Research and knowledge in Ontario tobacco control networks

Is bureaucracy being busted in research ethics and governance for health services research in the UK? Experiences and perspectives reported by stakeholders through an online survey

BACKGROUND

It has long been noted that the chain from identification of need (research gap) to impact in the real world is both long and tortuous. This study aimed to contribute evidence about research ethics and governance arrangements and processes in the UK with a focus on: what works well; problems; impacts on delivery; and potential improvements.

METHODS

Online questionnaire widely distributed 20th May 2021, with request to forward to other interested parties. The survey closed on 18th June 2021. Questionnaire included closed and open questions related to demographics, role, study objectives.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 252 respondents, 68% based in universities 25% in the NHS. Research methods used by respondents included interviews/focus groups (64%); surveys/questionnaires (63%); and experimental/quasi experimental (57%). Respondents reported that participants in the research they conducted most commonly included: patients (91%); NHS staff (64%) and public (50%). Aspects of research ethics and governance reported to work well were: online centralised systems; confidence in rigorous, respected systems; and helpful staff. Problems with workload, frustration and delays were reported, related to overly bureaucratic, unclear, repetitive, inflexible and inconsistent processes. Disproportionality of requirements for low-risk studies was raised across all areas, with systems reported to be risk averse, defensive and taking little account of the risks associated with delaying or deterring research. Some requirements were reported to have unintended effects on inclusion and diversity, particularly impacting Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) and engagement processes. Existing processes and requirements were reported to cause stress and demoralisation, particularly as many researchers are employed on fixed term contracts. High negative impacts on research delivery were reported, in terms of timescales for completing studies, discouraging research particularly for clinicians and students, quality of outputs and costs. Suggested improvements related to system level changes / overall approach and specific refinements to existing processes.

CONCLUSIONS

Consultation with those involved in Health Services Research in the UK revealed a picture of overwhelming and increasing bureaucracy, delays, costs and demoralisation related to gaining the approvals necessary to conduct research in the NHS. Suggestions for improvement across all three areas focused on reducing duplication and unnecessary paperwork/form filling and reaching a better balance between risks of harm through research and harms which occur because research to inform practice is delayed or deterred.

Pathways for diversifying and enhancing science advocacy

Science is under attack and scientists are becoming more involved in efforts to defend it. The rise in science advocacy raises important questions regarding how science mobilization can both defend science and promote its use for the public good while also including the communities that benefit from science. This article begins with a discussion of the relevance of science advocacy. It then reviews research pointing to how scientists can sustain, diversify, and increase the political impact of their mobilization. Scientists, we argue, can build and maintain politically impactful coalitions by engaging with and addressing social group differences and diversity instead of suppressing them. The article concludes with a reflection on how the study of science-related mobilization would benefit from further research.

Appealing to Tacit Knowledge and Axiology to Enhance Medical Practice in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Hermeneutic Bioethical Analysis

Background: The pressure of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, epidemiological and demographic changes, personnel-patient relationship in healthcare, and the development of biotechnologies do not go unnoticed by the healthcare professional. Changes are so wide and at a high rate that guidelines and mere scientific knowledge, which are represented by evidence-based medicine, are not sufficient to lead actions, thus the experiential aspects in the configuration of an ethos present as a fundamental part of the resources to deal with critical scenarios, such as a pandemic. In this regard, the recognition of tacit knowledge as a way of teaching and learning skills related to ethical aspects such as principles, virtues, and values, revealed as a fundamental part of the clinical field. The challenge is to strengthen binomial evidence-based medicine and values-based in order to achieve excellence in the health care of the patients and the well-being of the clinical personnel.

Method: A 2-fold analysis was conducted taking pediatric endocrinology as an example. First, a systematic review was carried out in electronic databases BIREME, PubMed, and PhilPapers following PEO and PRISMA approaches. A total of 132 articles were garnered. After reading their title and abstract, 30 articles were obtained. Quantitative information was arranged in an Excel database according to three themes: ethics, axiology, and tacit knowledge. A quality criterion that meets our research question was assigned to each article and those which had a quality criterion of 3 (9) were taken to carry out the hermeneutic bioethical analysis, which consisted of three stages, namely naïve reading, codification, and interpretation. The results were analyzed in Atlas.ti. to elucidate the relations between the three main themes in accordance with the objective.

Results: Although there was no difference in the frequency of tacit knowledge skills, including cognitive, social, and technical, for medical practice, there is an intrinsic relationship between epistemic and ethical values with cognitive skills, this means that professionals who practice honesty, authenticity and self-control are capable of seeing patients as persons and thus respect their dignity. This suggested that there is a strong partnership between evidence-based medicine and value-based medicine, which reinforced this binomial as the two feet on which medical practice decisions rested. With regard to tacit knowledge in terms of the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the challenges refer to (1) adapting and learning a new way of establishing trust with the patient and (2) how to capitalize on the new knowledge that new experiences have posed.

Discussion: The analysis of ethical-tacit knowledge in medicine is a recent phenomenon and is in full development. Although no references were found that dealt with any of the main topics in pediatric endocrinology, there is an interest in pediatrics to explore and discuss educational strategies in ethics related to its tacit dimension as a vector of enhancement in the clinical practice. Educational strategies ought to take into consideration the development of skills that promote reflection and discussion of experiences, even more vigorously in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The passage of tobacco control law 174 in Lebanon: reflections on the problem, policies and politics

Progress in tobacco control policy making has occurred worldwide through advocacy campaigns involving multiple players- civil society groups, activists, academics, media and policymakers. The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC)-the first ever global health treaty-outlines evidence-based tobacco control policies. Lebanon ratified the FCTC in 2005, but until 2011, tobacco control policies remained rudimentary and not evidence-based. Beginning in 2009, a concerted advocacy campaign was undertaken by a variety of stakeholders with the aim of accelerating the process of adopting a strong tobacco control policy. The campaign was successful, and Law 174 passed the Lebanese Parliament in August 2011. In this article, we analyse the policy making process that led to the adoption of Law 174 using Kingdon's model. The analysis relies on primary and secondary data sources including historical records of key governmental decisions, documentation of the activities of the concerted advocacy campaign and in-depth interviews with key stakeholders. We describe the opening of a window of opportunity as a result of the alignment of the problem, policy and politics streams. Furthermore, findings revealed that despite the challenge of persistent tobacco industry interference and established power relations between the industry, its allies and policymakers; policy entrepreneurs succeeded in supporting the alignment of the streams, and influencing the passage of the law. Kingdon's multiple stream approach was useful in explaining how tobacco control became an emerging policy issue at the front of the policy agenda in Lebanon.

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.

The use of research evidence in public health decision making processes: systematic review

Background

The use of research evidence to underpin public health policy is strongly promoted. However, its implementation has not been straightforward. The objectives of this systematic review were to synthesise empirical evidence on the use of research evidence by public health decision makers in settings with universal health care systems.

Methods

To locate eligible studies, 13 bibliographic databases were screened, organisational websites were scanned, key informants were contacted and bibliographies of included studies were scrutinised. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Data were synthesised as a narrative review.

Findings

18 studies were included: 15 qualitative studies, and three surveys. Their methodological quality was mixed. They were set in a range of country and decision making settings. Study participants included 1063 public health decision makers, 72 researchers, and 174 with overlapping roles. Decision making processes varied widely between settings, and were viewed differently by key players. A range of research evidence was accessed. However, there was no reliable evidence on the extent of its use. Its impact was often indirect, competing with other influences. Barriers to the use of research evidence included: decision makers' perceptions of research evidence; the gulf between researchers and decision makers; the culture of decision making; competing influences on decision making; and practical constraints. Suggested (but largely untested) ways of overcoming these barriers included: research targeted at the needs of decision makers; research clearly highlighting key messages; and capacity building. There was little evidence on the role of research evidence in decision making to reduce inequalities.

Conclusions

To more effectively implement research informed public health policy, action is required by decision makers and researchers to address the barriers identified in this systematic review. There is an urgent need for evidence to support the use of research evidence to inform public health decision making to reduce inequalities.

Conceptual challenges in the translation of research into practice: it's not just a matter of "communication"

This paper identifies key barriers to the translation of science into practice and policy and makes recommendations for addressing them. It focuses on the challenges of translation within the field of tobacco control, but we argue that the insights are widely generalisable. Actor-Network Theory is used to frame an analysis, supplemented by focussed discussions with international tobacco control practitioners (service delivery and advocacy) and researchers. The central challenge to translation is that researchers and practitioners have different "practical ontologies". Researchers use findings from specific contexts to generalise to universal principles, while practitioners try to use these generalisations to inform their work in what are typically a somewhat different set of specific contexts. Neglecting the need to translate back from the general to the particular means research syntheses are not framed to meet practitioners' needs. Traditional knowledge broking roles need to be extended to better align the needs of researchers and practitioners. This may be facilitated by more creative use of "social computing" to enable real-time input into research syntheses from all interested parties, including input to the questions that research addresses. To do this systematically requires that we construct "generalisation gradients" to help practitioners apply general research conclusions to their particular situation and researchers to identify the relevance of their work. Disadvantaged communities in particular need help, since there is typically less research directly applicable to their contexts; thus, they need to generalise more.