Organisational factors that facilitate research use in public health policy-making: a scoping review

Community engagement in research addressing infectious diseases of poverty in sub-Saharan Africa: A qualitative systematic review

Though engaging communities in research processes has several advantages and implications, research efforts are poorly embedded in and linked with communities, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). There is also a need for more empirical evidence on effectively engaging communities in research in LMICs, specifically in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Thus, there is an urgent need to synthesize existing evidence on community engagement experiences in research in SSA. Therefore, this review aimed to synthesize the existing community engagement experiences and related barriers to engaging communities in health research focusing on infectious diseases of poverty in SSA. The systematic review was conducted following the JBI methodology for qualitative systematic reviews. The review included both published and unpublished studies. A thematic analysis approach was used for data synthesis. A total of 40 studies were included in the review. Community engagement in the conceptualization of the research project, analysis, dissemination, and interpretation of the result was rare. On top of this, almost all the research projects engaged the community at a lower level of engagement (i.e., informing or consulting the community at some point in the research process), suggesting the importance of integrating communities in the entire research cycle. The lack of shared control over the research by the community was one of the significant challenges mentioned. This review uncovered that community engagement in the research process is minimal. Nevertheless, the review generated valuable evidence that can inform researchers and research stakeholders to promote effective community engagement in the research process addressing infectious diseases of poverty. Despite these, it requires rigorous primary studies to examine the applicability and usefulness of community engagement, including developing valid metrics of engagement, standardizations of reporting community engagements, and views and understandings of communities and stakeholders on the values, expectations, and concepts of community engagement in research.

Interviews with policymakers in Australian health policy: Understanding the process of policy development

OBJECTIVE

To determine the barriers and enablers oral health and chronic disease policymakers identify during policy development.

METHODS

Semi-structured interview questions were developed utilizing an interview guide and applying a knowledge mobilization framework. Reflective thematic analysis of the data was completed based on the research of Braun and Clarke encompassing a critical realist approach.

RESULTS

Twelve policymakers were interviewed. Policymakers reported barriers to accessing evidence including the sheer volume of information and a lack of: research summaries, comprehensive oral health data sets, open access articles, consistency of reporting, and time. They did find relationships with experts and intermediaries crucial at times to policy development. Co-creation of research was also a key enabler for policymakers.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights that policymakers find evidence crucial during the development of policy and often use it to advocate for policies. However, the links between poor oral health; and cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and cognitive impairment are not well recognized among chronic disease policymakers. It is important that oral health researchers and policymakers work to close this gap. The treatment of poor oral health is a global population health issue. It is imperative that evidence of these links is implemented into health policy for the treatment and prevention of chronic diseases and improved quality of life for individuals living with chronic diseases.

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.

"Research ends with publication": a qualitative study on the use of health policy and systems research in Ethiopia

BACKGROUND

Decision-making about the design and implementation of health care policies should be supported by research evidence. This article reports on a qualitative study on the experiences of both research institutes and policymakers in Ethiopia in generating and using research evidence to inform health policy decision-making.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted from January through March 2020, with representatives of research institutes and with policymakers in Ethiopia. The data collected during the interviews were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

Half of the institutions represented had engaged in health policy and systems research (HPSR). These institutes' capacities were limited by multiple factors, including unsupportive research environments; the limited number of researchers with extensive experience; high turnover among senior researchers; lack of staff motivation mechanisms; underdeveloped research culture; limited technical and analytical capacity among researchers; lack of core funding for HPSR; ineffective financial management; and, lack of connections with health policy platforms. Research institutes also lacked the capacity in strategic packaging of findings to influence policy decision-making, although some programs have recently improved in this area. Meanwhile, there lacked a culture of using evidence in policymaking settings. In general, we found that policymakers had poor attitudes towards the quality or value of the evidence, and had little capacity to interpret evidence and apply findings to policy options. As a result, much of the research produced by the institutes have only been relevant academically, with little impact on policy. However, respondents reported that the environment is slowly changing, and the recent creation of a Research Advisory Council at the Ministry of Health offers a promising model.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite some recent changes, in Ethiopia researchers and policymakers alike often tend to consider health policy and systems research (HPSR) to be not very valuable since the findings generated are rarely used for evidence-informed policy development. Research institutes and researchers need to strengthen their technical, analytical, and administrative capacities (through, among other efforts, seeking more funding for research, and better incentives to attract, retain and build skills among qualified researchers); they also need to improve their understanding of the evidence-to-policy cycle and how to engage effectively with policymakers.

Experiences of knowledge translation among researchers in transfusion medicine: Findings from an international survey study

BACKGROUND

Translation of research knowledge is critical to ensure transfusion medicine policies and practices reflect current evidence and so effectively support the health of blood donors and recipients, as well as ensuring ongoing blood supply. The aim of this study was to investigate the barriers and facilitators of knowledge translation (KT) among transfusion medicine researchers and determine what KT supports are needed.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

An anonymous, cross-sectional survey was distributed by emailing corresponding authors of papers in four major blood journals, emailing grant recipients in the area of transfusion medicine, posting on social media, and through an international blood operator network.

RESULTS

The final sample included 105 researchers. Participants had a positive orientation toward KT, with few perceiving KT as not relevant to their research or beneficial for their careers. However, many reported facing difficulties practicing KT due to time constraints, competing priorities, or lack of funds or resources. Fostering relationships with stakeholders was seen as a key facilitator of KT but a number of researchers expressed difficulties engaging and communicating with them. Collaboration opportunities, protected time for KT, and access to KT resources were some of the supports researchers felt were required to help their KT efforts.

CONCLUSION

To minimize the knowledge to practice gap in transfusion medicine and ensure findings from research lead to improved outcomes, organizations need to support researchers in their KT efforts and facilitate interactions between researchers and research end-users.

The DASH model: Data for addressing social determinants of health in local health departments

Recent frameworks, models, and reports highlight the critical need to address social determinants of health for achieving health equity in the United States and around the globe. In the United States, data play an important role in better understanding community-level and population-level disparities particularly for local health departments. However, data-driven decision-making-the use of data for public health activities such as program implementation, policy development, and resource allocation-is often presented theoretically or through case studies in the literature. We sought to develop a preliminary model that identifies the factors that contribute to data-driven decision-making in US local health departments and describe relationships between them. Guided by implementation science literature, we examined organizational-level capacity and individual-level factors contributing to using data for decision-making related to social determinants of health and the reduction of county-level disparities. This model has the potential to improve implementation of public health interventions and programs aimed at upstream structural factors, by elucidating the factors critical to incorporating data in decision-making.

Inter-agency collaboration is associated with increased frequency of research use in children's mental health policy making

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the self-report frequency of inter-agency collaboration about children's mental health issues is associated with the self-report frequency of using research evidence in children's mental health policy and program decision making in mental health agencies (MHAs).

DATA SOURCES

Primary data were collected through web-based surveys of state (N = 221) and county (N = 117) MHA officials.

DESIGN

The primary independent variable was a composite score quantifying the frequency of collaboration about children's mental health issues between officials in MHAs and six other state agencies. The dependent variables were composite scores quantifying the frequency of research use in children's mental health policy and program decision making in general and for specific purposes (i.e., conceptual, instrumental, tactical, imposed). Covariates were composite scores quantifying well-established determinants of research use (e.g., agency leadership, research use skills) in agency policy and program decision making.

DATA METHODS

Separate multiple linear regression models estimated associations between frequency of inter-agency collaboration and research use scores, adjusting for other determinants of research use, respondent state, and other covariates. Data from state and county officials were analyzed separately.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The frequency of inter-agency collaboration was positively and independently associated with the frequency of research use in children's mental health policy making among state (β = 0.22, p = 0.004) and county (β = 0.39, p < 0.0001) MHA officials. Inter-agency collaboration was also the only variable significantly associated with the frequency of research use for all four specific purposes among state MHA officials, and similar findings we observed among county MHA officials. The magnitudes of associations between inter-agency collaboration and frequency of research use were generally stronger than for more well-established determinants of research use in policy making.

CONCLUSIONS

Strategies that promote collaboration between MHA officials and external agencies could increase the use of research evidence in children's mental health policy and program decision making in MHAs.

Research can be integrated into public health policy-making: global lessons for and from Spanish economic evaluations

WHO promotes the use of research in policy-making to drive improvements in health, including in achieving Sustainable Development Goals such as tobacco control. The European Union’s new €95 billion Horizon Europe research framework programme parallels these aims, and also includes commitments to fund economic evaluations. However, researchers often express frustration at the perceived lack of attention to scientific evidence during policy-making. For example, some researchers claim that evidence regarding the return on investment from optimal implementation of evidence-based policies is frequently overlooked. An increasingly large body of literature acknowledges inevitable barriers to research use, but also analyses facilitators encouraging such use. This opinion piece describes how some research is integrated into policy-making. It highlights two recent reviews. One examines impact assessments of 36 multi-project research programmes and identifies three characteristics of projects more likely to influence policy-making. These include a focus on healthcare system needs, engagement of stakeholders, and research conducted for organizations supported by structures to receive and use evidence. The second review suggests that such characteristics are likely to occur as part of a comprehensive national health research system strategy, especially one integrated into the healthcare system. We also describe two policy-informing economic evaluations conducted in Spain. These examined the most cost-effective package of evidence-based tobacco control interventions and the cost-effectiveness of different strategies to increase screening coverage for cervical cancer. Both projects focused on issues of healthcare concern and involved considerable stakeholder engagement. The Spanish examples reinforce some lessons from the global literature and, therefore, could help demonstrate to authorities in Spain the value of developing comprehensive health research systems, possibly following the interfaces and receptor model. The aim of this would be to integrate needs assessment and stakeholder engagement with structures spanning the research and health systems. In such structures, economic evaluation evidence could be collated, analysed by experts in relation to healthcare needs, and fed into both policy-making as appropriate, and future research calls. The increasingly large local and global evidence base on research utilization could inform detailed implementation of this approach once accepted as politically desirable. Given the COVID-19 pandemic, increasing the cost-effectiveness of healthcare systems and return on investment of public health interventions becomes even more important.

Assessing the impact of knowledge communication and dissemination strategies targeted at health policy-makers and managers: an overview of systematic reviews

Background

The use of research evidence as an input for health decision-making is a need for most health systems. There are a number of approaches for promoting evidence use at different levels of the health system, but knowledge of their effectiveness is still scarce. The objective of this overview was to evaluate the effectiveness of knowledge communication and dissemination interventions, strategies or approaches targeting policy-makers and health managers.

Methods

This overview of systematic reviews used systematic review methods and was conducted according to a predefined and published protocol. A comprehensive electronic search of 13 databases and a manual search in four websites were conducted. Both published and unpublished reviews in English, Spanish or Portuguese were included. A narrative synthesis was undertaken, and effectiveness statements were developed, informed by the evidence identified.

Results

We included 27 systematic reviews. Three studies included only a communication strategy, while eight only included dissemination strategies, and the remaining 16 included both. None of the selected reviews provided “sufficient evidence” for any of the strategies, while four provided some evidence for three communication and four dissemination strategies. Regarding communication strategies, the use of tailored and targeted messages seemed to successfully lead to changes in the decision-making practices of the target audience. Regarding dissemination strategies, interventions that aimed at improving only the reach of evidence did not have an impact on its use in decisions, while interventions aimed at enhancing users’ ability to use and apply evidence had a positive effect on decision-making processes. Multifaceted dissemination strategies also demonstrated the potential for changing knowledge about evidence but not its implementation in decision-making.

Conclusions

There is limited evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions targeting health managers and policy-makers, as well as the mechanisms required for achieving impact. More studies are needed that are informed by theoretical frameworks or specific tools and using robust methods, standardized outcome measures and clear descriptions of the interventions. We found that passive communication increased access to evidence but had no effect on uptake. Some evidence indicated that the use of targeted messages, knowledge-brokering and user training was effective in promoting evidence use by managers and policy-makers.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-021-00780-4.

Policymakers' Research Capacities, Engagement, and Use of Research in Public Health Policymaking

The use of research in public health policymaking is one of the prerequisites for successfully implemented health policies which have better population health as an outcome. This policy process is influenced by the actors involved under the policy umbrella, with inter-related contextual factors and specific structural and institutional circumstances. Our study investigates how policymakers’ research capacities influence the use of research in the health policy process and identify areas where capacity-building interventions give the most meaning and impact. Furthermore, we investigate policymakers’ research engagement and use this to inform public health policy in the public sector in Denmark. We collect and report data using Seeking, Engaging with, and Evaluation Research (SEER) methodology. Policymakers are reported to have research capacity, but it is questionable how those competences have actually been used in policymaking. Decision-makers were often not aware or did not know about the existing organizational tools and systems for research engagement and use and two third of respondents had not been part of any research activities or had any collaboration with researchers. Overall, research use in public health policymaking and evaluation was limited. As a conclusion, we propose that capacity-building interventions for increasing research use and collaboration in EIPM should be context-oriented, measurable, and sustainable in developing individual and organizational competences.

[Establishing evidence-based prevention and health promotion: criteria for evidence-based interventions and necessary organizational requirements and capacities]

Für die Umsetzung des Präventionsgesetzes in einem sich entwickelnden System Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung (PGF) ist die Anforderung der Evidenzbasierung formuliert. Vor diesem Hintergrund stellt sich die Frage, welche Schritte, Prozesse und Vorgehensweisen in diesem System benötigt werden, um der Anforderung zunehmend gerecht zu werden. Dieser Übersichtsartikel diskutiert für Deutschland, wie evidenzbasierte Maßnahmen in der Praxis operationalisiert werden können und welche organisationalen Rahmenbedingungen und Kapazitäten für ein evidenzbasiertes Handeln von AkteurInnen notwendig sind.

Aufbauend auf internationalen wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnissen und dem Memorandum Evidenzbasierte Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung der Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung (BZgA) wird zunächst das Verständnis von evidenzbasierten Maßnahmen erläutert und im Weiteren werden Elemente zur Umsetzung von mehr Evidenzbasierung skizziert.

Neben der transparenten und einheitlichen Darstellung in Datenbanken und Empfehlungen ist es notwendig, bei EntscheidungsträgerInnen in Praxis und Politik ein gemeinsames Verständnis von evidenzbasierten Interventionen und von Anforderungen für eine Evaluation, die Evidenzbasierung sichert, zu schaffen. Darüber hinaus kann evidenzbasiertes Handeln von EntscheidungsträgerInnen gefördert werden durch Wertschätzung gegenüber Evidenzbasierung in ihren Organisationen, durch Gewährleistung eines regelhaften Zugangs zu Evidenzdatenbanken, durch verbesserte Kompetenzen in Bezug auf Interpretation von Evidenz und durch eine systematische Zusammenarbeit mit der Wissenschaft.

Mehr Evidenzbasierung ist eine Voraussetzung für die nachhaltige Verankerung von PGF als fünfte Säule des Gesundheitssystems.

Determinants of using children's mental health research in policymaking: variation by type of research use and phase of policy process

Background

Research use in policymaking is multi-faceted and has been the focus of extensive study. However, virtually no quantitative studies have examined whether the determinants of research use vary according to the type of research use or phase of policy process. Understanding such variation is important for selecting the targets of implementation strategies that aim to increase the frequency of research use in policymaking.

Methods

A web-based survey of US state agency officials involved with children’s mental health policymaking was conducted between December 2019 and February 2020 (n = 224, response rate = 33.7%, 49 states responding (98%), median respondents per state = 4). The dependent variables were composite scores of the frequency of using children’s mental health research in general, specific types of research use (i.e., conceptual, instrumental, tactical, imposed), and during different phases of the policy process (i.e., agenda setting, policy development, policy implementation). The independent variables were four composite scores of determinants of research use: agency leadership for research use, agency barriers to research use, research use skills, and dissemination barriers (e.g., lack of actionable messages/recommendations in research summaries, lack of interaction/collaboration with researchers). Separate multiple linear regression models estimated associations between determinant and frequency of research use scores.

Results

Determinants of research use varied significantly by type of research use and phase of policy process. For example, agency leadership for research use was the only determinant significantly associated with imposed research use (β = 0.31, p < 0.001). Skills for research use were the only determinant associated with tactical research use (β = 0.17, p = 0.03) and were only associated with research use in the agenda-setting phase (β = 0.16, p = 0.04). Dissemination barriers were the most universal determinants of research use, as they were significantly and inversely associated with frequency of conceptual (β = −0.21, p = 0.01) and instrumental (β = −0.22, p = 0.01) research use and during all three phases of policy process.

Conclusions

Decisions about the determinants to target with policy-focused implementation strategies—and the strategies that are selected to affect these targets—should reflect the specific types of research use that these strategies aim to influence.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-021-01081-8.