Translating Research into Child Health Policy: Aligning Incentives and Building a New Discourse

Research has led to major achievements in public policy and child health. Despite the gains, the need for research to inform policy remains paramount against a backdrop of inadequate public health investments, health inequities, and public skepticism toward science. However, the translation of research into child health policy has often been slow due to misalignments in incentives between researchers and policy makers and a paucity of conceptual models to inform translation. This article outlines barriers to translation, provides examples of discordance between evidence and policy, summarizes models to inform translation, and offers strategies to improve translation of research to policy.

Embracing policy implementation science to ensure translation of evidence to cancer control policy

Although health-related policies are abundant, efforts to understand how to ensure that these policies serve as an effective vehicle for translating scientific evidence are relatively sparse. This paper explores how policy-focused implementation science (IS) may contribute to understanding the translation of scientific evidence to health-related policy in governmental and nongovernmental sectors. Expanding the focus of implementation science in cancer control could systematically address policy to both increase the use of scientific evidence in general and to address health equity. In this Commentary, we look to relevant work outside of IS that could be informative, most notably from the field of political science. We propose several ideas for future research that could help move the field of policy implementation science in cancer control in the USA forward. Although most efforts to increase uptake of the scientific evidence base reference translation to "practice and policy," there has been relatively little emphasis in the USA on implementation at the policy level, especially related to cancer control. If we are to achieve the full benefits of scientific discovery on population and public health, we will need to consider policy as a critical mechanism by which evidence can be translated to practice. We have a robust set of methods within implementation science that are increasing the pace of adoption and maintenance of evidence-based programs in a variety of settings. Building on these efforts, the time is right to expand our focus to include policy implementation.

Challenges and enablers of the embedded researcher model

PURPOSE

The embedded researcher is a healthcare-academic partnership model in which the researcher is engaged as a core member of the healthcare organisation. While this model has potential to support evidence translation, there is a paucity of evidence in relation to the specific challenges and strengths of the model. The aim of this study was to map the barriers and enablers of the model from the perspective of embedded researchers in Australian healthcare settings, and compare the responses of embedded researchers with a primary healthcare versus a primary academic affiliation.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

104 embedded researchers from Australian healthcare organisations completed an online survey. Both purposive and snowball sampling strategies were used to identify current and former embedded researchers. This paper reports on responses to the open-ended questions in relation to barriers and enablers of the role, the available support, and recommendations for change. Thematic analysis was used to describe and interpret the breadth and depth of responses and common themes.

FINDINGS

Key barriers to being an embedded researcher in a public hospital included a lack of research infrastructure and funding in the healthcare organisation, a culture that does not value research, a lack of leadership and support to undertake research, limited access to mentoring and career progression and issues associated with having a dual affiliation. Key enablers included supportive colleagues and executive leaders, personal commitment to research and research collaboration including formal health-academic partnerships.

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS

To support the embedded researcher model, broader system changes are required, including greater investment in research infrastructure and healthcare-academic partnerships with formal agreements. Significant changes are required, so that healthcare organisations appreciate the value of research and support both clinicians and researchers to engage in research that is important to their local population.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

This is the first study to systematically investigate the enablers and challenges of the embedded researcher model.

Reporting quality of European and Croatian health practice guidelines according to the RIGHT reporting checklist

Background

Health practice guidelines (HPGs) are important tools for the translation of evidence into practice. Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) checklist provides guidance on reporting health practice guidelines (HPGs). We assessed the reporting completeness and quality of a set of national (Croatian) and relevant transnational (European) HPGs.

Methods

The national sample included all HPGs published in the official journal of the Croatian Medical Association in 2014–2016. We searched PubMed to identify relevant European guidelines (n = 24). Two independent reviewers assessed the adherence with the items on the RIGHT checklist. Kappa score was used to measure the level of agreement. Frequentist and Bayes statistics Bayes factor (BF₁₀) was used to evaluate the differences between the national and transnational HPGs.

Results

Overall, Croatian and European HPGs adhered to less than 50% of RIGHT checklist items. Croatian HPGs reported a median of 14.0 (95% CI 13.0–15.0) RIGHT reporting items, and European counterparts reported a median of 16.0 (95% CI 14.0–17.2) out of the total of 35 checklist items (Mann Whitney U test, P = 0.048; BF₁₀ = 1.543). European HPGs were better than Croatian HPGs in reporting stakeholder involvement and values and preferences (BF₁₀ = 80.63), as well as describing the implications of costs and resources (BF₁₀ = 55.15). Croatian HPGs better reported HPGs specified aims (BF₁₀ = 16.90), primary intended users (BF₁₀ = 8.70), and sources of funding (BF₁₀ = 122.90). Most insufficiently reported items for both HPG sets were defining the guideline questions and clear outcomes, quality assurance, management of funding and conflicts of interest, and guideline limitations.

Conclusions

Important methodological details are missing from most published HPGs at national and transnational levels. To ensure better quality and adequate use of HPGs, reporting guidelines should be endorsed and used by developers and users alike.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0828-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Simple rules for evidence translation in complex systems: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Ensuring patients benefit from the latest medical and technical advances remains a major challenge, with rational-linear and reductionist approaches to translating evidence into practice proving inefficient and ineffective. Complexity thinking, which emphasises interconnectedness and unpredictability, offers insights to inform evidence translation theories and strategies. Drawing on detailed insights into complex micro-systems, this research aimed to advance empirical and theoretical understanding of the reality of making and sustaining improvements in complex healthcare systems.

METHODS

Using analytical auto-ethnography, including documentary analysis and literature review, we assimilated learning from 5 years of observation of 22 evidence translation projects (UK). We used a grounded theory approach to develop substantive theory and a conceptual framework. Results were interpreted using complexity theory and 'simple rules' were identified reflecting the practical strategies that enhanced project progress.

RESULTS

The framework for Successful Healthcare Improvement From Translating Evidence in complex systems (SHIFT-Evidence) positions the challenge of evidence translation within the dynamic context of the health system. SHIFT-Evidence is summarised by three strategic principles, namely (1) 'act scientifically and pragmatically' - knowledge of existing evidence needs to be combined with knowledge of the unique initial conditions of a system, and interventions need to adapt as the complex system responds and learning emerges about unpredictable effects; (2) 'embrace complexity' - evidence-based interventions only work if related practices and processes of care within the complex system are functional, and evidence-translation efforts need to identify and address any problems with usual care, recognising that this typically includes a range of interdependent parts of the system; and (3) 'engage and empower' - evidence translation and system navigation requires commitment and insights from staff and patients with experience of the local system, and changes need to align with their motivations and concerns. Twelve associated 'simple rules' are presented to provide actionable guidance to support evidence translation and improvement in complex systems.

CONCLUSION

By recognising how agency, interconnectedness and unpredictability influences evidence translation in complex systems, SHIFT-Evidence provides a tool to guide practice and research. The 'simple rules' have potential to provide a common platform for academics, practitioners, patients and policymakers to collaborate when intervening to achieve improvements in healthcare.

Can a community of practice enhance a palliative approach for people drawing close to death with dementia?

This action research study was conducted to trial a strategy intended to support a consistent, high-quality, palliative approach for people with dementia drawing close to death-the implementation of a community of practice. Professionals from community/residential care and hospitals formed this community of practice, which took on the role of an action research group. The group was supported to identify and address practice problems. Four action plans were implemented; outcomes from two are reported. When actioning the plan 'providing education and information for the staff', the staff's ratings of sessions and resources were positive but impacts upon knowledge, views, or confidence were small. When actioning 'supporting families', families providing care in non-hospital settings received information about severe dementia from suitably prepared staff, plus contact details to access support. Family feedback was primarily positive. Reference to additional practice change frameworks and inclusion of specialist palliative care professionals are recommendations for future initiatives; also focusing on targeted, achievable goals over longer timeframes.

Guest editors' introduction to the special section on information technology and evidence implementation

Healthcare is experiencing a transformation-perhaps as significant as the publication of the first randomized controlled trial-in the ways in which basic discovery is translated into effective practice. The change is being precipitated by efforts to undergird the healthcare industry with the same transformational capacities from information technology as is afforded to other sectors in the economy. Although the transformation has been slow in materializing, change is expected to accelerate under the stimulating influence of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. As the changes ripple throughout the healthcare sector, two aspects of medical care in the twenty-first century are expected to rise in importance: data and behavior. Each of the articles within this inaugural issue of Translational Behavioral Medicine has been selected to illustrate treatment of these two assets in one way or another. The editors hope this first issue will serve as a vanguard illustration for how behavioral scientists can be included as integral members of the design team in creating a new platform for evidence implementation in the USA and abroad.