Evidence for public health policy on inequalities: 1: the reality according to policymakers

Addressing equity, diversity, and inclusion in JBI qualitative systematic reviews: a methodological scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this methodological scoping review was to investigate ways in which qualitative review teams are addressing equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in the process of conducting and reporting qualitative systematic reviews that use JBI guidelines.

INTRODUCTION

To promote health equity, there is a need for evidence synthesis processes and practices to develop approaches that incorporate EDI. Some guidance is available to guide equity-focused review methods and reporting, but this is primarily oriented to quantitative systematic reviews. There is currently limited knowledge about how review teams are addressing EDI within qualitative evidence syntheses.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This review included English-language qualitative systematic reviews, published in 2022, that used all the steps outlined in JBI guidance for qualitative reviews.

METHODS

A 1-year sample of published reviews was identified from a search undertaken on March 17, 2023, of 2 health care databases: MEDLINE (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCOhost). Data extraction followed a framework approach, using an adapted preexisting equity template. This included attention to i) the reporting of a range of characteristics associated with EDI, ii) search approaches, and iii) analytical approaches (including reflexivity, intersectionality, and knowledge user engagement). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and narrative summary.

RESULTS

Forty-three reviews met the inclusion criteria. The majority of reviews (n=30) framed their questions and aims in a generic/universal (rather than EDI-focused) way. Six reviews justified their population focus in terms of an EDI-related issue. Only one review included a knowledge user. The sociodemographic and other key characteristics of the samples in underpinning studies were poorly reported, making it hard to discern EDI-related issues or to undertake EDI-related analyses. Thirteen of the reviews included non-English-language evidence sources, and 31 reviews included gray literature sources. Ten reviews demonstrated an element of intersectional or otherwise critical approaches within their analyses of categories and synthesized findings (whereby issues of power and/or representation were explicitly considered). Only 8 reviews included discussions of review team composition and reflexivity within the review process.

CONCLUSIONS

This EDI-focused methodological enquiry has highlighted some limitations within current qualitative evidence synthesis practice. Without closer attention to EDI, there is a danger that systematic reviews may simply serve to amplify, rather than illuminate, existing gaps, silences, and inequitable knowledge claims based on dominant representations. This review sets out a range of suggestions to help qualitative evidence synthesis teams to more systematically embed EDI within their methods and practices.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework https://osf.io/wy5kv/.

Understanding Health Inequalities Research Capacities: Insights and Recommendations From Comparing Two High Income Settings

Generating evidence on health inequalities (HI) is necessary to raise awareness of these issues, describe and monitor their evolution, analyze their causes, and inform interventions aiming to improve health equity. Yet not all cities and countries have the capacity to produce this type of research. Recent research provides new contextual and causal insights into this research production process, and in-depth understanding on why and how this type of research is produced in certain settings. This article aims to analyze two recent case studies that have uniquely explored this process in two high producers of HI research and high-income country settings to identify learning and distil recommendations, which may be insightful for other settings. Expanding and investing in this line of research is critical, particularly in places with lower HI research output and related capacity, in order to identify key contextual conditions and mechanisms that may enable or hinder this process. This new knowledge could guide the development of new HI research capacity strengthening strategies to foster this research in different settings, worldwide. More understanding is also needed on the relationship between HI research, policy, and action in order to tackle HI.

Assessing the effects of population-level political, economic and social exposures, interventions and policies on inclusive economy outcomes for health equity in high-income countries: a systematic review of reviews

BACKGROUND

A fairer economy is increasingly recognised as crucial for tackling widening social, economic and health inequalities within society. However, which actions have been evaluated for their impact on inclusive economy outcomes is yet unknown.

OBJECTIVE

Identify the effects of political, economic and social exposures, interventions and policies on inclusive economy (IE) outcomes in high-income countries, by systematically reviewing the review-level evidence.

METHODS

We conducted a review of reviews; searching databases (May 2020) EconLit, Web of Science, Sociological Abstracts, ASSIA, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Public Health Database, Embase and MEDLINE; and registries PROSPERO, Campbell Collaboration and EPPI Centre (February 2021) and grey literature (August/September 2020). We aimed to identify reviews which examined social, political and/or economic exposures, interventions and policies in relation to two IE outcome domains: (i) equitable distribution of the benefits of the economy and (ii) equitable access to the resources needed to participate in the economy. Reviews had to include primary studies which compared IE outcomes within or between groups. Quality was assessed using a modified version of AMSTAR-2 and data synthesised informed by SWiM principles.

RESULTS

We identified 19 reviews for inclusion, most of which were low quality, as was the underlying primary evidence. Most reviews (n = 14) had outcomes relating to the benefits of the economy (rather than access to resources) and examined a limited set of interventions, primarily active labour market programmes and social security. There was limited high-quality review evidence to draw upon to identify effects on IE outcomes. Most reviews focused on disadvantaged groups and did not consider equity impacts.

CONCLUSIONS

Review-level evidence is sparse and focuses on 'corrective' approaches. Future reviews should examine a diverse set of 'upstream' actions intended to be inclusive 'by design' and consider a wider range of outcomes, with particular attention to socioeconomic inequalities.

Where are the inequalities in colorectal cancer care in a country with universal healthcare? A systematic review and narrative synthesis

OBJECTIVE

Patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer living in more deprived areas experience worse survival than those in more affluent areas. Those living in more deprived areas face barriers to accessing timely, quality healthcare. These barriers may contribute to socioeconomic inequalities in survival. We evaluated the literature for any association between socioeconomic group, hospital delay and treatments received among patients with colorectal cancer in the UK, a country with universal healthcare.

DESIGN

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, SCIE, AMED and PsycINFO were searched from inception to January 2023. Grey literature, including HMIC, BASE and Google Advanced Search, and forward and backward citation searches were conducted. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles, abstracts and full-text articles. Observational UK-based studies were included if they reported socioeconomic measures and an association with either hospital delay or treatments received. The QUIPS tool assessed bias risk, and a narrative synthesis was conducted. The review is reported to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020.

RESULTS

41 of the 7209 identified references were included. 12 studies evaluated 7 different hospital intervals. There was a significant association between area-level deprivation and a longer time from first presentation in primary care to diagnosis. 32 studies evaluated treatments received. There were socioeconomic inequalities in surgery and chemotherapy but not radiotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Patients with colorectal cancer face inequalities across the cancer care continuum. Further research is needed to understand why and what evidence-based actions can reduce these inequalities in treatment. Qualitative research of patients and clinicians conducted across various settings would provide a rich understanding of the complex factors that drive these inequalities. Further research should also consider using a causal approach to future studies to considerably strengthen the interpretation. Clinicians can try and mitigate some potential causes of colorectal cancer inequalities, including signposting to financial advice and patient transport schemes.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022347652.

Prioritising Cochrane reviews to be updated with health equity focus

BACKGROUND

The prioritisation of updating published systematic reviews of interventions is vital to prevent research waste and ensure relevance to stakeholders. The consideration of health equity in reviews is also important to ensure interventions will not exacerbate the existing inequities of the disadvantaged if universally implemented. This study aimed to pilot a priority setting exercise based on systematic reviews of interventions published in the Cochrane Library, to identify and prioritise reviews to be updated with a focus on health equity.

METHODS

We conducted a priority setting exercise with a group of 13 international stakeholders. We identified Cochrane reviews of interventions that showed a reduction in mortality, had at least one Summary of Findings table and that focused on one of 42 conditions with a high global burden of disease from the 2019 WHO Global Burden of Disease report. This included 21 conditions used as indicators of success of the United Nations Universal Health Coverage in attaining the Sustainable Development Goals. Stakeholders prioritised reviews that were relevant to disadvantaged populations, or to characteristics of potential disadvantage within the general population.

RESULTS

After searching for Cochrane reviews of interventions within 42 conditions, we identified 359 reviews that assessed mortality and included at least one Summary of Findings table. These pertained to 29 of the 42 conditions; 13 priority conditions had no reviews with the outcome mortality. Reducing the list to only reviews showing a clinically important reduction in mortality left 33 reviews. Stakeholders ranked these reviews in order of priority to be updated with a focus on health equity.

CONCLUSIONS

This project developed and implemented a methodology to set priorities for updating systematic reviews spanning multiple health topics with a health equity focus. It prioritised reviews that reduce overall mortality, are relevant to disadvantaged populations, and focus on conditions with a high global burden of disease. This approach to the prioritisation of systematic reviews of interventions that reduce mortality provides a template that can be extended to reducing morbidity, and the combination of mortality and morbidity as represented in Disability-Adjusted Life Years and Quality-Adjusted Life Years.

Policy actors' perceptions of public participation to tackle health inequalities in Scotland: a paradox?

BACKGROUND

Health inequalities are persistent and widening with transformative policy change needed. Radically shifting policy to tackle upstream causes of inequalities is likely to require public participation to provide a mandate, evidence and to address questions of co-design, implementation and acceptability. The aim of this paper is to explore perceptions among policy actors on why and how the public should be involved in policymaking for health inequalities.

METHODS

In 2019-2020, we conducted exploratory, in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 21 Scottish policy actors from a range of public sector bodies and agencies and third sector organisations that work in, or across, health and non-health sectors. Data were analysed thematically and used to examine implications for the development of participatory policymaking.

RESULTS

Policy actors viewed public participation in policymaking as intrinsically valuable for democratic reasons, but the main, and more challenging, concern was with how it could affect positive policy change. Participation was seen as instrumental in two overlapping ways: as evidence to improve policies to tackle health inequalities and to achieve public acceptance for implementing more transformative policies. However, our analysis suggests a paradox: whilst policy actors place importance on the instrumental value of public participation, they simultaneously believe the public hold views about health inequalities that would prevent transformative change. Finally, despite broad agreement on the need to improve public participation in policy development, policy actors were uncertain about how to make the necessary changes due to conceptual, methodological and practical challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

Policy actors believe in the importance of public participation in policy to address health inequalities for intrinsic and instrumental reasons. Yet, there is an evident tension between seeing public participation as a route to upstream policies and a belief that public views might be misinformed, individualistic, short-term or self-interested and doubts about how to make public participation meaningful. We lack good insight into what the public think about policy solutions to health inequalities. We propose that research needs to shift from describing the problem to focusing more on potential solutions and outline a potential way forward to undertake effective public participation to tackle health inequalities.

Systems Thinking and Complexity Science Methods and the Policy Process in Non-communicable Disease Prevention: A Systematic Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Given the complex determinants of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), and the dynamic policy landscape, researchers and policymakers are exploring the use of systems thinking and complexity science (STCS) in developing effective policies. The aim of this review is to systematically identify and analyse existing applications of STCS-informed methods in NCD prevention policy.

METHODS

Systematic scoping review: We searched academic databases (Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE) for all publications indexed by 13 October 2020, screening titles, abstracts and full texts and extracting data according to published guidelines. We summarised key data from each study, mapping applications of methods informed by STCS to policy process domains. We conducted a thematic analysis to identify advantages, limitations, barriers and facilitators to using STCS.

RESULTS

4681 papers were screened and 112 papers were included in this review. The most common policy areas were tobacco control, obesity prevention and physical activity promotion. Methods applied included system dynamics modelling, agent-based modelling and concept mapping. Advantages included supporting evidence-informed decision-making; modelling complex systems and addressing multi-sectoral problems. Limitations included the abstraction of reality by STCS methods, despite aims of encompassing greater complexity. Challenges included resource-intensiveness; lack of stakeholder trust in models; and results that were too complex to be comprehensible to stakeholders. Ensuring stakeholder ownership and presenting findings in a user-friendly way facilitated STCS use.

CONCLUSION

This review maps the proliferating applications of STCS methods in NCD prevention policy. STCS methods have the potential to generate tailored and dynamic evidence, adding robustness to evidence-informed policymaking, but must be accessible to policy stakeholders and have strong stakeholder ownership to build consensus and change stakeholder perspectives. Evaluations of whether, and under what circumstances, STCS methods lead to more effective policies compared to conventional methods are lacking, and would enable more targeted and constructive use of these methods.

Output-orientated policy engagement: a model for advancing the use of epidemiological evidence in health policy

BACKGROUND

Use of epidemiological research in policy and practice is suboptimal, contributing to significant preventable morbidity and mortality. Barriers to the use of research evidence in policy include lack of research-policy engagement, lack of policy-relevant research, differences in policymaker and researcher practice norms, time constraints, difficulties in coordination, and divergent languages and reward systems.

APPROACH AND OUTCOMES

In order to increase policy-relevant research and research uptake, we developed the output-orientated policy engagement (OOPE) model, in Australia. It integrates a foundational approach to engagement with cycles of specific activity focused around selected research outputs. Foundational elements include measures to increase recognition and valuing of policymaker expertise, emphasis on policy uptake, policy awareness of the research group's work, regular policy engagement and policy-relevant capacity-building. Specific activities include (i) identification of an "output"-usually at draft stage-and program of work which are likely to be of interest to policymakers; (ii) initial engagement focusing on sharing "preview" evidence from this output, with an invitation to provide input into this and to advise on the broader program of work; and (iii) if there is sufficient interest, formation of a researcher-policy-maker partnership to shape and release the output, as well as inform the program of work. This cycle is repeated as the relationship continues and is deepened. As well as supporting policy-informed evidence generation and research-aware policymakers, the output-orientated model has been found to be beneficial in fostering the following: a pragmatic starting place for researchers, in often large and complex policy environments; purposeful and specific engagement, encouraging shared expectations; non-transactional engagement around common evidence needs, whereby researchers are not meeting with policymakers with the expectation of receiving funding; built-in translation; time and resource efficiency; relationship-building; mutual learning; policy-invested researchers and research-invested policy-makers; and tangible policy impacts. A case study outlines how the output-orientated approach supported researcher-policymaker collaboration to generate new evidence regarding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cardiovascular disease risk and to apply this to national guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Output-orientated policy engagement provides a potentially useful pragmatic model to catalyse and support partnerships between researchers and policymakers, to increase the policy-relevance and application of epidemiological evidence.

User experiences of structured stakeholder engagement to consider transferability: The TRANSFER approach

Background

Systematic reviews are increasingly used to inform decision-making in health, education, social care and environmental protection. However, decision makers still experience barriers to using reviews, including not knowing how findings might translate to their own contexts, and lack of collaboration with systematic review authors. The TRANSFER approach is a novel method that aims to support review authors to systematically and transparently collaborate with stakeholders to consider context and the transferability of review findings from the beginning of the review process. Such collaboration is intended to improve the usefulness and relevance of review findings for decision makers.

Objectives

We aim to explore the user experience of the TRANSFER approach conversation guide, and in doing so gain a better understanding of the role and perceived value of stakeholder engagement in systematic reviews for informed decision-making.

Methods

We conducted four user tests of groups using the guide, organized around simulated meetings between review authors and stakeholders. Review authors led the meeting using the TRANSFER approach conversation guide. We audio-recorded and observed the meetings, collected feedback forms and conducted semi-structured interviews with review authors following the meeting. We analysed the data using framework analysis to examine the user experience of the TRANSFER approach conversation guide and of stakeholder engagement more generally.

Results

Seventeen participants in four user groups participated in the user tests. Most participants were generally positive toward the structured approach using the conversation guide, and felt it would be useful in systematic review projects. We observed examples of misunderstanding of the terminology included in the guide, and received multiple suggestions for how to make the conversation guide more user friendly. We observed numerous challenges related to the hypothetical nature of a user test, including lack of familiarity with the review question/topic among participants and lack of preparation for the meeting.

Conclusions

Review authors and stakeholders are positive toward using a structured approach to guide collaboration within the context of a systematic review. The TRANSFER conversation guide helps participants to discuss the review question and context in a structured way. Such structured collaboration could help to improve the usefulness and relevance of systematic reviews for decision making by improving the review question, inclusion criteria and consideration of transferability of review findings. The conversation guide needs to be modified to improve user experience. Further research is needed to explore stakeholder collaboration and the use of the TRANSFER conversation guide in systematic review processes.

Eliciting public values on health inequalities: missing evidence for policy windows?

BACKGROUND

There is a widening health divide in the UK despite health inequalities being a long-standing subject of policy and research. New types of evidence are needed.

KEY POINTS FOR DISCUSSION

Knowledge of public values for non-health policies and their associated (non-)health outcomes is currently missing from decision-making processes. Eliciting public values using stated preference techniques can provide insights on what the general public would be willing to give-up for different distributions of (non-)health outcomes and the policies that can achieve them. To understand the role this evidence could have in decision-making processes, Kingdon's multiple streams analysis (MSA) is used as a policy lens to explore how evidence of public values could affect policy processes for ways to tackle health inequalities.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

This paper outlines how evidence of public values could be elicited through the use of stated preference techniques and suggests this could facilitate the creation of policy windows for tackling health inequalities. Additionally, Kingdon's MSA helps make explicit six cross-cutting issues when generating this new form of evidence. This suggests the need to explore reasons for public values and how decision-makers would use such evidence. With an awareness of these issues, evidence on public values has the potential to support upstream policies to tackle health inequalities.

A systematic review examining socioeconomic factors in trials of interventions for men that report weight as an outcome

Weight management interventions designed specifically for men have become more common, but the extent to which socioeconomic factors are considered in trials of these interventions is unclear. We synthesized study characteristics, methods, and reporting of interventions with a behavioral component for men that report weight as an outcome, to establish the extent to which socioeconomic factors are considered during intervention design, conduct, and reporting. A comprehensive search was conducted on Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL for studies published from January 2000 to July 2021. Thirty-six trials were included. Educational attainment (n = 24) was the most frequently reported socioeconomic characteristic, followed by working status (n = 14) and area level deprivation (n = 12). Seven studies did not report any socioeconomic characteristics. Most studies (n = 20) did not mention the socioeconomic profile of their samples in relation to study strengths or limitations. Few (n = 4) consulted with men from lower socioeconomic groups during intervention design. One study examined potential differential intervention effects across socioeconomic groups, with most not powered to do so. Recent feasibility trials (n = 3) targeting specific socioeconomic groups suggest a potential nascent towards a greater consideration of factors related to equity. To best inform public health policy related to health inequalities, greater consideration of socioeconomic factors is required in trials of men's weight management interventions.

A data driven policy to minimise the tuberculosis testing cost among healthcare workers

Introduction

The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) mandates that healthcare employees at high‐risk exposure to Tuberculosis (TB) undergo annual testing. Currently, two methods of TB testing are used: a two‐step skin test (TST) or a whole‐blood test (IGRA). Healthcare leadership's test selection must account for not only direct costs such as procedure and resources but also indirect costs, including employee workplace absence.

Methods

A mathematical model based on Upstate South Carolina's largest health system affecting over 18,000 employees on six campuses was developed to investigate the value loss perspective of these testing methods and assist in decision‐making. A process flow map identified the varied direct and indirect costs for each test for four employee types, and 6 travel‐to‐testing‐site times were calculated.

Results

The switching point between testing procedures that minimised total system costs was most influenced by employee salary compared to travel distance. Switching from the current hospital policy to an integrated TST/IGRA testing could reduce TB compliance costs by 28%.

Conclusions

This study recommends an integrated approach as cost‐effective for large health systems with multiple campuses while considering the direct and indirect costs. When accounting for ‘inconvenience costs’ (stress, etc.) associated with visits, IGRAs are recommended irrespective of employee salary.

High‐risk healthcare workers are required to undergo annual TB testing by CDC

Two methods of TB testing are used: a two‐step skin test (TST) or a whole‐blood test (IGRA)

While considering the testing and other travel costs, an integrated testing approach is cost‐effective for large health systems with multiple employee types and campuses.

However, an IGRA test is recommended for all employees when considering additional inconvenience costs.

How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions

BACKGROUND

Enhancing health equity is endorsed in the Sustainable Development Goals. The failure of systematic reviews to consider potential differences in effects across equity factors is cited by decision-makers as a limitation to their ability to inform policy and program decisions.  OBJECTIVES: To explore what methods systematic reviewers use to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to 26 February 2021: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Methodology Register, CINAHL, Education Resources Information Center, Education Abstracts, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Hein Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals, PAIS International, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Digital Dissertations and the Health Technology Assessment Database. We searched SCOPUS to identify articles that cited any of the included studies on 10 June 10 2021. We contacted authors and searched the reference lists of included studies to identify additional potentially relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included empirical studies of cohorts of systematic reviews that assessed methods for measuring effects on health inequalities. We define health inequalities as unfair and avoidable differences across socially stratifying factors that limit opportunities for health. We operationalised this by assessing studies which evaluated differences in health across any component of the PROGRESS-Plus acronym, which stands for Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender or sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital. "Plus" stands for other factors associated with discrimination, exclusion, marginalisation or vulnerability such as personal characteristics (e.g. age, disability), relationships that limit opportunities for health (e.g. children in a household with parents who smoke) or environmental situations which provide limited control of opportunities for health (e.g. school food environment).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data using a pre-tested form. Risk of bias was appraised for included studies according to the potential for bias in selection and detection of systematic reviews.  MAIN RESULTS: In total, 48,814 studies were identified and the titles and abstracts were screened in duplicate. In this updated review, we identified an additional 124 methodological studies published in the 10 years since the first version of this review, which included 34 studies. Thus, 158 methodological studies met our criteria for inclusion. The methods used by these studies focused on evidence relevant to populations experiencing health inequity (108 out of 158 studies), assess subgroup analysis across PROGRESS-Plus (26 out of 158 studies), assess analysis of a gradient in effect across PROGRESS-Plus (2 out of 158 studies) or use a combination of subgroup analysis and focused approaches (20 out of 158 studies). The most common PROGRESS-Plus factors assessed were age (43 studies), socioeconomic status in 35 studies, low- and middle-income countries in 24 studies, gender or sex in 22 studies, race or ethnicity in 17 studies, and four studies assessed multiple factors across which health inequity may exist. Only 16 studies provided a definition of health inequity. Five methodological approaches to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness were identified: 1) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in systematic reviews (140 of 158 studies used a type of descriptive method); 2) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in original trials (50 studies); 3) analytic approaches which assessed differential effects across one or more PROGRESS-Plus factors (16 studies); 4) applicability assessment (25 studies) and 5) stakeholder engagement (28 studies), which is a new finding in this update and examines the appraisal of whether relevant stakeholders with lived experience of health inequity were included in the design of systematic reviews or design and delivery of interventions. Reporting for both approaches (analytic and applicability) lacked transparency and was insufficiently detailed to enable the assessment of credibility.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for improvement in conceptual clarity about the definition of health equity, describing sufficient detail about analytic approaches (including subgroup analyses) and transparent reporting of judgments required for applicability assessments in order to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness.

Systems thinking and complexity science methods and the policy process in non-communicable disease prevention: a systematic scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Given the complex causal origins of many non-communicable diseases (NCDs), and the complex landscapes in which policies designed to tackle them are made and unfold, the need for systems thinking and complexity science (STCS) in developing effective policy solutions has been emphasised. While numerous methods informed by STCS have been applied to the policy process in NCD prevention, these applications have not been systematically catalogued. The aim of this scoping review is to identify existing applications of methods informed by STCS to the policy process for NCD prevention, documenting which domains of the policy process they have been applied to.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic scoping review methodology will be used.

IDENTIFICATION

We will search Medline, SCOPUS, Embase and Web of Science using search terms combining STCS, NCD prevention and the policy process. All records published in English will be eligible for inclusion, regardless of study design.

SELECTION

We will screen titles and abstracts and extract data according to published guidelines for scoping reviews. In order to determine the quality of the included studies, we will use the approach developed by Dixon-Woods et al, excluding studies identified as fatally flawed, and determining the credibility and contribution of included studies.

SYNTHESIS

We will identify relevant studies, summarising key data from each study and mapping applications of methods informed by STCS to different parts of the policy process. Review findings will provide a useful reference for policy-makers, outlining which domains of the policy process different methods have been applied to.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Formal ethical approval is not required, as the study does not involve primary data collection. The findings of this study will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, presentations and summaries for key stakeholders.

Framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions: gap analysis, workshop and consultation-informed update

BACKGROUND

The Medical Research Council published the second edition of its framework in 2006 on developing and evaluating complex interventions. Since then, there have been considerable developments in the field of complex intervention research. The objective of this project was to update the framework in the light of these developments. The framework aims to help research teams prioritise research questions and design, and conduct research with an appropriate choice of methods, rather than to provide detailed guidance on the use of specific methods.

METHODS

There were four stages to the update: (1) gap analysis to identify developments in the methods and practice since the previous framework was published; (2) an expert workshop of 36 participants to discuss the topics identified in the gap analysis; (3) an open consultation process to seek comments on a first draft of the new framework; and (4) findings from the previous stages were used to redraft the framework, and final expert review was obtained. The process was overseen by a Scientific Advisory Group representing the range of relevant National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council research investments.

RESULTS

Key changes to the previous framework include (1) an updated definition of complex interventions, highlighting the dynamic relationship between the intervention and its context; (2) an emphasis on the use of diverse research perspectives: efficacy, effectiveness, theory-based and systems perspectives; (3) a focus on the usefulness of evidence as the basis for determining research perspective and questions; (4) an increased focus on interventions developed outside research teams, for example changes in policy or health services delivery; and (5) the identification of six 'core elements' that should guide all phases of complex intervention research: consider context; develop, refine and test programme theory; engage stakeholders; identify key uncertainties; refine the intervention; and economic considerations. We divide the research process into four phases: development, feasibility, evaluation and implementation. For each phase we provide a concise summary of recent developments, key points to address and signposts to further reading. We also present case studies to illustrate the points being made throughout.

LIMITATIONS

The framework aims to help research teams prioritise research questions and design and conduct research with an appropriate choice of methods, rather than to provide detailed guidance on the use of specific methods. In many of the areas of innovation that we highlight, such as the use of systems approaches, there are still only a few practical examples. We refer to more specific and detailed guidance where available and note where promising approaches require further development.

CONCLUSIONS

This new framework incorporates developments in complex intervention research published since the previous edition was written in 2006. As well as taking account of established practice and recent refinements, we draw attention to new approaches and place greater emphasis on economic considerations in complex intervention research. We have introduced a new emphasis on the importance of context and the value of understanding interventions as 'events in systems' that produce effects through interactions with features of the contexts in which they are implemented. The framework adopts a pluralist approach, encouraging researchers and research funders to adopt diverse research perspectives and to select research questions and methods pragmatically, with the aim of providing evidence that is useful to decision-makers.

FUTURE WORK

We call for further work to develop relevant methods and provide examples in practice. The use of this framework should be monitored and the move should be made to a more fluid resource in the future, for example a web-based format that can be frequently updated to incorporate new material and links to emerging resources.

FUNDING

This project was jointly funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the National Institute for Health Research (Department of Health and Social Care 73514).

Can intersectionality help with understanding and tackling health inequalities? Perspectives of professional stakeholders

Background

The concept of “intersectionality” is increasingly employed within public health arenas, particularly in North America, and is often heralded as offering great potential to advance health inequalities research and action. Given persistently poor progress towards tackling health inequalities, and recent calls to reframe this agenda in the United Kingdom and Europe, the possible contribution of intersectionality deserves attention. Yet, no existing research has examined professional stakeholder understandings and perspectives on applying intersectionality to this field.

Methods

In this paper we seek to address that gap, drawing upon a consultation survey and face-to-face workshop (n = 23) undertaken in the United Kingdom. The survey included both researchers (n = 53) and policy and practice professionals (n = 20) with varied roles and levels of engagement in research and evaluation. Topics included familiarity with the term and concept “intersectionality”, relevance to health inequalities work, and issues shaping its uptake. Respondents were also asked to comment on two specific policy suggestions: intersectionally targeting and tailoring interventions, and evaluating the intersectional effects of policies. The workshop aims were to share examples of applying intersectionality within health inequalities research and practice; understand the views of research and practice colleagues on potential contributions and challenges; and identify potential ways to promote intersectional approaches.

Results

Findings indicated a generally positive response to the concept and a cautiously optimistic assessment that intersectional approaches could be valuable. However, opinions were mixed and various challenges were raised, especially around whether intersectionality research is necessarily critical and transformative and, accordingly, how it should be operationalized methodologically. Nonetheless, there was general agreement that intersectionality is concerned with diverse inequalities and the systems of power that shape them.

Conclusions

We position intersectionality within the wider context of health inequalities policy and practice, suggesting potential ways forward for the approach in the context of the United Kingdom. The views of policy and practice professionals suggest that intersectionality has far to travel to help counter individualistic narratives and to encourage an approach that is sensitive to subgroup inequalities and the processes that generate them. Examples of promising practice, albeit mostly in North America, suggest that it is possible for intersectionality to gain traction.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-021-00742-w.

Do educational reforms increase or decrease health inequalities: A matter of methods?

Evaluating whether social policies reduce health inequalities is complicated by the fact that these upstream determinants may also change the socioeconomic distribution. Failure to account for these compositional changes may severely bias the effect estimation procedure. In this article, we illustrate how a health inequality impact assessment of a policy that (also) changes the socioeconomic distribution may produce biased results. First, we show why analyses that do not account for compositional changes fail to estimate the correct counterfactual outcome. This problem most notably occurs when using repeated cross-sectional data, often the only available option to evaluate the health effect of large-scale policies. Second, we conducted a microsimulation study to estimate the magnitude of the bias under various conditions. The results showed that the actual impact of the policy on health inequalities is often underestimated and may even produce results that are in the opposite direction of the actual causal effect of the policy. Future studies should explore new strategies, such as simulation methods, to assess the impact of policies that (also) cause changes in the socioeconomic composition of the population, to enable researchers to accurately estimate their effect on health inequalities.

Quantifying the Value of Prevention: A Survey of Public Health Departments' Quantitative and Economic Modeling Capacity

OBJECTIVE

To improve the understanding of local health departments' (LHDs') capacity for and perceived barriers to using quantitative/economic modeling information to inform policy and program decisions.

DESIGN

We developed, tested, and deployed a novel survey to examine this topic.

SETTING

The study's sample frame included the 200 largest LHDs in terms of size of population served plus all other accredited LHDs (n = 67). The survey was e-mailed to 267 LHDs; respondents completed the survey online using SurveyMonkey.

PARTICIPANTS

Survey instructions requested that the survey be completed from the perspective of the entire health department by LHD's top executive or designate. A total of 63 unique LHDs responded (response rate: 39%).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Capacity for quantitative and economic modeling was measured in 5 categories (routinely use information from models we create ourselves; routinely use information from models created by others; sometimes use information from models we create ourselves; sometimes use information from models created by others; never use information from modeling). Experience with modeling was measured in 4 categories (very, somewhat, not so, not at all).

RESULTS

Few (9.5%) respondents reported routinely using information from models, and most who did used information from models created by others. By contrast, respondents reported high levels of interest in using models and in gaining training in their use and the communication of model results. The most commonly reported barriers to modeling were funding and technical skills. Nearly all types of training topics listed were of interest.

CONCLUSIONS

Across a sample of large and/or accredited LHDs, we found modest levels of use of modeling coupled with strong interest in capacity for modeling and therefore highlight an opportunity for LHD growth and support. Both funding constraints and a lack of knowledge of how to develop and/or use modeling are barriers to desired progress around modeling. Educational or funding opportunities to promote capacity for and use of quantitative and economic modeling may catalyze use of modeling by public health practitioners.

A Nutrition Report Card on food environments for children and youth: 5 years of experience from Canada

OBJECTIVE

In 2014, a Nutrition Report Card (NRC) was developed as a sustainable, low-cost framework to assess the healthfulness of children's food environments and highlight action to support healthy eating. We summarise our experiences in producing, disseminating, evaluating and refining an annual NRC in a Canadian province from 2015 to 2019.

DESIGN

To produce the NRC, children's food environment indicator data are collected, analyzed and compiled for consensus grading by an Expert Working Group of researchers and practitioners. Knowledge translation activities are tailored annually to the needs of target audiences: researchers, practitioners, policymakers and the public. Evaluation of reach is conducted through diverse strategies, including tracking media coverage and website traffic. Assessment of impact on diets and health outcomes is planned.

SETTING

Alberta, Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

Not applicable.

DISCUSSION

The grading process has facilitated refining the NRC to enhance its relevance and utility as a tool for its target audiences. Its public release consistently captures media interest and policymakers' attention. The importance of partnerships in revealing data sources and in strategising to enhance policy approaches to improve food environments is apparent. The NRC has benchmarked progress and stimulated dialogue regarding healthy food environments for children.

CONCLUSIONS

The NRC may help to foster a supportive climate for improving the quality of children's food environments. As an engaging and accessible document, the NRC represents a key mechanism for collating data related to children's food environments and ensuring it reaches the audiences best positioned to use it. Efforts are underway to expand the NRC across Canada.

Reporting of health equity considerations in cluster and individually randomized trials

Background

The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is considered the gold standard study design to inform decisions about the effectiveness of interventions. However, a common limitation is inadequate reporting of the applicability of the intervention and trial results for people who are “socially disadvantaged” and this can affect policy-makers’ decisions. We previously developed a framework for identifying health-equity-relevant trials, along with a reporting guideline for transparent reporting. In this study, we provide a descriptive assessment of health-equity considerations in 200 randomly sampled equity-relevant trials.

Methods

We developed a search strategy to identify health-equity-relevant trials published between 2013 and 2015. We randomly sorted the 4316 records identified by the search and screened studies until 100 individually randomized (RCTs) and 100 cluster randomized controlled trials (CRTs) were identified. We developed and pilot-tested a data extraction form based on our initial work, to inform the development of our reporting guideline for equity-relevant randomized trials.

Results

In total, 39 trials (20%) were conducted in a low- and middle-income country and 157 trials (79%) in a high-income country focused on socially disadvantaged populations (78% CRTs, 79% RCTs). Seventy-four trials (37%) reported a subgroup analysis across a population characteristic associated with disadvantage (25% CRT, 49% RCTs), with 19% of included studies reporting subgroup analyses across sex, 9% across race/ethnicity/culture, and 4% across socioeconomic status. No subgroup analyses were reported for place of residence, occupation, religion, education, or social capital. One hundred and forty-one trials (71%) discussed the applicability of their results to one or more socially disadvantaged populations (68% of CRT, 73% of RCT).

Discussion

In this set of trials, selected for their relevance to health equity, data that were disaggregated for socially disadvantaged populations were rarely reported. We found that even when the data are available, opportunities to analyze health-equity considerations are frequently missed. The recently published equity extension of the Consolidated Reporting Standards for Randomized Trials (CONSORT-Equity) may help improve delineation of hypotheses related to socially disadvantaged populations, and transparency and completeness of reporting of health-equity considerations in RCTs. This study can serve as a baseline assessment of the reporting of equity considerations.

Socioeconomic inequalities and the equity impact of population-level interventions for adolescent health: an overview of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVES

Despite robust evidence on health inequalities in adulthood, less attention has been paid to inequalities in adolescence. The aim of this overview was to examine systematic review (SR) evidence on the equity impact of population-level interventions intended to improve health, happiness and wellbeing for adolescents.

STUDY DESIGN

An overview (review of systematic reviews).

METHODS

Eleven electronic databases were systematically searched to identify SRs of population-level interventions for adolescent health. A secondary data analysis of socioeconomic inequality was conducted to identify whether SRs reported on primary studies in terms of disadvantage, by measures of socioeconomic status (SES) and by differential effects.

RESULTS

35,310 review titles were screened; 566 full texts were retrieved and 140 SRs met the predefined selection criteria. Differential intervention effects were considered in 42/140 (30%) SRs, 18/140 (13%) reported primary studies using an SES measure and 16/140 (11%) explicitly reported differential effects. 15/140 SRs (11%) explicitly focused on socioeconomic inequalities; of these 4/15 reported differential intervention effects in more detail, 7/15 concluded there was insufficient primary evidence to identify the impact of interventions on socioeconomic inequalities and 4/15 planned to examine differential effects by SES, but this was not reported further.

CONCLUSIONS

Our overview identifies that there is limited SR evidence on the equity impact of population-level interventions for adolescent health. Strengthening the evidence on whether interventions narrow or widen inequalities for adolescents must be a priority for public health research.

Bridging the epidemiology-policy divide: A consequential and evidence-based framework to optimize population health

Epidemiology is the scientific cornerstone of public health. Its traditional role has been to test scientific hypotheses on causal relationships of exposures with health outcomes, the results of which should in turn be synthesized and lead to evidence-based recommendations and the formation of policy. However, the messy truth is that the path from epidemiology to policy is frequently not a perfectly rational, linear one, and the choices of which scientific hypotheses are pursued and the ways in which they are tested, evaluated, and translated into policies do not occur systematically. One avenue for bridging this divide is widespread adoption and implementation of a consequential, evidence-based framework-whereby we can systematically facilitate the translation of epidemiology into policies and interventions to optimize population health. This paper describes the roadmap for a seven-step, outcomes-based consequential approach, that includes priority-setting of problems at both the federal and regional/state levels, and that proposes to strengthen alignment of public and private research funding and journals with these priorities. Over the long term, implementing this framework should help to bridge the divide between epidemiology and policy and optimize the use of increasingly constrained resources to reduce disease burden and promote the nation's health.

Pathways for translating behavioral medicine research to practice and policy

The diversity of behavioral medicine, including investigators' disciplines, health conditions, settings, and intervention approaches, creates challenges for promoting the translation of research to practice and policy. Most papers on research translation focus on one pathway, so there is a need for a model that considers multiple pathways of research translation. The purpose is to propose a model of translating research to practice and policy that is broad enough to apply to many behavioral medicine scenarios and suggests options for behavioral medicine investigators to become engaged in research translation. This is a commentary, with examples drawn from scientific and gray literature. A model is proposed that describes five pathways of research translation: research, practice, business, policy, and public opinion. Target audiences, approaches, communication materials, and examples are suggested for each translation pathway. Resources are available for overcoming barriers to research translation. The main benefit of becoming engaged in research translation is a higher likelihood of health impact from the research. Researchers can choose one or more of the pathways of research translation that are suitable for their situation.

The use of evidence in decision making by hospital managers in Lebanon: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Knowledge synthesis products have emerged as support agents for decision making in clinical practice and policy. However, their use for evidence-informed decision making remains limited in health care management especially in low- and middle-income countries. This study assesses the use of evidence by middle and senior managers in Lebanese hospitals.

METHODS

This multihospital cross-sectional study used a self-administered web survey of middle and senior managers. Hospitals were purposively selected, and data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Hospital participation rate was 25%, while adjusted managers' response rate was 44.8%. Prevalence of using evidence was 70%, while prevalence of evidence-seeking behavior was 90%. Evidence was mainly used in design of policies, protocols, and procedures; nursing issues; or procurement decisions. Facilitators for evidence-informed decision making included upper management support and organizational culture, whereas limited resources such as funding, time, and training hindered use of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings indicate that utilization of evidence was comparable with that of high-income countries. Training and continuous education were crucial for advancing evidence-informed decision making among hospital managers. However, neither the quality nor the sources of evidence used for decision making were assessed in this study. Future studies should assess the quality and sources of evidence utilized in decision making.

Pathways to inequalities in child health

From birth, children living in disadvantaged socioeconomic circumstances (SECs) suffer from worse health than their more advantaged peers. The pathways through which SECs influence children's health are complex and inter-related, but in general are driven by differences in the distribution of power and resources that determine the economic, material and psychosocial conditions in which children grow up. A better understanding of why children from more disadvantaged backgrounds have worse health and how interventions work, for whom and in what contexts, will help to reduce these unfair differences. Macro-level change is also required, including the reduction of child poverty through improved social security systems and employment opportunities, and continued investment in high-quality and accessible services (eg, childcare, key workers, children's centres and healthy school environments). Child health professionals can play a crucial role by being mindful of the social determinants of health in their daily practice, and through advocating for more equitable and child-focussed resource allocation.

Associations between food environment typologies and body mass index: Evidence from Yorkshire, England

International research linking food outlets and body mass index (BMI) is largely cross-sectional, yielding inconsistent findings. However, addressing the exposure of food outlets is increasingly considered as an important adult obesity prevention strategy. Our study investigates associations between baseline food environment types and change in BMI over time. Survey data were used from the Yorkshire Health Study (n=8,864; wave one: 2010-2012, wave two: 2013-2015) for adults aged 18-86. BMI was calculated using self-reported height (cm) and weight (kg). Restaurants, cafés, fast-food, speciality, convenience and large supermarkets were identified from the Ordnance Survey Point of Interest database within 1600m radial buffer of home postcodes. K-means cluster analysis developed food environment typologies based on food outlets and population density. Large supermarkets, restaurants, cafés, fast-food, speciality and convenience food outlets all clustered together to some extent. Three neighbourhood typologies were identified. However, multilevel models revealed that relative to cluster one all were unrelated to change in BMI (cluster 2, b= -0.146 [-0.274, 0.566]; cluster 3, b= 0.065 [-0.224, 0.356]). There was also little evidence of gender-based differences in these associations when examined in a three-way interaction. Policymakers may need to begin to consider multiple types of food outlet clusters, while further research is needed to confirm how these relate to changed BMI.

Understanding the unintended consequences of public health policies: the views of policymakers and evaluators

Background

Public health policies sometimes have unexpected effects. Understanding how policies and interventions lead to outcomes is essential if policymakers and researchers are to intervene effectively and reduce harmful and other unintended consequences (UCs) of their actions. Yet, evaluating complex mechanisms and outcomes is challenging, even before considering how to predict assess and understand outcomes and UCs when interventions are scaled up. We aimed to explore with UK policymakers why some policies have UCs, and how researchers and policymakers should respond.

Methods

We convened a one-day workshop with 14 people involved in developing, implementing or evaluating social and public health policies, and/or evaluating possible unintended effects. This included senior evaluators, policymakers from government and associated agencies, and researchers, covering policy domains from public health, social policy, poverty, and international development.

Results

Policymakers suggested UCs happen for a range of reasons: poor policy design, unclear articulation of policy mechanisms or goals, or unclear or inappropriate evidence use, including evaluation techniques. While not always avoidable, it was felt that UCs could be partially mitigated by better use of theory and evidence, better involvement of stakeholders in concurrent design and evaluation of policies, and appropriate evaluation systems.

Conclusions

UCs can be used to explore the mechanisms underpinning social change caused by public health policies. Articulating these mechanisms is essential for truly evidence-informed decision-making, to enable informed debate about policy options, and to develop evaluation techniques. Future work includes trying to develop a holistic stakeholder-led evaluation process.

Taking an integrated knowledge translation approach in research to develop the CONSORT-Equity 2017 reporting guideline: an observational study

OBJECTIVE

We describe the use of an integrated knowledge translation (KT) approach in the development of the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials extension for equity ('CONSORT-Equity 2017'), and advisory board-research team members' ('the team') perceptions of the integrated KT process.

DESIGN

This is an observational study to describe team processes and experience with a structured integrated KT approach to develop CONSORT-Equity 2017. Participant observation to describe team processes and a survey were used with the 38 team members.

SETTING

Use of the CONSORT health research reporting guideline contributes to an evidence base for health systems decision-making, and CONSORT-Equity 2017 may improve reporting about health equity-relevant evidence. An integrated KT research approach engages knowledge users (those for whom the research is meant to be useful) with researchers to co-develop research evidence and is more likely to produce findings that are applied in practice or policy.

PARTICIPANTS

Researchers adopted an integrated KT approach and invited knowledge users to form a team.

RESULTS

An integrated KT approach was used in the development of CONSORT-Equity 2017 and structured replicable steps. The process for co-developing the reporting guideline involved two stages: (1) establishing guiding features for co-development and (2) research actions that supported the co-development of the reporting guideline. Stage 1 consisted of four steps: finding common ground, forming an advisory board, committing to ethical guidance and clarifying theoretical research assumptions. Bound by the stage 1 guiding features of an integrated KT approach, stage 2 consisted of five steps during which studies for consensus-based reporting guidelines were conducted. Of 38 team members, 25 (67.5%) completed a survey about their perceptions of the integrated KT approach.

CONCLUSIONS

An integrated KT approach can be used to engage a team to co-develop reporting guidelines. Further study is needed to understand the use of an integrated KT approach in the development of reporting guidelines.

Rights to social determinants of flourishing? A paradigm for disability and public health research and policy

BACKGROUND

The term evidence based medicine was introduced in the early 1990s in clinical medicine to educate clinicians about how to assess the 'credibility' of research to ensure best treatments for their patients. The evidence based medicine paradigm has become more diffuse in times of austerity and randomised controlled designs are being used to address complex issues in public health and disability research. This research is not addressing inequalities in terms of disability nor how people can live well with disabilities.

MAIN TEXT

We argue that there are four ways that public health research needs to change if it wants to address inequalities linked to disability: 1) rethinking theoretical connections between public health and disability; 2) building ethics and equity into interventions through a human rights approach; 3) ensuring ethical inclusion through intersectionality; and 4) evaluating policy and other social impacts to ensure they capture diversity. We argue that these are key issues to building a social determinants of flourishing.

CONCLUSIONS

We need to understand how disability might have an accumulative impact across the life course, as well as how to ensure equity for people living with disabilities. This means conceptualising a social determinants of flourishing where we evaluate how exactly randomised controlled trials and public health interventions, not only lead to greater equality but also ensure rights to health and wellbeing.

Using mathematical modeling to inform health policy: A case study from voluntary medical male circumcision scale-up in eastern and southern Africa and proposed framework for success

Background

Modeling contributes to health program planning by allowing users to estimate future outcomes that are otherwise difficult to evaluate. However, modeling results are often not easily translated into practical policies. This paper examines the barriers and enabling factors that can allow models to better inform health decision-making.

Description

The Decision Makers’ Program Planning Tool (DMPPT) and its successor, DMPPT 2, are illustrative examples of modeling tools that have been used to inform health policy. Their use underpinned Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision (VMMC) scale-up for HIV prevention in southern and eastern Africa. Both examine the impact and cost-effectiveness of VMMC scale-up, with DMPPT used initially in global advocacy and DMPPT 2 then providing VMMC coverage estimates by client age and subnational region for use in country-specific program planning. Their application involved three essential steps: identifying and engaging a wide array of stakeholders from the outset, reaching consensus on key assumptions and analysis plans, and convening data validation meetings with critical stakeholders. The subsequent DMPPT 2 Online is a user-friendly tool for in-country modeling analyses and continuous program planning and monitoring.

Lessons learned

Through three iterations of the DMPPT applied to VMMC, a comprehensive framework with six steps was identified: (1) identify a champion, (2) engage stakeholders early and often, (3) encourage consensus, (4) customize analyses, (5), build capacity, and (6) establish a plan for sustainability. This framework could be successfully adapted to other HIV prevention programs to translate modeling results to policy and programming.

Conclusions

Models can be used to mobilize support, strategically plan, and monitor key programmatic elements, but they can also help inform policy environments in which programs are conceptualized and implemented to achieve results. The ways in which modeling has informed VMMC programs and policy may be applicable to an array of other health interventions.

Consideration of sex and gender in Cochrane reviews of interventions for preventing healthcare-associated infections: a methodology study

BACKGROUND

Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are common and increase morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Their control continues to be an unresolved issue worldwide. HAIs epidemiology shows sex/gender differences. Thus the lack of consideration of sex/gender in Cochrane reviews will limit their applicability and capacity to support informed decisions. This study aims to describe the extent to which Cochrane reviews of interventions for preventing HAIs consider sex and gender.

METHODS

Methodology study appraising Cochrane reviews of interventions to prevent HAIs.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1995 (launch of the journal) to 31 December 2016. Two authors independently extracted data with EPPI-Reviewer 4 software, and independently appraised the sex/gender content of the reviews with the Sex and Gender Appraisal Tool for Systematic Reviews (SGAT-SR).

RESULTS

This study included 113 reviews assessing the effects of interventions for preventing HAIs. 100 reviews (88%) used at least one sex or gender-related term. The terminology used was heterogeneous, being "sex" the term used in more reviews (51%). No review defined neither sex nor gender. Thus we could not assess the definitions provided. Consideration of sex and gender was practically absent in the included reviews; in fact, no review met all the applicable items of the SGAT-SR, and 51 reviews (50%) fulfilled no item. No review provided a complete description of the sex and the gender of the samples of the included studies. Only ten reviews (10%) planned to perform sex- and gender-based analysis and only three (3%) could complete the analysis. The method chosen was always the subgroup analysis based on sex (one review) or gender (two reviews). Three reviews (3%) considered sex or gender-related findings in the conclusions.

CONCLUSION

Consideration of sex and gender in Cochrane reviews of interventions for preventing HAIs was practically absent. This lack of attention to sex and gender reduces the quality of Cochrane reviews, and their applicability for all people: women and men, boys and girls, and people of diverse gender identities. Cochrane should attempt to address the shortfalls detected.

Who knows best? A Q methodology study to explore perspectives of professional stakeholders and community participants on health in low-income communities

Background

Health inequalities in the UK have proved to be stubborn, and health gaps between best and worst-off are widening. While there is growing understanding of how the main causes of poor health are perceived among different stakeholders, similar insight is lacking regarding what solutions should be prioritised. Furthermore, we do not know the relationship between perceived causes and solutions to health inequalities, whether there is agreement between professional stakeholders and people living in low-income communities or agreement within these groups.

Methods

Q methodology was used to identify and describe the shared perspectives (‘subjectivities’) that exist on i) why health is worse in low-income communities (‘Causes’) and ii) the ways that health could be improved in these same communities (‘Solutions’).

Purposively selected individuals (n = 53) from low-income communities (n = 25) and professional stakeholder groups (n = 28) ranked ordered sets of statements – 34 ‘Causes’ and 39 ‘Solutions’ – onto quasi-normal shaped grids according to their point of view. Factor analysis was used to identify shared points of view. ‘Causes’ and ‘Solutions’ were analysed independently, before examining correlations between perspectives on causes and perspectives on solutions.

Results

Analysis produced three factor solutions for both the ‘Causes’ and ‘Solutions’. Broadly summarised these accounts for ‘Causes’ are: i) ‘Unfair Society’, ii) ‘Dependent, workless and lazy’, iii) ‘Intergenerational hardships’ and for ‘Solutions’: i) ‘Empower communities’, ii) ‘Paternalism’, iii) ‘Redistribution’. No professionals defined (i.e. had a significant association with one factor only) the ‘Causes’ factor ‘Dependent, workless and lazy’ and the ‘Solutions’ factor ‘Paternalism’. No community participants defined the ‘Solutions’ factor ‘Redistribution’. The direction of correlations between the two sets of factor solutions – ‘Causes’ and ‘Solutions’ – appear to be intuitive, given the accounts identified.

Conclusions

Despite the plurality of views there was broad agreement across accounts about issues relating to money. This is important as it points a way forward for tackling health inequalities, highlighting areas for policy and future research to focus on.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-3884-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Saving lives through certifying deaths: assessing the impact of two interventions to improve cause of death data in Perú

Background

Mortality statistics derived from cause of death data are an important source of information for population health monitoring, priority setting and planning. In Perú, almost all death certificates are issued by doctors because it is a legal requirement. However, the quality of cause of death data is poor. In August 2016, the Ministry of Health of Perú decided to make two specific interventions to improve cause of death data: to introduce an online death certification system and to train doctors in standard death certification practices.

Methods

The study comprised a random sample of 300 pre-intervention death certificates, 900 death certificates that were part of the online intervention, and 900 death certificates that were part of both the online and training interventions. All the deaths had occurred between January and September 2017. We used the Assessing the quality of death certification tool from the University of Melbourne for the assessment. We examined the frequency of common errors in death certificates, the frequency of any error and the average error score for each category of: age group, sex, doctor’s seniority, doctor’s speciality, level of health facility and broad cause of death.

Results

The average error score declined by 38% due to the online intervention and by a further 26% due to the training intervention. Improved certification practices remained after controlling for potentially confounding factors. Main improvements were reductions in the absence of a time interval (66% of certificates), incorrect sequence of causes (22%), and ill-defined conditions (13%).

Conclusions

This study demonstrates how the two interventions introduced by the Ministry of Health in Perú improved the correctness of death certificates. The study also provides evidence on necessary changes to the training program to address the poor certification practices that have remained after implementation of the online system.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-018-6264-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Evidentiary needs of US public health departments with a mission to advance equity and health: a qualitative analysis

OBJECTIVES

We sought the perspectives of lead public health officials working to improve health equity in the USA regarding the drivers of scientific evidence use, the supply of scientific evidence and the gap between their evidentiary needs and the available scientific evidence.

DESIGN

We conducted 25 semistructured qualitative interviews (April 2017 to June 2017) with lead public health officials and their designees. All interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed.

SETTING

Public health departments from all geographical regions in the USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants included lead public health officials (20) and their designees (5) from public health departments that were either accredited or part of the Big Cities Health Coalition.

RESULTS

Many respondents were using scientific evidence in the context of grant writing. Professional organisations and government agencies, rather than specific researchers or research journals, were the primary sources of scientific evidence. Respondents wanted to see more locally tailored cost-effectiveness research and often desired to participate in the planning phase of research projects. In addition to the scientific content recommendations, respondents felt the usefulness of scientific evidence could be improved by simplifying it and framing it for diverse audiences including elected officials and community stakeholders.

CONCLUSIONS

Respondents are eager to use scientific evidence but also need to have it designed and packaged in ways that meet their needs.

Do evidence summaries increase health policy-makers' use of evidence from systematic reviews? A systematic review

This review summarizes the evidence from six randomized controlled trials that judged the effectiveness of systematic review summaries on policymakers' decision making, or the most effective ways to present evidence summaries to increase policymakers' use of the evidence. This review included six randomized controlled studies. A randomized controlled study is one in which the participants are divided randomly (by chance) into separate groups to compare different treatments or other interventions. This method of dividing people into groups means that the groups will be similar and that the effects of the treatments they receive will be compared more fairly. At the time the study is done, it is not known which treatment is the better one. The researchers who did these studies invited people from Europe, North America, South America, Africa, and Asia to take part in them. Two studies looked at "policy briefs," one study looked at an "evidence summary," two looked at a "summary of findings table," and one compared a "summary of findings table" to an evidence summary. None of these studies looked at how policymakers directly used evidence from systematic reviews in their decision making, but two studies found that there was little to no difference in how they used the summaries. The studies relied on reports from decision makers. These studies included questions such as, "Is this summary easy to understand?" Some of the studies looked at users' knowledge, understanding, beliefs, or how credible (trustworthy) they believed the summaries to be. There was little to no difference in the studies that looked at these outcomes. Study participants rated the graded entry format higher for usability than the full systematic review. The graded entry format allows the reader to select how much information they want to read. The study participants felt that all evidence summary formats were easier to understand than full systematic reviews.

Plain language summary

Policy briefs make systematic reviews easier to understand but little evidence of impact on use of study findings: It is likely that evidence summaries are easier to understand than complete systematic reviews. Whether these summaries increase the use of evidence from systematic reviews in policymaking is not clear.What is this review about?: Systematic reviews are long and technical documents that may be hard for policymakers to use when making decisions. Evidence summaries are short documents that describe research findings in systematic reviews. These summaries may simplify the use of systematic reviews.Other names for evidence reviews are policy briefs, evidence briefs, summaries of findings, or plain language summaries. The goal of this review was to learn whether evidence summaries help policymakers use evidence from systematic reviews. This review also aimed to identify the best ways to present the evidence summary to increase the use of evidence.What are the main findings of this review?: This review included six randomized controlled studies. A randomized controlled study is one in which the participants are divided randomly (by chance) into separate groups to compare different treatments or other interventions. This method of dividing people into groups means that the groups will be similar and that the effects of the treatments they receive will be compared more fairly. At the time the study is done, it is not known which treatment is the better one.The researchers who did these studies invited people from Europe, North America, South America, Africa, and Asia to take part in them. Two studies looked at "policy briefs," one study looked at an "evidence summary," two looked at a "summary of findings table," and one compared a "summary of findings table" to an evidence summary.None of these studies looked at how policymakers directly used evidence from systematic reviews in their decision making, but two studies found that there was little to no difference in how they used the summaries. The studies relied on reports from decision makers. These studies included questions such as, "Is this summary easy to understand?"Some of the studies looked at users' knowledge, understanding, beliefs, or how credible (trustworthy) they believed the summaries to be. There was little to no difference in the studies that looked at these outcomes. Study participants rated the graded entry format higher for usability than the full systematic review. The graded entry format allows the reader to select how much information they want to read.. The study participants felt that all evidence summary formats were easier to understand than full systematic reviews.What do the findings of this review mean?: Our review suggests that evidence summaries help policymakers to better understand the findings presented in systematic reviews. In short, evidence summaries should be developed to make it easier for policymakers to understand the evidence presented in systematic reviews. However, right now there is very little evidence on the best way to present systematic review evidence to policymakers.How up to date is this review?: The authors of this review searched for studies through June 2016.

Executive summary/Abstract

Background: Systematic reviews are important for decision makers. They offer many potential benefits but are often written in technical language, are too long, and do not contain contextual details which makes them hard to use for decision-making. Strategies to promote the use of evidence to decision makers are required, and evidence summaries have been suggested as a facilitator. Evidence summaries include policy briefs, briefing papers, briefing notes, evidence briefs, abstracts, summary of findings tables, and plain language summaries. There are many organizations developing and disseminating systematic review evidence summaries for different populations or subsets of decision makers. However, evidence on the usefulness and effectiveness of systematic review summaries is lacking. We present an overview of the available evidence on systematic review evidence summaries.Objectives: This systematic review aimed to 1) assess the effectiveness of evidence summaries on policy-makers' use of the evidence and 2) identify the most effective summary components for increasing policy-makers' use of the evidence.Search methods: We searched several online databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Global Health Library, Popline, Africa-wide, Public Affairs Information Services, Worldwide Political Science Abstracts, Web of Science, and DfiD), websites of research groups and organizations which produce evidence summaries, and reference lists of included summaries and related systematic reviews. These databases were searched in March-April, 2016.Selection criteria: Eligible studies included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after (CBA) studies, and interrupted time series (ITS) studies. We included studies of policymakers at all levels as well as health system managers. We included studies examining any type of "evidence summary", "policy brief", or other product derived from systematic reviews that presented evidence in a summarized form. These interventions could be compared to active comparators (e.g. other summary formats) or no intervention.The primary outcomes were: 1) use of systematic review summaries decision-making (e.g. self-reported use of the evidence in policy-making, decision-making) and 2) policymaker understanding, knowledge, and/or beliefs (e.g. changes in knowledge scores about the topic included in the summary). We also assessed perceived relevance, credibility, usefulness, understandability, and desirability (e.g. format) of the summaries.Results: Our database search combined with our grey literature search yielded 10,113 references after removal of duplicates. From these, 54 were reviewed in full text and we included 6 studies (reported in 7 papers, 1661 participants) as well as protocols from 2 ongoing studies. Two studies assessed the use of evidence summaries in decision-making and found little to no difference in effect. There was also little to no difference in effect for knowledge, understanding or beliefs (4 studies) and perceived usefulness or usability (3 studies). Summary of Findings tables and graded entry summaries were perceived as slightly easier to understand compared to complete systematic reviews. Two studies assessed formatting changes and found that for Summary of Findings tables, certain elements, such as reporting study event rates and absolute differences were preferred as well as avoiding the use of footnotes. No studies assessed adverse effects. The risks of bias in these studies were mainly assessed as unclear or low however, two studies were assessed as high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data due to very high rates of attrition.Authors' conclusions: Evidence summaries may be easier to understand than complete systematic reviews. However, their ability to increase the use of systematic review evidence in policymaking is unclear.

Establishing research priorities in prevention and control of vector-borne diseases in urban areas: a collaborative process

BACKGROUND

In 2015, following a call for proposals from the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR), six scoping reviews on the prevention and control of vector-borne diseases in urban areas were conducted. Those reviews provided a clear picture of the available knowledge and highlighted knowledge gaps, as well as needs and opportunities for future research. Based on the research findings of the scoping reviews, a concept mapping exercise was undertaken to produce a list of priority research needs to be addressed.

METHODS

Members of the six research teams responsible for the "VEctor boRne DiseAses Scoping reviews" (VERDAS) consortium's scoping reviews met for 2 days with decision-makers from Colombia, Brazil, Peru, Pan-American Health Organization, and World Health Organization. A total of 11 researchers and seven decision-makers (from ministries of health, city and regional vector control departments, and vector control programs) completed the concept mapping, answering the question: "In view of the knowledge synthesis and your own expertise, what do we still need to know about vector-borne diseases and other infectious diseases of poverty in urban areas?" Participants rated each statement on two scales from 1 to 5, one relative to 'priority' and the other to 'policy relevance', and grouped statements into clusters based on their own individual criteria and expertise.

RESULTS

The final map consisted of 12 clusters. Participants considered those entitled "Equity", "Technology", and "Surveillance" to have the highest priority. The cluster considered the most important concerns equity issues, confirming that these issues are rarely addressed in research on vector-borne diseases. On the other hand, the "Population mobility" and "Collaboration" clusters were considered to be the lowest priority but remained identified by participants as research priorities. The average policy relevance scores for each of the 12 clusters were roughly the same as the priority scores for all clusters. Some issues were not addressed during the brain-storming. This is the case for governance and for access and quality of care.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this work, and adopting a participatory approach, the concept mapping exercise conducted collaboratively with researchers from these teams and high-level decision-makers identified research themes for which studies should be carried out as a priority.

Sex/gender reporting and analysis in Campbell and Cochrane systematic reviews: a cross-sectional methods study

BACKGROUND

The importance of sex and gender considerations in research is being increasingly recognized. Evidence indicates that sex and gender can influence intervention effectiveness. We assessed the extent to which sex/gender is reported and analyzed in Campbell and Cochrane systematic reviews.

METHODS

We screened all the systematic reviews in the Campbell Library (n = 137) and a sample of systematic reviews from 2016 to 2017 in the Cochrane Library (n = 674). We documented the frequency of sex/gender terms used in each section of the reviews.

RESULTS

We excluded 5 Cochrane reviews because they were withdrawn or published and updated within the same time period as well as 4 Campbell reviews and 114 Cochrane reviews which only included studies focused on a single sex. Our analysis includes 133 Campbell reviews and 555 Cochrane reviews. We assessed reporting of sex/gender considerations for each section of the systematic review (Abstract, Background, Methods, Results, Discussion). In the methods section, 83% of Cochrane reviews (95% CI 80-86%) and 51% of Campbell reviews (95% CI 42-59%) reported on sex/gender. In the results section, less than 30% of reviews reported on sex/gender. Of these, 37% (95% CI 29-45%) of Campbell and 75% (95% CI 68-82%) of Cochrane reviews provided a descriptive report of sex/gender and 63% (95% CI 55-71%) of Campbell reviews and 25% (95% CI 18-32%) of Cochrane reviews reported analytic approaches for exploring sex/gender, such as subgroup analyses, exploring heterogeneity, or presenting disaggregated data by sex/gender.

CONCLUSION

Our study indicates that sex/gender reporting in Campbell and Cochrane reviews is inadequate.

How is the use of research evidence in health policy perceived? A comparison between the reporting of researchers and policy-makers

Background

The use of health policy and systems research (HPSR) to inform health policy-making is an international challenge. Incorporating HPSR into decision-making primarily involves two groups, namely researchers (knowledge producers) and policy-makers (knowledge users). The purpose of this study was to compare the perceptions of Israeli health systems and policy researchers and health services policy-makers regarding the role of HPSR, factors influencing its uses and potential facilitators and barriers to HPSR, and implementation of knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) activities.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was administered to researchers and policy-makers in Israel. The survey consisted of seven closed questions. Descriptive analyses were carried out for closed-ended questions and comparative analysis were conducted between groups using the χ² test.

Results

A total of 37 researchers and 32 policy-makers responded to the survey. While some views were in alignment, others showed differences. More policy-makers than researchers perceived that the use of HPSR in policy was hindered by practical implementation constraints, whereas more researchers felt that its use was hindered by a lack of coordination between knowledge producers and users. A larger percentage of policy-makers, as compared to researchers, reported that facilitators to the KTE process are in place and a larger percentage of researchers perceived barriers within the KTE environment. A larger percentage of policy-makers perceived KTE activities were in place as compared to researchers. Results also showed large differences in the perceptions of the two groups regarding policy formulation and which organisations they perceived as exerting strong influence on policy-making.

Conclusions

This research demonstrated that there are differences in the perceptions of knowledge producers and users about the process of KTE. Future work should focus on minimising the challenges highlighted here and implementing new KTE activities. These activities could include making the researchers aware of the most effective manner in which to package their results, providing training to policy-makers and assuring that policy-makers have technical access to appropriate databases to search for HPSR. These results underscore the need for the groups to communicate and clarify to each other what they can offer and what they require.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-018-0345-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Right Here Right Now (RHRN) pilot study: testing a method of near-real-time data collection on the social determinants of health

BACKGROUND

Informing policy and practice with up-to-date evidence on the social determinants of health is an ongoing challenge. One limitation of traditional approaches is the time-lag between identification of a policy or practice need and availability of results. The Right Here Right Now (RHRN) study piloted a near-real-time data-collection process to investigate whether this gap could be bridged.

METHODS

A website was developed to facilitate the issue of questions, data capture and presentation of findings. Respondents were recruited using two distinct methods - a clustered random probability sample, and a quota sample from street stalls. Weekly four-part questions were issued by email, Short Messaging Service (SMS or text) or post. Quantitative data were descriptively summarised, qualitative data thematically analysed, and a summary report circulated two weeks after each question was issued. The pilot spanned 26 weeks.

RESULTS

It proved possible to recruit and retain a panel of respondents providing quantitative and qualitative data on a range of issues. The samples were subject to similar recruitment and response biases as more traditional data-collection approaches. Participants valued the potential to influence change, and stakeholders were enthusiastic about the findings generated, despite reservations about the lack of sample representativeness. Stakeholders acknowledged that decision-making processes are not flexible enough to respond to weekly evidence.

CONCLUSION

RHRN produced a process for collecting near-real-time data for policy-relevant topics, although obtaining and maintaining representative samples was problematic. Adaptations were identified to inform a more sustainable model of near-real-time data collection and dissemination in the future.

Implementation of the SMART MOVE intervention in primary care: a qualitative study using normalisation process theory

Background

Problematic translational gaps continue to exist between demonstrating the positive impact of healthcare interventions in research settings and their implementation into routine daily practice. The aim of this qualitative evaluation of the SMART MOVE trial was to conduct a theoretically informed analysis, using normalisation process theory, of the potential barriers and levers to the implementation of a mhealth intervention to promote physical activity in primary care.

Methods

The study took place in the West of Ireland with recruitment in the community from the Clare Primary Care Network. SMART MOVE trial participants and the staff from four primary care centres were invited to take part and all agreed to do so. A qualitative methodology with a combination of focus groups (general practitioners, practice nurses and non-clinical staff from four separate primary care centres, n = 14) and individual semi-structured interviews (intervention and control SMART MOVE trial participants, n = 4) with purposeful sampling utilising the principles of Framework Analysis was utilised. The Normalisation Process Theory was used to develop the topic guide for the interviews and also informed the data analysis process.

Results

Four themes emerged from the analysis: personal and professional exercise strategies; roles and responsibilities to support active engagement; utilisation challenges; and evaluation, adoption and adherence. It was evident that introducing a new healthcare intervention demands a comprehensive evaluation of the intervention itself and also the environment in which it is to operate. Despite certain obstacles, the opportunity exists for the successful implementation of a novel healthcare intervention that addresses a hitherto unresolved healthcare need, provided that the intervention has strong usability attributes for both disseminators and target users and coheres strongly with the core objectives and culture of the health care environment in which it is to operate.

Conclusion

We carried out a theoretical analysis of stakeholder informed barriers and levers to the implementation of a novel exercise promotion tool in the Irish primary care setting. We believe that this process amplifies the implementation potential of such an intervention in primary care. The SMART MOVE trial is registered at Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN99944116; Date of registration: 1st August 2012).

Involving the public in epidemiological public health research: a qualitative study of public and stakeholder involvement in evaluation of a population-wide natural policy experiment

BACKGROUND

Public involvement in research is considered good practice by European funders; however, evidence of its research impact is sparse, particularly in relation to large-scale epidemiological research.

OBJECTIVES

To explore what difference public and stakeholder involvement made to the interpretation of findings from an evaluation of a natural policy experiment to influence the wider social determinants of health: 'Flexicurity'.

SETTING

Stockholm County, Sweden.

PARTICIPANTS

Members of the public from different occupational groups represented by blue-collar and white-collar trade union representatives. Also, members of three stakeholder groups: the Swedish national employment agency; an employers' association and politicians sitting on a national labour market committee. Total: 17 participants.

METHODS

Qualitative study of process and outcomes of public and stakeholder participation in four focused workshops on the interpretation of initial findings from the flexicurity evaluation.

OUTCOME MEASURES

New insights from participants benefiting the interpretation of our research findings or conceptualisation of future research.

RESULTS

Participants sensed more drastic and nuanced change in the Swedish welfare system over recent decades than was evident from our literature reviews and policy analysis. They also elaborated hidden developments in the Swedish labour market that were increasingly leading to 'insiders' and 'outsiders', with differing experiences and consequences for financial and job security. Their explanation of the differential effects of the various collective agreements for different occupational groups was new and raised further potential research questions. Their first-hand experience provided new insights into how changes to the social protection system were contributing to the increasing trends in poverty among unemployed people with limiting long-standing illness. The politicians provided further reasoning behind some of the policy changes and their intended and unintended consequences. These insights fed into subsequent reporting of the flexicurity evaluation results, as well as the conceptualisation of new research that could be pursued in a future programme.

Implementation and trial evidence: a plea for fore-thought

In a world where evidence-based practice is see as the foundation of modern healthcare, this paper asks when and how should we be accounting for the input of patients, the public, dental professionals, commissioners and policy-makers in the evidence generation process?

Defining 'evidence' in public health: a survey of policymakers' uses and preferences

Background

Public health (PH) policymakers are encouraged to use evidence in the decision-making process. However, little is known about what types of evidence policymakers working in local settings prefer to use. This study aims to evaluate policymakers' needs and sources of information, at regional and local levels. An electronic survey with telephone follow-up was carried out among PH policymakers and evidence producers ( n = 152) working in a large UK city. Respondents were asked which types of evidence they used regularly, found most useful and what were their main sources of information. Semi-structured interviews ( n = 23) added were analysed quantitatively in addition to the categorical data generated by the survey. Policymakers use a much greater range of evidence and information than is often indicated in the literature on evidence-based policy. Local data were by far the most used ( n = 95%) and most valued ( n = 85%) type of information, followed by practice guidelines. The main sources of information were Government websites (84%), followed by information obtained through personal contacts (71%), including PH professionals, council officers and politicians. Academics were rarely consulted and research evidence was rarely seen as directly relevant. Conclusions: Policymakers use a wider range of evidence types than previously discussed in the literature. Although local data were most valued by policymakers, results suggest that these were accessed through personal contacts, rather than specialized organizations. Systems to provide local high-quality evidence for PH policy should be supported.

Process, pitfalls and profits: lessons from interviewing New Zealand policy-makers

Little has been written about interviewing policy-makers in health promotion and public health research. This article explores the process, pitfalls and profits of semi-structured interviews with policy-makers in 10 research projects conducted in New Zealand. Key members of each research team were surveyed about their research and findings verified against research publications. Key aspects of the process of policy-maker interviews include gaining ethical approval, navigating gatekeepers, using personal contacts and multiple research dissemination methods. Pitfalls of interviewing policy-makers include interviewers not having enough knowledge of the topic so efforts were made to use knowledgeable researchers or up-skill others. Interviews provide access to specialist knowledge of the policy process which cannot be obtained by other methods. While this study was conducted in one jurisdiction, it has implications for other countries. Effective policy-maker interviews in health promotion policy research could contribute to improvements in the quality of data collected and uptake of research by policy-makers.

Organisational capacity and its relationship to research use in six Australian health policy agencies

There are calls for policymakers to make greater use of research when formulating policies. Therefore, it is important that policy organisations have a range of tools and systems to support their staff in using research in their work. The aim of the present study was to measure the extent to which a range of tools and systems to support research use were available within six Australian agencies with a role in health policy, and examine whether this was related to the extent of engagement with, and use of research in policymaking by their staff. The presence of relevant systems and tools was assessed via a structured interview called ORACLe which is conducted with a senior executive from the agency. To measure research use, four policymakers from each agency undertook a structured interview called SAGE, which assesses and scores the extent to which policymakers engaged with (i.e., searched for, appraised, and generated) research, and used research in the development of a specific policy document. The results showed that all agencies had at least a moderate range of tools and systems in place, in particular policy development processes; resources to access and use research (such as journals, databases, libraries, and access to research experts); processes to generate new research; and mechanisms to establish relationships with researchers. Agencies were less likely, however, to provide research training for staff and leaders, or to have evidence-based processes for evaluating existing policies. For the majority of agencies, the availability of tools and systems was related to the extent to which policymakers engaged with, and used research when developing policy documents. However, some agencies did not display this relationship, suggesting that other factors, namely the organisation's culture towards research use, must also be considered.