability to help or hinder HTA development in this context: availability and quality of data, implementation strategy, cultural aspects, local capacity, financial support, policy/political support, globalization, stakeholder pressure, health system context, and usefulness perception.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with key HTA researchers, after following rigorous transcription, and thematic content analysis, those aspects that may be barriers or facilitator for HTA development and use in Colombia were identified.

RESULTS

Although HTA has become a tool to inform decision-making around the world, its use may vary according to setting. Determining those aspects which may enable or interfere with HTA development and use in Colombia may be useful for other countries when considering the establishment of HTA systems.

CONCLUSIONS

The conceptual transferability of concepts like "drivers" with caveats may be of interest for similar settings trying to incorporate HTA processes and institutions into systematic decision-making.

Exploring health researchers' perceptions of policymaking in Argentina: a qualitative study

Much of the published research on evidence-informed health policymaking in low- and middle-income countries has focused on policymakers, overlooking the role of health researchers in the research-to-policy process. Through 20 semi-structured, in-depth qualitative interviews conducted with researchers in Argentina's rural northwest and the capital of Buenos Aires, we explore the perspectives, experiences and attitudes of Argentine health researchers regarding the use and impact of health research in policymaking in Argentina. We find that the researcher, and the researcher's function of generating evidence, is nested within a broader complex system that influences the researcher's interaction with policymaking. This system comprises communities of practice, government departments/civil society organizations, bureaucratic processes and political governance and executive leadership. At the individual level, researcher capacity and determinants of research availability also play a role in contributing to evidence-informed policymaking. In addition, we find a recurrent theme around 'lack of trust' and explore the role of trust within a research system, finding that researchers' distrust towards policymakers and even other researchers are linked inextricably to the sociopolitical history of Argentina, which contributes to shaping researchers' identities in opposition to policymakers. For policymakers, national research councils and funders of national health research systems, this article provides a deeper understanding of researchers' perceptions which can help inform and improve programme design when developing interventions to enhance research utilization and develop equitable and rational health policies. For donors and development agencies interested in health research capacity building and achieving development goals, this research demonstrates a need for investment in building research capacity and training health researchers to interact with the public policy 'world' and enhancing research communications and transferability to decision makers. It also highlights an opportunity to invest in implementation research platforms, such as health policy research and analysis institutions.

The Human Capital of Knowledge Brokers: An analysis of attributes, capacities and skills of academic teaching and research faculty at Kenyan schools of public health

BACKGROUND

Academic faculty involved in public health teaching and research serve as the link and catalyst for knowledge synthesis and exchange, enabling the flow of information resources, and nurturing relations between 'two distinct communities' - researchers and policymakers - who would not otherwise have the opportunity to interact. Their role and their characteristics are of particular interest, therefore, in the health research, policy and practice arena, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. We investigated the individual attributes, capacities and skills of academic faculty identified as knowledge brokers (KBs) in schools of public health (SPH) in Kenya with a view to informing organisational policies around the recruitment, retention and development of faculty KBs.

METHODS

During April 2013, we interviewed 12 academics and faculty leadership (including those who had previously been identified as KBs) from six SPHs in Kenya, and 11 national health policymakers with whom they interact. Data were qualitatively analyzed using inductive thematic analysis to unveil key characteristics.

RESULTS

Key characteristics of KBs fell into five categories: sociodemographics, professional competence, experiential knowledge, interactive skills and personal disposition. KBs' reputations benefitted from their professional qualifications and content expertise. Practical knowledge in policy-relevant situations, and the related professional networks, allowed KB's to navigate both the academic and policy arenas and also to leverage the necessary connections required for policy influence. Attributes, such as respect and a social conscience, were also important KB characteristics.

CONCLUSION

Several changes in Kenya are likely to compel academics to engage increasingly with policymakers at an enhanced level of debate, deliberation and discussion in the future. By recognising existing KBs, supporting the emergence of potential KBs, and systematically hiring faculty with KB-specific characteristics, SPHs can enhance their collective human capital and influence on public health policy and practice. Capacity strengthening of tangible skills and recognition of less tangible personality characteristics could contribute to enhanced academic-policymaker networks. These, in turn, could contribute to the relevance of SPH research and teaching programs as well as evidence-informed public health policies.

An assessment of health research impact in Iran

Background

In recent years, Iran has made significant developments in the field of health sciences. However, the question is whether this considerable increase has affected public health. The research budget has always been negligible and unsustainable in developing countries. Hence, using the Payback Framework, we conducted this study to evaluate the impact of health research in Iran.

Methods

By using a cross-sectional method and two-stage stratified cluster sampling, the projects were randomly selected from six medical universities. A questionnaire was designed according to the Payback Framework and completed by the principle investigators of the randomly selected projects.

Results

The response rate was 70.4%. Ten point twenty-four percent (10.24%) of the studies had been ordered by a knowledge user organization. The average number of articles published in journals per project was 0.96, and half of the studies had no articles published in Scopus. The results of 12% of the studies had been used in systematic review articles and the same proportion had been utilized in clinical or public health guidelines. The results of 5.3% of the studies had been implemented in the Health Ministry’s policymaking. 62% of the studies were expected to affect health directly, 38% of them had been implemented, and among the latter 60% had achieved the expected results. Concerning the economic impacts, the most common expected impact was the reduction of ‘days of work missed because of illness or disability’ and impact on personal and health system costs. About 36% of these studies had been implemented, and 61% had achieved the expected impact.

Conclusion

In most aspects, the status of research impact needs improvement. A comparison of Iran’s ranking of knowledge creation and knowledge impact in the Global Innovation Index confirms these findings. The most important problems identified were, not conducting research based on national needs, and the lack of implementation of research results.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0129-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Global Forum 2015 dialogue on "From evidence to policy - thinking outside the box": perspectives to improve evidence uptake and good practices in the African Region

BACKGROUND

The Global Forum 2015 panel session dialogue entitled "From evidence to policy - thinking outside the box" was held on 26 August 2015 in the Philippines to debate why evidence was not fully translated into policy and practice and what could be done to increase its uptake. This paper reports the reasons and possible actions for increasing the uptake of evidence, and highlights the actions partners could take to increase the use of evidence in the African Region.

DISCUSSION

The Global Forum 2015 debate attributed African Region's low uptake of evidence to the big gap in incentives and interests between research for health researchers and public health policy-makers; limited appreciation on the side of researchers that public health decisions are based on multiple and complex considerations; perception among users that research evidence is not relevant to local contexts; absence of knowledge translation platforms; sub-optimal collaboration and engagement between industry and research institutions; lack of involvement of civil society organizations; lack of engagement of communities in the research process; failure to engage the media; limited awareness and debate in national and local parliaments on the importance of investing in research and innovation; and dearth of research and innovation parks in the African Region.

CONCLUSION

The actions needed in the Region to increase the uptake of evidence in policy and practice include strengthening NHRS governance; bridging the motivation gap between researchers and health policy-makers; restoring trust between researchers and decision-makers; ensuring close and continuous intellectual intercourse among researchers, ministry of health policy-makers and technocrats during the life course of research projects or programmes; proactive collaboration between academia and industry; regular briefings of civil society, media, relevant parliamentary committees and development partners; development of vibrant knowledge translation platforms; development of action plans for implementing research recommendations, preferably in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals; and encouragement of competition on NHRS strengthening and research output and uptake among the countries using a barometer or scorecard to review their performance at various regional ministerial forums and taking into account the lessons learned from the MDG period.

The West African Health Organization's experience in improving the health research environment in the ECOWAS region

BACKGROUND

The West African Health Organization (WAHO) implemented a research development program in West Africa during 2009-2013 using the Knowledge for Better Health Research Capacity Development Framework, developed by Pang et al. (Bull World Health Organ 81(11):815-820, 2003), on strategies used to improve the research environment. The framework has the following components: stewardship, financing, sustainable resourcing and research utilization. This paper describes how WAHO implemented this research development program in the West African region to help improve the research environment and lessons learnt.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of the regional research development program using a triangulation of activity reports, an independent evaluation and the authors' experiences with stakeholders. This program was designed to address gaps along the components of the framework and to improve partnership. The activities, results and challenges are summarised for each component of the framework. The independent evaluation was conducted using over 180 semi-structured interviews of key stakeholders in the West African region and activity reports. WAHO and major stakeholders validated these findings during a regional meeting.

RESULTS

All 15 ECOWAS countries benefited from this regional research development program. WAHO provided technical and financial support to eight countries to develop their policies, priorities and plans for research development to improve their research governance. WAHO, along with other technical and financial partners, organised many capacity-strengthening trainings in health systems research methodology, resource mobilization, ethical oversight and on HRWeb, a research information management platform. WAHO helped launch a regional network of health research institutions to improve collaboration between regional participating institutions. Further, WAHO developed strategic research partnerships and mobilised additional funding to support the program. The program supported 24 health research projects. High staff turnover, weak institutional capacities and ineffective collaboration were some of the challenges encountered during program activity implementation.

CONCLUSION

The regional collaborative approach to health research development using this framework was effective given the challenges in the West African region. The achievements particularly with improved research partnerships and funding helped strengthen local health research environments. This highlights WAHO's role and the common experiences in the West African region in improving health research.

Health technology assessment in Iran: Barriers and solutions

BACKGROUND

Health technology assessment (HTA) is a tool utilized for efficient dissemination of technology. For the purpose of encouraging decision-makers to utilize this tool, at first, we need to identify the obstacles in the processes of preparation, utilization, and implementation of HTAs. This study aims to define these barriers and offer solutions for effective utilization of HTA reports produced in Iran.

METHODS

This qualitative content analysis determines the various beneficiaries of HTA, and utilizes a semi-structured interview with the participants who are all involved in the HTA.

RESULTS

Nine out of ten people invited for the interviews accepted the researchers' invitation. An analysis of barriers and solutions for improving the utilization of HTA reports was conducted in three levels of policy makers (policy level), specialists in healthcare (professional level), and ordinary people (public level). The barriers in the policy level include unsuitability of reports for their audience, incompatible views toward the definition and necessity of health technology assessment, lack of financial resources for report preparation, and limitations in large-scale policymaking in Ministry of Health. Barriers in the professional level include lack of knowledge on HTA among serviceproviders. Barriers in the public level consist of information asymmetry.

CONCLUSION

There are various barriers toward accurate utilization of HTAs in Iran. Thus, a systematic approach which involves people, brings about culture, improves infrastructures, and boosts supervision on the performance is recommended.

The development of ORACLe: a measure of an organisation's capacity to engage in evidence-informed health policy

Background

Evidence-informed policymaking is more likely if organisations have cultures that promote research use and invest in resources that facilitate staff engagement with research. Measures of organisations’ research use culture and capacity are needed to assess current capacity, identify opportunities for improvement, and examine the impact of capacity-building interventions. The aim of the current study was to develop a comprehensive system to measure and score organisations’ capacity to engage with and use research in policymaking, which we entitled ORACLe (Organisational Research Access, Culture, and Leadership).

Method

We used a multifaceted approach to develop ORACLe. Firstly, we reviewed the available literature to identify key domains of organisational tools and systems that may facilitate research use by staff. We interviewed senior health policymakers to verify the relevance and applicability of these domains. This information was used to generate an interview schedule that focused on seven key domains of organisational capacity. The interview was pilot-tested within four Australian policy agencies. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was then undertaken using an expert sample to establish the relative importance of these domains. This data was used to produce a scoring system for ORACLe.

Results

The ORACLe interview was developed, comprised of 23 questions addressing seven domains of organisational capacity and tools that support research use, including (1) documented processes for policymaking; (2) leadership training; (3) staff training; (4) research resources (e.g. database access); and systems to (5) generate new research, (6) undertake evaluations, and (7) strengthen relationships with researchers. From the DCE data, a conditional logit model was estimated to calculate total scores that took into account the relative importance of the seven domains. The model indicated that our expert sample placed the greatest importance on domains (2), (3) and (4).

Conclusion

We utilised qualitative and quantitative methods to develop a system to assess and score organisations’ capacity to engage with and apply research to policy. Our measure assesses a broad range of capacity domains and identifies the relative importance of these capacities. ORACLe data can be used by organisations keen to increase their use of evidence to identify areas for further development.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-015-0069-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A survey of knowledge-to-action pathways of aging policies and programs in the Arab region: the role of institutional arrangements

BACKGROUND

While population aging challenges Arab governments to ensure well-being in old age, knowledge translation is gaining support worldwide in evidence-based policymaking and service provision. This study examines the status of existing knowledge translation efforts of aging-related research in Arab countries and evaluates the additional role that institutional arrangements (such as ministry departments, national committees, etc.) play in the relationship between knowledge creation and social and health policies and programs.

METHODS

Data were triangulated from two regional surveys and a supplementary desk review of academic, civil society, ministry, and UN documents. Using a set of indicators, standardized summative indices (out of 100) were generated for five constructs, namely knowledge creation, institutional arrangements, knowledge translation, and health and social policies and programs. Correlations were assessed using Spearman's rank correlation (r s), and bootstrap multiple linear regression models were used.

RESULTS

Arab countries scored highest on the institutional arrangements index (median = 69.5), followed by the knowledge creation index (median = 45.9), and lowest on the knowledge translation index (median = 30.2). Both institutional arrangements and knowledge creation significantly correlated with social and health policies and programs. However, when adjusted for knowledge translation, only institutional arrangements retained a significant association with both outcomes (r s = 0.63, p value =0.009 and r s = 0.69, p value =0.01, respectively). Adjusting for institutional arrangements and knowledge creation, the association of knowledge translation with social and health policies and programs was attenuated and non-significant (r s = 0.08, p value =0.671 and r s = 0.12, p value =0.634, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

There are two key messages from this study. Firstly, institutional arrangements play a central role in aging social and health policy and program development in the Arab region. Secondly, knowledge translation paradigms in Arab countries may be deficient in factors pertinent for promoting evidence-based decision-making and policy-relevant research. These findings call for the need of strengthening institutional arrangements on aging and for promoting knowledge production that meets policy-relevant priorities.

Incorporating research evidence into decision-making processes: researcher and decision-maker perceptions from five low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

The 'Sponsoring National Processes for Evidence-Informed Policy Making in the Health Sector of Developing Countries' program was launched by the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, WHO, in July 2008. The program aimed to catalyse the use of evidence generated through health policy and systems research in policymaking processes through (1) promoting researchers and policy advocates to present their evidence in a manner that is easy for policymakers to understand and use, (2) creating mechanisms to spur the demand for and application of research evidence in policymaking, and (3) increased interaction between researchers, policy advocates, and policymakers. Grants ran for three years and five projects were supported in Argentina, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Nigeria and Zambia. This paper seeks to understand why projects in some settings were perceived by the key stakeholders involved to have made progress towards their goals, whereas others were perceived to have not done so well. Additionally, by comparing experiences across five countries, we seek to illustrate general learnings to inform future evidence-to-policy efforts in low- and middle-income countries.

METHODS

We adopted the theory of knowledge translation developed by Jacobson et al. (J Health Serv Res Policy 8(2):94-9, 2003) as a framing device to reflect on project experiences across the five cases. Using data from the projects' external evaluation reports, which included information from semi-structured interviews and quantitative evaluation surveys of those involved in projects, and supplemented by information from the projects' individual technical reports, we applied the theoretical framework with a partially grounded approach to analyse each of the cases and make comparisons.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

There was wide variation across projects in the type of activities carried out as well as their intensity. Based on our findings, we can conclude that projects perceived as having made progress towards their goals were characterized by the coming together of a number of domains identified by the theory. The domains of Jacobson's theoretical framework, initially developed for high-income settings, are of relevance to the low- and middle-income country context, but may need modification to be fully applicable to these settings. Specifically, the relative fragility of institutions and the concomitantly more significant role of individual leaders point to the need to look at leadership as an additional domain influencing the evidence-to-policy process.

Using conjoint analysis to develop a system of scoring policymakers' use of research in policy and program development

Background

The importance of utilising the best available research evidence in the development of health policies, services, and programs is increasingly recognised, yet few standardised systems for quantifying policymakers’ research use are available. We developed a comprehensive measurement and scoring tool that assesses four domains of research use (i.e. instrumental, conceptual, tactical, and imposed). The scoring tool breaks down each domain into its key subactions like a checklist. Our aim was to develop a tool that assigned appropriate scores to each subaction based on its relative importance to undertaking evidence-informed health policymaking. In order to establish the relative importance of each research use subaction and generate this scoring system, we conducted conjoint analysis with a sample of knowledge translation experts.

Methods

Fifty-four experts were recruited to undertake four choice surveys. Respondents were shown combinations of research use subactions called profiles, and rated on a 1 to 9 scale whether each profile represented a limited (1–3), moderate (4–6), or extensive (7–9) example of research use. Generalised Estimating Equations were used to analyse respondents’ choice data, which calculated a utility coefficient for each subaction. A large utility coefficient indicated that a subaction was particularly influential in guiding experts’ ratings of extensive research use.

Results

Utility coefficients were calculated for each subaction, which became the points assigned to the subactions in the scoring system. The following subactions yielded the largest utilities and were regarded as the most important components of each research use domain: using research to directly influence the core of the policy decision; using research to inform alternative perspectives to deal with the policy issue; using research to persuade targeted stakeholders to support a predetermined decision; and using research because it was a mandated requirement by the policymaker’s organisation.

Conclusions

We have generated an empirically derived and context-sensitive means of measuring and scoring the extent to which policymakers used research to inform the development of a policy document. The scoring system can be used by organisations to not only quantify the extent of their research use, but also to provide them with insights into potential strategies to improve subsequent research use.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-015-0022-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Survey of Argentine health researchers on the use of evidence in policymaking

OBJECTIVE

In this study, Argentine health researchers were surveyed regarding their perceptions of facilitators and barriers to evidence-based policymaking in Argentina, as well as their publication activities, and research environment satisfaction.

METHODS

A self-administered online survey was sent to health researchers in Argentina. The survey questions were based on a preceding qualitative study of Argentine health researchers, as well as the scientific literature.

RESULTS

Of the 647 researchers that were reached, 226 accessed the survey, for a response rate of 34.9%. Over 80% of researchers surveyed had never been involved in or contributed to decision-making, while over 90% of researchers indicated they would like to be involved in the decision-making process. Decision-maker self-interest was perceived to be the driving factor in the development of health and healthcare policies. Research conducted by a research leader was seen to be the most influential factor in influencing health policy, followed by policy relevance of the research. With respect to their occupational environment, researchers rated highest and most favourably the opportunities available to present, discuss and publish research results and their ability to further their education and training. Argentine researchers surveyed demonstrated a strong interest and willingness to contribute their work and expertise to inform Argentine health policy development.

CONCLUSION

Despite Argentina's long scientific tradition, there are relatively few institutionalized linkages between health research results and health policymaking. Based on the results of this study, the disconnect between political decision-making and the health research system, coupled with fewer opportunities for formalized or informal researcher/decision-maker interaction, contribute to the challenges in evidence informing health policymaking in Argentina. Improving personal contact and the building of relationships between researchers and policymakers in Argentina will require taking into account researcher perceptions of policymakers, as highlighted in this study.

Using conjoint analysis to develop a system to score research engagement actions by health decision makers

Background

Effective use of research to inform policymaking can be strengthened by policymakers undertaking various research engagement actions (e.g., accessing, appraising, and applying research). Consequently, we developed a thorough measurement and scoring tool to assess whether and how policymakers undertook research engagement actions in the development of a policy document. This scoring tool breaks down each research engagement action into its key ‘subactions’ like a checklist. The primary aim was to develop the scoring tool further so that it assigned appropriate scores to each subaction based on its effectiveness for achieving evidence-informed policymaking. To establish the relative effectiveness of these subactions, we conducted a conjoint analysis, which was used to elicit the opinions and preferences of knowledge translation experts.

Method

Fifty-four knowledge translation experts were recruited to undertake six choice surveys. Respondents were exposed to combinations of research engagement subactions called ‘profiles’, and rated on a 1–9 scale whether each profile represented a limited (1–3), moderate (4–6), or extensive (7–9) example of each research engagement action. Generalised estimating equations were used to analyse respondents’ choice data, where a utility coefficient was calculated for each subaction. A large utility coefficient indicates that a subaction was influential in guiding experts’ ratings of extensive engagement with research.

Results

The calculated utilities were used as the points assigned to the subactions in the scoring system. The following subactions yielded the largest utilities and were regarded as the most important components of engaging with research: searching academic literature databases, obtaining systematic reviews and peer-reviewed research, appraising relevance by verifying its applicability to the policy context, appraising quality by evaluating the validity of the method and conclusions, engaging in thorough collaborations with researchers, and undertaking formal research projects to inform the policy in question.

Conclusions

We have generated an empirically-derived and context-sensitive method of measuring and scoring the extent to which policymakers engaged with research to inform policy development. The scoring system can be used by organisations to quantify staff research engagement actions and thus provide them with insights into what types of training, systems, and tools might improve their staff’s research use capacity.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-015-0013-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Usage of an online tool to help policymakers better engage with research: Web CIPHER

BACKGROUND

There is a need to develop innovations that help policymakers better engage with research in order to increase its use in policymaking. As part of the Centre for Informing Policy in Health with Evidence from Research (CIPHER), we established Web CIPHER, an online tool with dynamic interactive elements such as hot topics, research summaries, blogs from trusted figures in health policy and research, a community bulletin board, multimedia section and research portal. The aim of this study was to examine policymakers' use of the website, and determine which sections were key drivers of use.

METHODS

Google Analytics (GA) was used to gather usage data during a 16-month period. Analysis was restricted to Web CIPHER members from policy agencies. We examined descriptive statistics including mean viewing times, number of page visits and bounce rates for each section and performed analyses of variance to compare usage between sections. Repeated measures analyses were undertaken to examine whether a weekly reminder email improved usage of Web CIPHER, particularly for research-related content.

RESULTS

During the measurement period, 223 policymakers from more than 32 organisations joined Web CIPHER. Users viewed eight posts on average per visit and stayed on the site for approximately 4 min. The bounce rate was less than 6%. The Blogs and Community sections received more unique views than all other sections. Blogs relating to improving policymakers' skills in applying research to policy were particularly popular. The email reminder had a positive effect on improving usage, particularly for research-related posts.

CONCLUSIONS

The data indicated a relatively small number of users. However, this sample may not be representative of policymakers since membership to the site and usage was completely voluntarily. Nonetheless, those who used the site appeared to engage well with it. The findings suggest that providing blog-type content written by trusted experts in health policy and research as well as regular email reminders may provide an effective means of disseminating the latest research to policymakers through an online web portal.

Which criteria are considered in healthcare decisions? Insights from an international survey of policy and clinical decision makers

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to gather qualitative and quantitative data on criteria considered by healthcare decision makers.

METHODS

Using snowball sampling and an online questionnaire with forty-three criteria organized into ten clusters, decision makers were invited by an international task force to report which criteria they consider when making decisions on healthcare interventions in their context. Respondents reported whether each criterion is "currently considered," "should be considered," and its relative weight (scale 0-5). Differences in proportions of respondents were explored with inferential statistics across levels of decision (micro, meso, macro), decision maker perspectives, and world regions.

RESULTS

A total of 140 decision makers (1/3 clinical, 2/3 policy) from 23 countries in five continents completed the survey. The most relevant criteria (top ranked for "Currently considered," "Should be considered," and weights) were Clinical efficacy/effectiveness, Safety, Quality of evidence, Disease severity, and Impact on healthcare costs. Organizational and skill requirements were frequently considered but had relatively low weights. For almost all criteria, a higher proportion of decision makers reported that they "Should be considered" than that they are "Currently considered" (p < .05). For more than 74 percent of criteria, there were no statistical differences in proportions across levels of decision, perspectives and world regions. Statistically significant differences across several comparisons were found for: Population priorities, Stakeholder pressure/interests, Capacity to stimulate research, Impact on partnership and collaboration, and Environmental impact.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest convergence among decision makers on the relevance of a core set of criteria and on the need to consider a wider range of criteria. Areas of divergence appear to be principally related to contextual factors.

Global justice and health systems research in low- and middle-income countries

Scholarship focusing on how international research can contribute to justice in global health has primarily explored requirements for the conduct of clinical trials. Yet health systems research in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has increasingly been identified as vital to the reduction of health disparities between and within countries. This paper expands an existing ethical framework based on the health capability paradigm - research for health justice - to externally-funded health systems research in LMICs. It argues that a specific form of health systems research in LMICs is required if the enterprise is to advance global health equity. "Research for health justice" requirements for priority setting, research capacity strengthening, and post-study benefits in health systems research are derived in light of the field's distinctive characteristics. Specific obligations are established for external research actors, including governments, funders, sponsors, and investigators. How these framework requirements differ from those for international clinical research is discussed.

Climate for evidence informed health system policymaking in Cameroon and Uganda before and after the introduction of knowledge translation platforms: a structured review of governmental policy documents

Background

There is a scarcity of empirical data on African country climates for evidence-informed health system policymaking (EIHSP) to backup the longstanding reputation that research evidence is not valued enough by health policymakers as an information input.

Herein, we assess whether and how changes have occurred in the climate for EIHSP before and after the establishment of two Knowledge Translation Platforms housed in government institutions in Cameroon and Uganda since 2006.

Methods

We merged content analysis techniques and policy sciences analytical frameworks to guide this structured review of governmental policy documents geared at achieving health Millennium Development Goals. We combined i) a quantitative exploration of the usage statistics of research-related words and constructs, citations of types of evidence, and budgets allocated to research-related activities; and (ii) an interpretive exploration using a deductive thematic analysis approach to uncover changes in the institutions, interests, ideas, and external factors displaying the country climate for EIHSP. Descriptive statistics compared quantitative data across countries during the periods 2001–2006 and 2007–2012.

Results

We reviewed 54 documents, including 33 grants approved by global health initiatives. The usage statistics of research-related words and constructs showed an increase over time across countries. Varied forms of data, information, or research were instrumentally used to describe the burden and determinants of poverty and health conditions. The use of evidence syntheses to frame poverty and health problems, select strategies, or forecast the expected outcomes has remained sparse over time and across countries. The budgets for research increased over time from 28.496 to 95.467 million Euros (335%) in Cameroon and 38.064 to 58.884 million US dollars (155%) in Uganda, with most resources allocated to health sector performance monitoring and evaluation. The consistent naming of elements pertaining to the climate for EIHSP features the greater influence of external donors through policy transfer.

Conclusions

This structured review of governmental policy documents illustrates the nascent conducive climate for EIHSP in Cameroon and Uganda and the persistent undervalue of evidence syntheses. Global and national health stakeholders should raise the profile of evidence syntheses (e.g., systematic reviews) as an information input when shaping policies and programmes.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1478-4505-13-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Five principles for the practice of knowledge exchange in environmental management

This paper outlines five principles for effective practice of knowledge exchange, which when applied, have the potential to significantly enhance the impact of environmental management research, policy and practice. The paper is based on an empirical analysis of interviews with 32 researchers and stakeholders across 13 environmental management research projects, each of which included elements of knowledge co-creation and sharing in their design. The projects focused on a range of upland and catchment management issues across the UK, and included Research Council, Government and NGO funded projects. Preliminary findings were discussed with knowledge exchange professionals and academic experts to ensure the emerging principles were as broadly applicable as possible across multiple disciplines. The principles suggest that: knowledge exchange needs to be designed into research; the needs of likely research users and other stakeholders should be systematically represented in the research where possible; and long-term relationships must be built on trust and two-way dialogue between researchers and stakeholders in order to ensure effective co-generation of new knowledge. We found that the delivery of tangible benefits early on in the research process helps to ensure continued motivation and engagement of likely research users. Knowledge exchange is a flexible process that must be monitored, reflected on and continuously refined, and where possible, steps should be taken to ensure a legacy of ongoing knowledge exchange beyond initial research funding. The principles have been used to inform the design of knowledge exchange and stakeholder engagement guidelines for two international research programmes. They are able to assist researchers, decision-makers and other stakeholders working in contrasting environmental management settings to work together to co-produce new knowledge, and more effectively share and apply existing knowledge to manage environmental change.

Health systems and policy research evidence in health policy making in Israel: what are researchers' practices in transferring knowledge to policy makers?

Background

Ensuring the use of research evidence in health system management and policy decisions is an important challenge in this century. Knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) has emerged as a paradigm to address the challenges and start closing the ‘know-do’ gap. This area of work is gaining momentum in most developed countries, yet, to date, no work has been performed in Israel within this area. The purpose of this study was to identify which KTE activities health systems and policy researchers in Israel have undertaken.

Methods

A cross-sectional web-based survey of researchers who have conducted health systems and policy research in Israel was developed. The survey consisted of a demographics section, quantitative scales, and open-ended questions. The survey was sent to all health systems and policy researchers in Israel (n = 125).

Results

The study response rate (28%) was relatively low as compared to other studies in the same field (range of 42% to 88%). Our survey found that more than a third of the health systems and policy researchers in Israel reported that they were frequently or always involved in the following KTE activities: interactions with target audience through the research process (i.e., during developing a research question or executing the research; 35% to 42%) or through formal or informal meetings during conferences, workshops, or conversations (40%). Less than half of the health systems and policy researchers in Israel are engaged in bridging activities aimed to facilitate target audiences to use research.

Conclusions

This is a fairly new area in Israel and therefore the level of engagement of researchers in KTE activities is not very high. The low response rates could be because KTE is a new field in Israel and minimal KTE initiatives have been undertaken. It is preferable to have higher response rates, yet, after several initiatives, this was the outcome. While the findings are relevant, they may not reflect the total population of health system and policy researchers in Israel. Health system and policy researchers in Israel need to be introduced to the benefits and potential advantages of KTE in an organized and systematic way.

Initiatives supporting evidence informed health system policymaking in Cameroon and Uganda: a comparative historical case study

Background

There is a scarcity of empirical data on institutions devoted to knowledge brokerage and their influence in Africa. Our objective was to describe two pioneering Knowledge Translation Platforms (KTPs) supporting evidence informed health system policymaking (EIHSP) in Cameroon and Uganda since 2006.

Methods

This comparative historical case study of Evidence Informed Policy Network (EVIPNet) Cameroon and Regional East African Community Health Policy Initiative (REACH-PI) Uganda using multiple methods comprised (i) a descriptive documentary analysis for a narrative historical account, (ii) an interpretive documentary analysis of the context, profiles, activities and outputs inventories and (iii) an evaluative survey of stakeholders exposed to evidence briefs produced and policy dialogues organized by the KTPs.

Results

Both initiatives benefited from the technical and scientific support from the global EVIPNet resource group. EVIPNet Cameroon secretariat operates with a multidisciplinary group of part-time researchers in a teaching hospital closely linked to the ministry of health. REACH-PI Uganda secretariat operates with a smaller team of full time staff in a public university. Financial resources were mobilized from external donors to scale up capacity building, knowledge management, and linkage and exchange activities. Between 2008 and 2012, twelve evidence briefs were produced in Cameroon and three in Uganda. In 2012, six rapid evidence syntheses in response to stakeholders’ urgent needs were produced in Cameroon against 73 in Uganda between 2010 and 2012. Ten policy dialogues (seven in Cameroon and three in Uganda) informed by pre-circulated evidence briefs were well received. Both KTPs contributed to developing and testing new resources and tools for EIHSP. A network of local and global experts has created new spaces for evidence informed deliberations on priority health policy issues related to MDGs.

Conclusion

This descriptive historical account of two KTPs housed in government institutions in Africa illustrates how the convergence of local and global factors and agents has enabled in-country efforts to support evidence-informed deliberations on priority health policy issues and lays the ground for further work to assess their influence on the climate for EIHSP and specific health policy processes.

A retrospective health policy analysis of the development and implementation of the voluntary health insurance system in Lebanon: learning from failure

Public policymaking is complex and suffers from limited uptake of research evidence, particularly in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR). In-depth case studies examining health policymaking in the EMR are lacking. This retrospective policy analysis aims at generating insights about how policies are being made, identifying factors influencing policymaking and assessing to what extent evidence is used in this process by using the Lebanese Voluntary Health Insurance policy as a case study. The study examined the policymaking process through a policy tracing technique that covered a period of 12 years. The study employed a qualitative research design using a case study approach and was conducted in two phases over the course of two years. Data was collected using multiple sources including: 1) a comprehensive and chronological media review; 2) twenty-two key informant interviews with policymakers, stakeholders, and journalists; and 3) a document review of legislations, minutes of meetings, actuarial studies, and official documents. Data was analyzed and validated using thematic analysis. Findings showed that the voluntary health insurance policy was a political decision taken by the government to tackle an urgent political problem. Evidence was not used to guide policy development and implementation and policy implementers and other stakeholders were not involved in policy development. Factors influencing policymaking were political interests, sectarianism, urgency, and values of policymakers. Barriers to the use of evidence were lack of policy-relevant research evidence, political context, personal interests, and resource constraints. Findings suggest that policymakers should be made more aware of the important role of evidence in informing public policymaking and the need for building capacity to develop, implement and evaluate policies. Study findings are likely to matter in light of the changes that are unfolding in some Arab countries and the looming opportunities for policy reforms.

The making of nursing practice law in Lebanon: a policy analysis case study

BACKGROUND

Evidence-informed decisions can strengthen health systems, improve health, and reduce health inequities. Despite the Beijing, Montreux, and Bamako calls for action, literature shows that research evidence is underemployed in policymaking, especially in the East Mediterranean region (EMR). Selecting the draft nursing practice law as a case study, this policy analysis exercise aims at generating in-depth insights on the public policymaking process, identifying the factors that influence policymaking and assessing to what extent evidence is used in this process.

METHODS

This study utilized a qualitative research design using a case study approach and was conducted in two phases: data collection and analysis, and validation. In the first phase, data was collected through key informant interviews that covered 17 stakeholders. In the second phase, a panel discussion was organized to validate the findings, identify any gaps, and gain insights and feedback of the panelists. Thematic analysis was conducted and guided by the Walt & Gilson's "Policy Triangle Framework" as themes were categorized into content, actors, process, and context.

RESULTS

Findings shed light on the complex nature of health policymaking and the unstructured approach of decision making. This study uncovered the barriers that hindered the progress of the draft nursing law and the main barriers against the use of evidence in policymaking. Findings also uncovered the risk involved in the use of international recommendations without the involvement of stakeholders and without accounting for contextual factors and implementation barriers. Findings were interpreted within the context of the Lebanese political environment and the power play between stakeholders, taking into account equity considerations.

CONCLUSIONS

This policy analysis exercise presents findings that are helpful for policymakers and all other stakeholders and can feed into revising the draft nursing law to reach an effective alternative that is feasible in Lebanon. Our findings are relevant in local and regional context as policymakers and other stakeholders can benefit from this experience when drafting laws and at the global context, as international organizations can consider this case study when developing global guidance and recommendations.

Systematic reviews addressing identified health policy priorities in Eastern Mediterranean countries: a situational analysis

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews can offer policymakers and stakeholders concise, transparent, and relevant evidence pertaining to pressing policy priorities to help inform the decision-making process. The production and the use of systematic reviews are specifically limited in the Eastern Mediterranean region. The extent to which published systematic reviews address policy priorities in the region is still unknown. This situational analysis exercise aims at assessing the extent to which published systematic reviews address policy priorities identified by policymakers and stakeholders in Eastern Mediterranean region countries. It also provides an overview about the state of systematic review production in the region and identifies knowledge gaps.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of the Health System Evidence database to identify published systematic reviews on policy-relevant priorities pertaining to the following themes: human resources for health, health financing, the role of the non-state sector, and access to medicine. Priorities were identified from two priority-setting exercises conducted in the region. We described the distribution of these systematic reviews across themes, sub-themes, authors' affiliations, and countries where included primary studies were conducted.

RESULTS

Out of the 1,045 systematic reviews identified in Health System Evidence on selected themes, a total of 200 systematic reviews (19.1%) addressed the priorities from the Eastern Mediterranean region. The theme with the largest number of systematic reviews included was human resources for health (115) followed by health financing (33), access to medicine (27), and role of the non-state sector (25). Authors based in the region produced only three systematic reviews addressing regional priorities (1.5%). Furthermore, no systematic review focused on the Eastern Mediterranean region. Primary studies from the region had limited contribution to systematic reviews; 17 systematic reviews (8.5%) included primary studies conducted in the region.

CONCLUSIONS

There are still gaps in the production of systematic reviews addressing policymakers' and stakeholders' priorities in the Eastern Mediterranean region. Efforts should be directed towards better aligning systematic review production with policy needs and priorities. Study findings can inform the agendas of researchers, research institutions, and international funding agencies of priority areas where systematic reviews are required.

Research's Practice and Barriers of Knowledge Translation in Iran

BACKGROUND

Knowledge Translation is a process that includes synthesis, dissemination, exchange and application of knowledge to improve the health, services and products In this study we have attempted to examine the knowledge translation practice and its perceived barriers on the universalities and research institutes (research sector) in Iran.

METHODS

Both qualitative and quantitative approaches were used. In the quantitative section, a questionnaire had prepared for this study was completed by 88 authors country wide from randomly selected papers. In the qualitative section 13 in-depth interviews and 6 focus group discussions were held with managers and policy makers, clinical and health service providers, and researchers.

RESULTS

Twenty four percent of the authors had no interaction whatsoever with the target audience. Lack of expectation toward creating change in the target audience, researchers' incentives, low level of trust among researchers and decision makers, absence of a predefined mechanism for delivery of research results and inappropriate research priorities were among the most important barriers identified in the qualitative section.

CONCLUSION

Translation of research findings into some concrete outputs which can affect health of people is not in mandate of researchers and subsequently they are not prepared for this as well. Based on the barriers identified, it seems that the following interventions are necessary: cooperation among policy makers at macro and meso (organizational) level and the research sector; establishing networks for researchers and decision makers in choosing the research topic, priority setting, and building trust among researchers and policy makers.

Communicating pesticide neurotoxicity research findings and risks to decision-makers and the public

The extensive research findings on neurotoxic risks of pesticides tend to remain in academic publications rather than being comprehensibly communicated to decision-makers and the public. Protecting health and promoting risk reduction, particularly in developing countries, requires access to current findings in a format that can inform policy, regulations, behaviour change and risk reduction. Successfully communicating research findings may require multiple strategies depending on the target audience's varying comprehension skills (e.g., numeracy literacy, visual literacy) and ability to interpret scientific data. To illustrate the complexities of risk communication, a case study of exposure to neurotoxic street pesticides amongst poor, urban South African communities attempting to control poverty related pests, is presented. What remains a challenge is how to communicate neurotoxicity research findings consistently and in a meaningful manner for a lay audience, consisting of both the general public and decision makers. A further challenge is to identify who will monitor and evaluate the ways in which these findings are communicated to ensure quality is maintained. Ultimately, researchers should carry the responsibility of knowledge translation and engaging with communication specialists when appropriate. Additionally, institutions should reward this as part of promotion and academic accolade systems, and funders should fund the translational process. Ethics review boards should also play an instrumental role in ensuring that knowledge translation is part of the ethics review requirement, while professional societies should take more responsibility for disseminating research findings to non-academics.

Development of evidence-based health policy documents in developing countries: a case of Iran

Background:

Evidence-based policy documents that are well developed by senior civil servants and are timely available can reduce the barriers to evidence utilization by health policy makers. This study examined the barriers and facilitators in developing evidence-based health policy documents from the perspective of their producers in a developing country.

Methods:

In a qualitative study with a framework analysis approach, we conducted semi-structured interviews using purposive and snowball sampling. A qualitative analysis software (MAXQDA-10) was used to apply the codes and manage the data. This study was theory-based and the results were compared to exploratory studies about the factors influencing evidence-based health policymaking.

Results:

18 codes and three main themes of behavioral, normative, and control beliefs were identified. Factors that influence the development of evidence-based policy documents were identified by the participants: behavioral beliefs included quality of policy documents, use of resources, knowledge and innovation, being time-consuming and contextualization; normative beliefs included policy authorities, policymakers, policy administrators, and co-workers; and control beliefs included recruitment policy, performance management, empowerment, management stability, physical environment, access to evidence, policy making process, and effect of other factors.

Conclusion:

Most of the cited barriers to the development of evidence-based policy were related to control beliefs, i.e. barriers at the organizational and health system levels. This study identified the factors that influence the development of evidence-based policy documents based on the components of the theory of planned behavior. But in exploratory studies on evidence utilization by health policymakers, the identified factors were only related to control behaviors. This suggests that the theoretical approach may be preferable to the exploratory approach in identifying the barriers and facilitators of a behavior.

A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers

Background

The gap between research and practice or policy is often described as a problem. To identify new barriers of and facilitators to the use of evidence by policymakers, and assess the state of research in this area, we updated a systematic review.

Methods

Systematic review. We searched online databases including Medline, Embase, SocSci Abstracts, CDS, DARE, Psychlit, Cochrane Library, NHSEED, HTA, PAIS, IBSS (Search dates: July 2000 - September 2012). Studies were included if they were primary research or systematic reviews about factors affecting the use of evidence in policy. Studies were coded to extract data on methods, topic, focus, results and population.

Results

145 new studies were identified, of which over half were published after 2010. Thirteen systematic reviews were included. Compared with the original review, a much wider range of policy topics was found. Although still primarily in the health field, studies were also drawn from criminal justice, traffic policy, drug policy, and partnership working. The most frequently reported barriers to evidence uptake were poor access to good quality relevant research, and lack of timely research output. The most frequently reported facilitators were collaboration between researchers and policymakers, and improved relationships and skills. There is an increasing amount of research into new models of knowledge transfer, and evaluations of interventions such as knowledge brokerage.

Conclusions

Timely access to good quality and relevant research evidence, collaborations with policymakers and relationship- and skills-building with policymakers are reported to be the most important factors in influencing the use of evidence. Although investigations into the use of evidence have spread beyond the health field and into more countries, the main barriers and facilitators remained the same as in the earlier review. Few studies provide clear definitions of policy, evidence or policymaker. Nor are empirical data about policy processes or implementation of policy widely available. It is therefore difficult to describe the role of evidence and other factors influencing policy. Future research and policy priorities should aim to illuminate these concepts and processes, target the factors identified in this review, and consider new methods of overcoming the barriers described.

A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers

BACKGROUND

The gap between research and practice or policy is often described as a problem. To identify new barriers of and facilitators to the use of evidence by policymakers, and assess the state of research in this area, we updated a systematic review.

METHODS

Systematic review. We searched online databases including Medline, Embase, SocSci Abstracts, CDS, DARE, Psychlit, Cochrane Library, NHSEED, HTA, PAIS, IBSS (Search dates: July 2000 - September 2012). Studies were included if they were primary research or systematic reviews about factors affecting the use of evidence in policy. Studies were coded to extract data on methods, topic, focus, results and population.

RESULTS

145 new studies were identified, of which over half were published after 2010. Thirteen systematic reviews were included. Compared with the original review, a much wider range of policy topics was found. Although still primarily in the health field, studies were also drawn from criminal justice, traffic policy, drug policy, and partnership working. The most frequently reported barriers to evidence uptake were poor access to good quality relevant research, and lack of timely research output. The most frequently reported facilitators were collaboration between researchers and policymakers, and improved relationships and skills. There is an increasing amount of research into new models of knowledge transfer, and evaluations of interventions such as knowledge brokerage.

CONCLUSIONS

Timely access to good quality and relevant research evidence, collaborations with policymakers and relationship- and skills-building with policymakers are reported to be the most important factors in influencing the use of evidence. Although investigations into the use of evidence have spread beyond the health field and into more countries, the main barriers and facilitators remained the same as in the earlier review. Few studies provide clear definitions of policy, evidence or policymaker. Nor are empirical data about policy processes or implementation of policy widely available. It is therefore difficult to describe the role of evidence and other factors influencing policy. Future research and policy priorities should aim to illuminate these concepts and processes, target the factors identified in this review, and consider new methods of overcoming the barriers described.

Priority setting in health care as portrayed in South Korean and Israeli newspapers

Studies have reported differences in the public's understanding of, trust in, and satisfaction with its priority-setting processes and outcomes across countries. How the media frames and reports decision making processes and outcomes may both reflect and affect the public's knowledge of and attitudes toward them. Nevertheless, no studies have analyzed how priority-setting decision making processes are portrayed in the media. We analyzed 202 newspaper articles published over a decade, from January 2000 through December 2009, in leading newspapers of Israel and South Korea. The findings reveal intriguing differences between the countries in both the number and content of the reports. The issue of priority setting is much less salient in Korean than in Israeli society. While the complexity of the task was the most prevalent theme in the Israeli reports sampled, benefits package expansion decisions were most common in the Korean reports. Similarly, the Israeli reports emphasized the qualifications and backgrounds of individual members of the decision making committee, but the equivalent Korean committee was not portrayed as a major actor, and so received less attention. The least reported theme in both countries was priority-setting procedures and principles. These findings, along with results from previous studies which indicate that public satisfaction with the two systems differs between the countries, provoke several interesting future research questions.

How contexts and issues influence the use of policy-relevant research syntheses: a critical interpretive synthesis

CONTEXT

Evidence briefs have emerged as a promising approach to synthesizing the best available research evidence for health system policymakers and stakeholders. An evidence brief may draw on systematic reviews and many other types of policy-relevant information, including local data and studies, to describe a problem, options for addressing it, and key implementation considerations. We conducted a systematic review to examine the ways in which context- and issue-related factors influence the perceived usefulness of evidence briefs among their intended users.

METHODS

We used a critical interpretive synthesis approach to review both empirical and nonempirical literature and to develop a model that explains how context and issues influence policymakers' and stakeholders' views of the utility of evidence briefs prepared for priority policy issues. We used a "compass" question to create a detailed search strategy and conducted electronic searches in CINAHL, EMBASE, HealthSTAR, IPSA, MEDLINE, OAIster (gray literature), ProQuest A&I Theses, ProQuest (Sociological Abstracts, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Worldwide Political Science Abstracts, International Bibliography of Social Sciences, PAIS, Political Science), PsychInfo, Web of Science, and WilsonWeb (Social Science Abstracts). Finally, we used a grounded and interpretive analytic approach to synthesize the results.

FINDINGS

Of the 4,461 papers retrieved, 3,908 were excluded and 553 were assessed for "relevance," with 137 included in the initial sample of papers to be analyzed and an additional 23 purposively sampled to fill conceptual gaps. Several themes emerged: (1) many established types of "evidence" are viewed as useful content in an evidence brief, along with several promising formatting features; (2) contextual factors, particularly the institutions, interests, and values of a given context, can influence views of evidence briefs; (3) whether an issue is polarizing and whether it is salient (or not) and familiar (or not) to actors in the policy arena can influence views of evidence briefs prepared for that issue; (4) influential factors can emerge in several ways (as context driven, issue driven, or a result of issue-context resonance); (5) these factors work through two primary pathways, affecting either the users or the producers of briefs; and (6) these factors influence views of evidence briefs through a variety of mechanisms.

CONCLUSIONS

Those persons funding and preparing evidence briefs need to consider a variety of context- and issue-related factors when deciding how to make them most useful in policymaking.

The state of the research for health environment in the ministries of health of the Economic Community of the West African States (ECOWAS)

BACKGROUND

An assessment of the state of the Research for Health (R4H) environment can provide relevant information about what aspects of national health research systems needs strengthening, so that research output can be relevant to meet national priorities for decision-making. There is limited information on the state of the R4H environment in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). This article describes the state of the R4H environment within the Ministries of Health of the ECOWAS member states and outlines of some possibilities to strengthen health research activities within the ECOWAS region.

METHODS

Information on the national-level R4H environment (governance and management; existence of a national policy; strategic and research priorities documents; ethics committees; research funds; coordination structures; monitoring and evaluation systems; networking and capacity building opportunities) was collected from the Ministries of Health research units in 14 ECOWAS countries using self-administered questionnaires. A workshop was held where country report presentations and group discussions were used to review and validate responses. Data from the discussions was transcribed using Nvivo, and strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis of the functioning of the units was done using Robert Preziosi's organisational diagnosis tool.

RESULTS

The findings indicate that as of January 2011, 50% of ECOWAS countries had established directorates for health research with defined terms of reference. The existing funding mechanisms were inadequate to support the research structures within and outside the MoHs, and for building the capacity of researchers. Networking and monitoring activities were weak and only 7% of the directors of research units were trained in research management. The majority (85.7%) of countries had broader national health policies, and 57% of the countries had some form of policy or strategic document for research development. Half of the countries had developed national research priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

These results call for urgent action to improve the research environment in the Ministries of Health in the West African sub-region.

The impact of Fogarty International Center research training programs on public health policy and program development in Kenya and Uganda

Background

The Fogarty International Center (FIC) has supported research capacity development for over twenty years. While the mission of FIC is supporting and facilitating global health research conducted by U.S. and international investigators, building partnerships between health research institutions in the U.S. and abroad, and training the next generation of scientists to address global health needs, research capacity may impact health policies and programs and therefore have positive impacts on public health. We conducted an exploratory analysis of how FIC research training investments affected public health policy and program development in Kenya and Uganda.

Methods

We explored the long term impacts of all FIC supported research training programs using case studies, in Kenya and Uganda. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with 53 respondents and 29 focus group discussion participants across the two countries. Qualitative methods were supplemented by structured surveys of trainees and document review, including a review of evidence cited in policy documents.

Results

In the primary focal areas of FIC grants, notably HIV/AIDS, there were numerous examples of work conducted by former FIC trainees that influenced national and global policies. Facilitators for this influence included the strong technical skills and scientific reputations of the trainees, and professional networks spanning research and policy communities. Barriers included the fact that trainees typically had not received training in research communication, relatively few policy makers had received scientific training, and institutional constraints that undermined alignment of research with policy needs.

Conclusions

While FIC has not focused its programs on the goal of policy and program influence, its investments have affected global and national public health policies and practice. These influences have occurred primarily through strengthening research skills of scientists and developing strong in-country networks. Further success of FIC and similar initiatives could be stimulated by investing more in the training of policy-makers, seeking to better align research with policy needs through more grants that are awarded directly to developing country institutions, and grants that better incorporate policy maker perspectives in their design and governance. Addressing structural constraints, for example supporting the development of national research agendas that inform university research, would further support such efforts.

Embedding health policy and systems research into decision-making processes in low- and middle-income countries

Attention is increasingly directed to bridging the gap between the production of knowledge and its use for health decision-making in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). An important and underdeveloped area of health policy and systems research (HPSR) is the organization of this process. Drawing from an interdisciplinary conception of embeddedness, a literature review was conducted to identify examples of embedded HPSR used to inform decision-making in LMICs. The results of the literature review were organized according to the World Health Organization’s Building Blocks Framework. Next, a conceptual model was created to illustrate the arrangement of organizations that produce embedded HPSR and the characteristics that facilitate its uptake into the arena of decision-making. We found that multiple forces converge to create context-specific pathways through which evidence enters into decision-making. Depending on the decision under consideration, the literature indicates that decision-makers may call upon an intricate combination of actors for sourcing HPSR. While proximity to decision-making does have advantages, it is not the position of the organization within the network, but rather the qualities the organization possesses, that enable it to be embedded. Our findings suggest that four qualities influence embeddedness: reputation, capacity, quality of connections to decision-makers, and quantity of connections to decision-makers and others. In addition to this, the policy environment (e.g. the presence of legislation governing the use of HPSR, presence of strong civil society, etc.) strongly influences uptake. Through this conceptual model, we can understand which conditions are likely to enhance uptake of HPSR in LMIC health systems. This raises several important considerations for decision-makers and researchers about the arrangement and interaction of evidence-generating organizations in health systems.