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

Building bridges: evaluating policymakers' research capacities, engagement, and utilization in health policymaking within the Kuwaiti context: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Health policymaking is a critical aspect of governmental decision-making that shapes the well-being of populations. In the Middle East and North Africa, particularly in Kuwait, limited attention has been given to exploring the research capacities, engagement, and utilization among health policymakers. This study aims to bridge this gap by investigating how Kuwaiti health policymakers incorporate evidence-based research into the formulation of health-related policies.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study targeted health policymakers in leadership positions within the Kuwait Ministry of Health (MOH). Using the Seeking, Engaging with and Evaluating Research (SEER) questionnaire, participants' capacities, engagement, and use of research were assessed. The targeted sample was all health policymakers in leadership positions, starting from the head of departments and above. The questionnaire comprises four domains, 14 sections, and 50 questions and utilizes Likert and binary scales, with aggregate scores predicting engagement actions and research use. The data were collected between March and July 2023. All the statistical analyses were performed using SPSS v27, and the numerical and categorical variables were analyzed using appropriate statistical tests, including t-tests, ANOVA, and Pearson's correlation.

RESULTS

Out of 205 policymakers, 88 participated (42.9% response rate): predominantly male (51.1%) and married (78.4%). The mean age was 49.84 ± 7.28 years, with a mean MOH tenure of 24.39 ± 6.80 years. Participants demonstrated high value for research (mean score 4.29 ± 0.55) and expressed confidence in the research utilization. Organizational emphasis on research use exhibited nuanced perceptions, identifying areas where MOH support may be lacking. Access to research resources and processes for policy development guidance were highlighted as challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides crucial insights into the research capacities and engagement of Kuwaiti health policymakers. It emphasizes the need for targeted interventions to align individual perceptions with organizational expectations, address confidence disparities, and enhance collaborative efforts. Organizational investments are crucial for fostering a dynamic research ecosystem to improve evidence-based policy development in Kuwait's healthcare landscape.

Evaluator's alignment as an important indicator of adequacy of the criteria and assessment procedure for recognizing the good practice in public health

Background

Public health interventions aim to reduce the burden of chronic non-communicable diseases. Implementing evidence-based interventions that are proven to be successful and effective is widely recognized as the best approach to addressing public health challenges. To avoid the development and implementation of less effective or successful or even harmful practices, clear criteria for the assessment of practices, that consider different dimensions of the interventions in public health, are needed. The main aim of the research was to test our Criteria and assessment procedure for recognizing good practices in the field of public health by estimating the consistency between the evaluators and thereby gaining insight into the adequacy and reliability of the criteria as well as to check how the evaluators understand the criteria and methodology and if it is properly used in assessing the interventions.

Methods

The assessment of the interventions took place from 2021 to 2022. The individual evaluator's scores on the scale from 1 to 5 for each specific sub-criterion were collected, which was followed by a panel discussion to reach a final score for each sub-criterion. The inter-rater agreement was measured using percent overall agreement and Fleiss' kappa coefficient.

Results

We found moderate inter-rater agreement on the level of the assessment criteria group. The lowest agreement was observed for the effectiveness and efficiency sub-criteria group, which also received the lowest scores from the evaluators. Challenges identified with the scoring process were due to the descriptive 1 to 5 scale and the varying specificity of the criteria.

Conclusion

The results showed that studying consistency between evaluators can highlight areas for improvement or adjustment in the assessment criteria and enhance the quality of the assessment instrument. Therefore, such analysis would be useful part of both newly and well-established health promotion and prevention program registries.

Household Air Pollution Interventions to Improve Health in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement

Background: An estimated 3 billion people, largely in low- and middle-income countries, rely on unclean fuels for cooking, heating, and lighting to meet household energy needs. The resulting exposure to household air pollution (HAP) is a leading cause of pneumonia, chronic lung disease, and other adverse health effects. In the last decade, randomized controlled trials of clean cooking interventions to reduce HAP have been conducted. We aim to provide guidance on how to interpret the findings of these trials and how they should inform policy makers and practitioners.Methods: We assembled a multidisciplinary working group of international researchers, public health practitioners, and policymakers with expertise in household air pollution from within academia, the American Thoracic Society, funders, nongovernmental organizations, and global organizations, including the World Bank and the World Health Organization. We performed a literature search, convened four sessions via web conference, and developed consensus conclusions and recommendations via the Delphi method.Results: The committee reached consensus on 14 conclusions and recommendations. Although some trials using cleaner-burning biomass stoves or cleaner-cooking fuels have reduced HAP exposure, the committee was divided (with 55% saying no and 45% saying yes) on whether the studied interventions improved measured health outcomes.Conclusions: HAP is associated with adverse health effects in observational studies. However, it remains unclear which household energy interventions reduce exposure, improve health, can be scaled, and are sustainable. Researchers should engage with policy makers and practitioners working to scale cleaner energy solutions to understand and address their information needs.

Understanding the Gap: A Cross-Sectional Survey of ELSI Scholars' Dissemination Practices and Translation Goals

BACKGROUND

Researchers engaged in the study of the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of genetics and genomics are often publicly funded and intend their work to be in the public interest. These features of U.S. ELSI research create an imperative for these scholars to demonstrate the public utility of their work and the expectation that they engage in research that has potential to inform policy or practice outcomes. In support of the fulfillment of this "translational mandate," the Center for ELSI Resources and Analysis (CERA), funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), aims to facilitate community-informed, ELSI research results synthesis and dissemination. However, little is known about how ELSI research scholars define the goals of translation and imagine the intended users of their research findings.

METHODOLOGY

We distributed a Qualtrics survey to ELSI scholars that aimed to determine: (1) researchers' expectations for their research findings in relation to policy or practice outcomes, (2) the stakeholder groups researchers believe could benefit from their research findings, and (3) the methods researchers use to foster the uptake of their findings by those stakeholders.

RESULTS

Most ELSI researchers surveyed thought there were stakeholders that could benefit from their research findings, including health care professionals, at-risk individuals, patients, and their family members, policy-makers, and researchers/scientists, and expected their research findings to inform the creation or revision of laws, policies, or practice guidelines. Most researchers planned to disseminate findings directly to relevant stakeholders, with fewer expecting dissemination support from research funders, universities, or other entities.

CONCLUSION

The broad range of research topics, disciplines, and set of potential end users represented in ELSI reseach complicate the work of a knowledge broker. Nonetheless, the CERA can play an important role in disseminating ELSI results to relevant stakeholders. Further research should explore outreach mechanisms.

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.

Testing Multiple Methods to Effectively Promote Use of a Knowledge Portal to Health Policy Makers: Quasi-Experimental Evaluation

BACKGROUND

Health policy makers and advocates increasingly utilize online resources for policy-relevant knowledge. Knowledge brokering is one potential mechanism to encourage the use of research evidence in policy making, but the mechanisms of knowledge brokerage in online spaces are understudied. This work looks at knowledge brokerage through the launch of Project ASPEN, an online knowledge portal developed in response to a New Jersey legislative act that established a pilot program for adolescent depression screening for young adults in grades 7-12.

OBJECTIVE

This study compares the ability to drive policy brief downloads by policy makers and advocates from the Project ASPEN knowledge portal using a variety of online methods to promote the knowledge portal.

METHODS

The knowledge portal was launched on February 1, 2022, and a Google Ad campaign was run between February 27, 2022, and March 26, 2022. Subsequently, a targeted social media campaign, an email campaign, and tailored research presentations were used to promote the website. Promotional activities ended on May 31, 2022. Website analytics were used to track a variety of actions including new users coming to the website, page views, and policy brief downloads. Statistical analysis was used to assess the efficacy of different approaches.

RESULTS

The campaign generated 2837 unique user visits to the knowledge portal and 4713 page views. In addition, the campaign generated 6.5 policy web page views/day and 0.7 policy brief downloads/day compared with 1.8 views/day and 0.5 downloads/day in the month following the campaign. The rate of policy brief page view conversions was significantly higher for Google Ads compared with other channels such as email (16.0 vs 5.4; P<.001) and tailored research presentations (16.0 vs 0.8; P<.001). The download conversion rate for Google Ads was significantly higher compared with social media (1.2 vs 0.1; P<.001) and knowledge brokering activities (1.2 vs 0.2; P<.001). By contrast, the download conversion rate for the email campaign was significantly higher than that for social media (1.0 vs 0.1; P<.001) and tailored research presentations (1.0 vs 0.2; P<.001). While Google Ads for this campaign cost an average of US $2.09 per click, the cost per conversion was US $11 per conversion to drive targeted policy web page views and US $147 per conversion to drive policy brief downloads. While other approaches drove less traffic, those approaches were more targeted and cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Four tactics were tested to drive user engagement with policy briefs on the Project ASPEN knowledge portal. Google Ads was shown to be effective in driving a high volume of policy web page views but was ineffective in terms of relative costs. More targeted approaches such as email campaigns and tailored research presentations given to policy makers and advocates to promote the use of research evidence on the knowledge portal website are likely to be more effective when balancing goals and cost-effectiveness.

Institutional roles, structures, funding and research partnerships towards evidence-informed policy-making: a multisector survey among policy-makers in Nigeria

BACKGROUND

Evidence-informed policy-making aims to ensure that the best and most relevant evidence is systematically generated and used for policy-making. The aim of this study was to assess institutional structures, funding, policy-maker perspectives on researcher-policy-maker interactions and the use of research evidence in policy-making in five states in Nigeria.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study carried out among 209 participants from two geopolitical zones in Nigeria. Study participants included programme officers/secretaries, managers/department/facility heads and state coordinators/directors/presidents/chairpersons in various ministries and the National Assembly. A pretested semi-structured self-administered questionnaire on a five-point Likert scale was used to collect information on institutional structures for policy and policy-making in participants' organizations, the use of research evidence in policy and policy-making processes, and the status of funding for policy-relevant research in the participants' organizations. Data were analysed using IBM SPSS version 20 software.

RESULTS

The majority of the respondents were older than 45 years (73.2%), were male (63.2) and had spent 5 years or less (74.6%) in their present position. The majority of the respondents' organizations had a policy in place on research involving all key stakeholders (63.6%), integration of stakeholders' views within the policy on research (58.9%) and a forum to coordinate the setting of research priorities (61.2%). A high mean score of 3.26 was found for the use of routine data generated from within the participants' organizations. Funding for policy-relevant research was captured in the budget (mean = 3.47) but was inadequate (mean = 2.53) and mostly donor-driven (mean = 3.64). Funding approval and release/access processes were also reported to be cumbersome, with mean scores of 3.74 and 3.89, respectively. The results showed that capacity existed among career policy-makers and the Department of Planning, Research and Statistics to advocate for internal funds (mean = 3.55) and to attract external funds such as grants (3.76) for policy-relevant research. Interaction as part of the priority-setting process (mean = 3.01) was the most highly rated form of policy-maker-researcher interaction, while long-term partnerships with researchers (mean = 2.61) had the lower mean score. The agreement that involving policy-makers in the planning and execution of programmes could enhance the evidence-to-policy process had the highest score (mean = 4.40).

CONCLUSION

The study revealed that although institutional structures such as institutional policies, fora and stakeholder engagement existed in the organizations studied, there was suboptimal use of evidence obtained from research initiated by both internal and external researchers. Organizations surveyed had budget lines for research, but this funding was depicted as inadequate. There was suboptimal actual participation of policy-makers in the co-creation, production and dissemination of evidence. The implementation of contextually relevant and sustained mutual institutional policy-maker-researcher engagement approaches is needed to promote evidence-informed policy-making. Thus there is a need for institutional prioritization and commitment to research evidence generation.

Health Policy and Systems Research Capacities in Ethiopia and Ghana: Findings From a Self-Assessment

Government investment in strengthening health policy and systems research capacities is needed to enhance the generation of evidence for effective policy making. Researchers’ engagement in the policy-making process helps shape policy-relevant research and support policy-relevant decisions.

Introduction:

Health systems are complex. Policies targeted at health system development may be informed by health policy and systems research (HPSR). This study assesses HPSR capacity to generate evidence and inform policy in Ethiopia and Ghana.

Methods:

We used a mixed-methods approach including a self-administered survey at selected HPSR institutes and in-depth interviews of policy makers.

Results:

Both countries have limited capacity to generate HPSR evidence, especially in terms of mobilizing adequate funding and retaining a critical number of competent researchers who understand complex policy processes, have the skills to influence policy, and know policy makers’ demands for evidence. Common challenges are limited government research funding, rigidity in executing the research budget, and reliance on donor funding that might not respond to national health priorities. There are no large research programs in either country. The annual number of HPSR projects per research institute in Ethiopia (10 projects) was higher than in Ghana (2.5 projects), Ethiopia has a significantly smaller annual budget for health research. Policy makers in the 2 countries increasingly recognize the importance of evidence-informed policy making, but various challenges remain in building effective interactions with HPSR institutes.

Conclusion:

We propose 3 synergistic recommendations to strengthen HPSR capacity in Ethiopia and Ghana. First, strengthen researchers’ capacity and enhance their opportunities to know policy actors; engage with the policy community; and identify and work with policy entrepreneurs, who have attributes, skills, and strategies to achieve a successful policy. Second, deliver policy-relevant research findings in a timely way and embed research into key health programs to guide effective implementation. Third, mobilize local and international funding to strengthen HPSR capacities as well as address challenges with recruiting and retaining a critical number of talented researchers. These recommendations may be applied to other low- and middle-income countries to strengthen HPSR capacities.

Implementing living evidence to inform health decisions: A strategy for building capacity in health sector (Protocol)

Every day important healthcare decisions are made with incomplete or outdated information about the effects of the healthcare interventions available, what delivers the best value for the health system and where more research is needed. It is necessary to invest in strategies that allow access to reliable and updated evidence on which to base health decisions. The objective is to develop and evaluate a strategy for building the capacity among different actors of a country's health system to implement the model known as "Living Evidence" [LE] in the evidence synthesis and dissemination of knowledge transfer [KT] products to inform health decisions. The study will involve professional members of health system organizations in charge of developing KT products to inform health decisions. The project will be developed in three complementary phases: 1) LE-implementation framework development through review of the literature, brainstorming meetings, user testing, and expert consultation; 2) training in LE tools and strategies; 3) developing LE synthesis for KT products by applying the framework to real-life diverse situations. To achieve the capacity-building strategy assessment goal, several surveys and interviews will take place during the process to assess: 1) the LE-implementation framework for the incorporation of LE synthesis in the development of KT products; 2) the training workshops; 3) the whole capacity-building strategy used for health system organizations be able of implementing the LE as part of the KT products they regularly produce. The expected results are an effective capacity-building strategy for health system organizations to implement the living evidence model in different KT products; a LE-implementation framework to be applicable to any country or region to incorporate LE in the KT products; LE synthesis for KT products directly applicable to the real-setting situations; integration of Epistemonikos-L.OVE platform for keeping the LE process in the development and updating of KT products.