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

From bench to policy: a critical analysis of models for evidence-informed policymaking in healthcare

Background

The use of research evidence in policy making is a complex and challenging process that has a long history in various fields, especially in healthcare. Different terms and concepts have been used to describe the relationship between research and policy, but they often lack clarity and consensus. To address this gap, several strategies and models have been proposed to facilitate evidence informed policy making and to identify the key factors and mechanisms involved. This study aims to critically review the existing models of evidence informed policy making (EIPM) in healthcare and to assess their strengths and limitations.

Method

A systematic search and review conducted to identify and critically assess EIPM models in healthcare. We searched PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases as major electronic databases and applied predefined inclusion criteria to select the models. We also checked the citations of the included models to find other scholars' perspectives. Each model was described and critiqued each model in detail and discussed their features and limitations.

Result

Nine models of EIPM in healthcare were identified. While models had some strengths in comprehension, flexibility and theoretical foundations, analysis also identified limitations including: presupposing rational policymaking; lacking alternatives for time-sensitive situations; not capturing policy complexity; neglecting unintended effects; limited context considerations; inadequate complexity concepts; limited collaboration guidance; and unspecified evidence adaptations.

Conclusion

The reviewed models provide useful frameworks for EIPM but need further improvement to address their limitations. Concepts from sociology of knowledge, change theory and complexity science can enrich the models. Future EIPM models should better account for the complexity of research-policy relationships and provide tailored strategies based on the policy context.

Researchers' views on and practices of knowledge translation: an international survey of transfusion medicine researchers

BACKGROUND

Health research is often driven by the desire to improve the care and health of the community; however, the translation of research evidence into policy and practice is not guaranteed. Knowledge translation (KT) activities, such as dissemination and end-user engagement by researchers, are important to achieving this goal. This study examined researchers' views on and practices of KT in the field of transfusion medicine.

METHODS

An anonymous, cross-sectional survey was distributed to transfusion medicine researchers in May 2022 by emailing corresponding authors of papers in four major blood journals, emailing grant recipients, posting on social media, and through international blood operator networks. Comparative analyses were conducted for career stage, work setting, research type, and KT training.

RESULTS

The final sample included 117 researchers from 33 countries. Most participants reported that research translation was important (86%) and felt it was their responsibility (69%). Fewer than half felt they had the skills to translate their research (45%) or knew which strategies to employ (45%). When examining how research findings are shared, most reported using diffusion activities (86%), including publishing in peer-reviewed journals (74%), or presenting at academic conferences (72%). Fewer used dissemination methods (60%), such as developing educational materials (29%) or writing plain language summaries (30%). Greater use of tailored dissemination strategies was seen among researchers with KT training, whilst traditional diffusion strategies were used more by those working in an academic setting. Most participants had engaged end-users in their research (72%), primarily to consult on a research component (47%) or to involve them in the research process (45%). End-user engagement was greater among researchers with established careers, working in both academic and applied settings, and with KT training.

CONCLUSIONS

Whilst participating researchers acknowledged the importance of KT, they typically focused on traditional diffusion strategies. This is despite well-established knowledge of the limited impact of these strategies in achieving KT. Those with KT training were more likely to use tailored dissemination strategies and engage end-users in their research. This demonstrates the value of sharing knowledge from the KT field with health researchers to facilitate KT.

Priority setting to support a public health research agenda: a modified Delphi study with public health stakeholders in Germany

BACKGROUND

Research priority setting (RPS) studies are necessary to close the significant gap between the scientific evidence produced and the evidence stakeholders need. Their findings can make resource allocation in research more efficient. However, no general framework for conducting an RPS study among public health stakeholders exists. RPS studies in public health are rare and no such study has been previously conducted and published in Germany. Therefore, we aimed to investigate which research topics in public health are prioritised by relevant stakeholders in Germany.

METHODS

Our RPS study consisted of a scoping stage and a Delphi stage each split into two rounds. Firstly, we invited members of the German Public Health Association to gather expert insights during two initial workshops. Next, we defined the relevant stakeholder groups and recruited respondents. Thereafter, we collected research topics and assessment criteria with the respondents in the first Delphi round and aggregated the responses through content analysis. Finally, we asked the respondents to rate the research topics with the assessment criteria in the second Delphi round.

RESULTS

In total, 94 out of the 140 invited public health organisations nominated 230 respondents for the Delphi study of whom almost 90% participated in both Delphi rounds. We compiled a comprehensive list of 76 research topics that were rated and ranked by several assessment criteria. We split the research topics into two types, substantive research topics and methodological-theoretical research topics respectively, to ensure the comparability among the research topics. In both types of research topics-substantive research topics and methodological-theoretical research topics-the respective top five ranked research topics hardly differed between public health researchers and public health practitioners. However, clear differences exist in the priority ranking of many (non-top priority) research topics between the stakeholder groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This research demonstrates that it is possible, with limited resources, to prioritise research topics for public health at the national level involving a wide range of pertinent stakeholders. The results can be used by research funding institutions to initiate calls for research projects with an increased relevance for health and/or scientific progress.

Open science at the science-policy interface: bringing in the evidence?

Part of the current enthusiasm about open science stems from its promises to reform scientific practice in service of the common good, to ensure that scientific outputs will be found and reused more easily, and to enhance scientific impact on policy and society. With this article, we question this optimism by analysing the potential for open science practices to enhance research uptake at the science–policy interface. Science advice is critical to help policy-makers make informed decisions. Likewise, some interpretations of open science hold that making research processes and outputs more transparent and accessible will also enhance the uptake of results by policy and society at large. However, we argue that this hope is based on an unjustifiably simplistic understanding of the science–policy interface that leaves key terms (“impact”, “uptake”) undefined. We show that this understanding—based upon linear models of research uptake—likewise grounds the influential “evidence–policy gap” diagnosis which holds that to improve research uptake, communication and interaction between researchers and policy-makers need to be improved. The overall normative stance of both discussions has sidelined empirical description of the science–policy interface, ignoring questions about the underlying differences between the policy domain and academia. Importantly, both open science and literature on closing the evidence–policy gap recommend improving communication (in terms of either the content or the means) as a viable strategy. To correct some of these views, we combine insights from policy theory with a narrative review of the literature on the evidence–policy gap in the health domain and find that removing barriers to access by itself will not be enough to foster research uptake.

Evidence on acupuncture therapies is underused in clinical practice and health policy

Nenggui Xu and colleagues call for more effective evidence dissemination of and research into promising acupuncture therapies

Structural barriers to knowledge transfer and exchange among men and women in low-, middle- and high-income countries: an international cross-sectional study with vaccine researchers in 44 countries

BACKGROUND

Globally, women constitute 30% of researchers. Despite an increasing proportion of women in research, they are still less likely to have international collaborations. Literature on barriers to knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) between men and women remains limited. This study aimed to assess perceived gender barriers to KTE activities in vaccination-related research in low-, middle- and high-income countries.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional data assessment from a self-administered questionnaire distributed to researchers in the field of vaccination research. The administered questionnaire was developed and validated by WHO and McMaster University. Descriptive statistics were carried out. Structural factors of KTE were assessed using 12 statements measured with a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). An index ranging from 12 to 60 points was created to assess structural factors of KTE, with higher score indicating fewer perceived barriers. Multivariable linear regression modelling was applied to examine the association between KTE barriers and gender.

RESULTS

A total of 158 researchers were included in the analysis. Regardless of gender and country of affiliation, researchers experienced challenges with respect to KTE activities; particularly factors related to the availability of human and financial resources and level of technical expertise among their target audience. We were also able to identify perceived facilitators among men and women, such as the presence of structures that link researchers and target audiences, the investment of target audiences in KTE efforts and the presence of stable contacts among target audiences. Our linear regression analysis showed that women perceived more barriers than men (R² = 0.014; B = -1.069; 95% CI -4.035; 1.897).

CONCLUSIONS

Men and women shared common perspectives on barriers to KTE. KTE activities could be strengthened by improving structural efforts to reduce gender differences and increase collaborations between researchers and their target audience.

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.

Examining the use of health systems and policy research in the health policymaking process in Israel: views of researchers

BACKGROUND

All too often, health policy and management decisions are made without making use of or consulting with the best available research evidence, which can lead to ineffective and inefficient health systems. One of the main actors that can ensure the use of evidence to inform policymaking is researchers. The objective of this study is to explore Israeli health systems and policy researchers' views and perceptions regarding the role of health systems and policy research (HSPR) in health policymaking and the barriers and facilitators to the use of evidence in the policymaking process.

METHODS

A survey of researchers who have conducted HSPR in Israel was developed. The survey consisted of a demographics section and closed questions, which focused on support both within the researchers' organisations and the broader environment for KTE activities, perceptions on the policymaking process, and the potential influencing factors on the process. The survey was sent to all health systems and policy researchers in Israel from academic institutions, hospital settings, government agencies, the four health insurance funds, and research institutes (n = 107). All responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. For close-ended questions about level of agreement we combined together the two highest categories (agree or strongly agree) for analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven respondents participated in the survey. While many respondents felt that the use of HSPR may help raise awareness on policy issues, the majority of respondents felt that the actual use of HSPR was hindered for many reasons. While facilitators do exist to support the use of research evidence in policymaking, numerous barriers hinder the process such as challenges in government/provider relations, policymakers lacking the expertise for acquiring, assessing, and applying HSPR and priorities in the health system drawing attention away from HSPR. Furthermore, it is perceived by a majority of respondents that the health insurance funds and the physician organisations exert a strong influence in the policymaking process.

CONCLUSIONS

Health system and policy researchers in Israel need to be introduced to the benefits and potential advantages of evidence-informed policy in an organised and systematic way. Future research should examine the perceptions of policymakers in Israel and thus we can gain a broader perspective on where the actual issues lie.

Views of health system policymakers on the role of research in health policymaking in Israel

Background

The use of research evidence in health policymaking is an international challenge. Health systems, including that of Israel, are usually characterized by scarce resources and the necessity to make rapid policy decisions. Knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) has emerged as a paradigm to start bridging the “know-do” gap. The purpose of this study was to explore the views of health system policymakers and senior executives involved in the policy development process in Israel regarding the role of health systems and policy research (HSPR) in health policymaking, the barriers and facilitators to the use of evidence in the policymaking process, and suggestions for improving the use of HSPR in the policymaking process.

Methods

A survey and an interview were verbally administered in a single face-to-face meeting with health system policymakers and senior executives involved in the policy development process in Israel. The data collection period was from July to October 2014. The potential participants included members of Knesset, officials from Israel’s Ministry of Health, Ministry of Finance, health services organizations, and other stakeholder organizations (i.e., National Insurance Institute). The close-ended questions were based on previous surveys that had been conducted in this field. Interviews were tape recorded and transcribed. Descriptive statistics were conducted for close ended survey-questions and thematic analysis was conducted for open-ended interview questions.

Results

There were 32 participants in this study. Participants felt that the use of HSPR helps raise awareness on policy issues, yet the actual use of HSPR was hindered for many reasons. Facilitators do exist to support the use of HSPR in the policymaking process, such as a strong foundation of relationships between researchers and policymakers. However, many barriers exist such as the lack of relevance and timeliness of much of the currently available research to support decision-making and the paucity of funding to support research use. Suggestions to improve the use of HSPR focused on improving dissemination of research findings and ensuring that the research was more relevant and timely.

Conclusions

This research demonstrated that health systems policymakers in Israel perceive having strong relationships and collaborations with researchers however there is room for improvement, e.g. partnering in research projects to ensure relevance and use. Furthermore, health system policymakers seem to be interested in receiving relevant research in a more useable format and are open to using research in decision making.

A review of policy dissemination and implementation research funded by the National Institutes of Health, 2007-2014

BACKGROUND

Policy has a tremendous potential to improve population health when informed by research evidence. Such evidence, however, typically plays a suboptimal role in policymaking processes. The field of policy dissemination and implementation research (policy D&I) exists to address this challenge. The purpose of this study was to: (1) determine the extent to which policy D&I was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), (2) identify trends in NIH-funded policy D&I, and (3) describe characteristics of NIH-funded policy D&I projects.

METHODS

The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool was used to identify all projects funded through D&I-focused funding announcements. We screened for policy D&I projects by searching project title, abstract, and term fields for mentions of "policy," "policies," "law," "legal," "legislation," "ordinance," "statute," "regulation," "regulatory," "code," or "rule." A project was classified as policy D&I if it explicitly proposed to conduct research about the content of a policy, the process through which it was developed, or outcomes it produced. A coding guide was iteratively developed, and all projects were independently coded by two researchers. ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed were used to obtain additional project information and validate coding decisions. Descriptive statistics--stratified by funding mechanism, Institute, and project characteristics--were produced.

RESULTS

Between 2007 and 2014, 146 projects were funded through the D&I funding announcements, 12 (8.2 %) of which were policy D&I. Policy D&I funding totaled $16,177,250, equivalent to 10.5 % of all funding through the D&I funding announcements. The proportion of funding for policy D&I projects ranged from 14.6 % in 2007 to 8.0 % in 2012. Policy D&I projects were primarily focused on policy outcomes (66.7 %), implementation (41.7 %), state-level policies (41.7 %), and policies within the USA (83.3 %). Tobacco (33.3 %) and cancer (25.0 %) control were the primary topics of focus. Many projects combined survey (58.3 %) and interview (33.3 %) methods with analysis of archival data sources.

CONCLUSIONS

NIH has made an initial investment in policy D&I research, but the level of support has varied between Institutes. Policy D&I researchers have utilized a variety of designs, methods, and data sources to investigate the development processes, content, and outcomes of public and private policies.