Evidence-informed Policymaking Research Articles

불확실성을 대처하는 증거영향행정: 멘탈모델, 증거, 불확실성의 상호관계에 대한 서설적 이해

불확실성을 대처하는 증거영향행정: 멘탈모델, 증거, 불확실성의 상호관계에 대한 서설적 이해

What factors affect evidence-informed policymaking in public health? Protocol for a systematic review of qualitative evidence using thematic synthesis.

BackgroundClaims of and calls for evidence-informed policymaking pervade public health journals and the literature of governments and global health agencies, yet our knowledge of the arrangements most conducive to the appropriate use of evidence is incomplete and fragmented. Designing interventions to encourage evidence use by policymakers requires an understanding of the processes through which officials access, assess and use research, including technical and political factors related to evidence uptake, and the ways in which the policymaking context can affect these processes. This review aims to systematically locate, synthesise and interpret the existing qualitative work on the process of evidence use in public health policymaking, with the aim of producing an empirically derived taxonomy of factors affecting evidence use.Methods/designThis review will include primary qualitative studies that examined the use of research evidence by policymakers to inform decisions about public health. To locate studies, we will search nine bibliographic databases, hand-search nine public health and policy journals and scan the websites of relevant organisations and the reference lists of previous reviews of evidence use in policymaking. Two reviewers will independently screen studies, apply inclusion criteria and appraise the quality of included studies. Data will be coded inductively and analysed using thematic synthesis. An augmented version of the CASP Qualitative Checklist will be used to appraise included studies, and the CERQual tool will be used to assess confidence in the review’s findings. The review’s results will be presented narratively and in tabular form. Synthesis findings will be summarised as a taxonomy of factors affecting evidence use in public health policymaking. A conceptual framework explaining the relationships between key factors will be proposed. Implications and recommendations for policy, practice and future research will be discussed.DiscussionThis review will be the most comprehensive to date to synthesise the qualitative literature on evidence use by public health policymakers and will be the first to apply a formal method of qualitative metasynthesis to this body of evidence. Its results will be useful both to scholars of evidence use and knowledge translation and to decision-makers and academics attempting to influence public health policy.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0240-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Analysing key influences over actors' use of evidence in developing policies and strategies in Nigeria: a retrospective study of the Integrated Maternal Newborn and Child Health strategy.

BackgroundEvidence-informed policymaking has been promoted as a means of ensuring better outcomes. However, what counts as evidence in policymaking lies within a spectrum of expert knowledge and scientifically generated information. Since not all forms of evidence share an equal validity or weighting for policymakers, it is important to understand the key factors that influence their preferences for different types of evidence in policy and strategy development.MethodA retrospective study was carried out at the national level in Nigeria using a case-study approach to examine the Nigerian Integrated Maternal Newborn and Child Health (IMNCH) strategy. Two frameworks were used for conceptualization and data analysis, namely (1) to analyse the role of evidence in policymaking and (2) the policy triangle. They were used to explore the key contextual and participatory influences on choice of evidence in developing the IMNCH strategy. Data was collected through review of relevant national documents and in-depth interviews of purposively selected key policy and strategic decision makers. Thematic analysis was applied to generate information from collected data.ResultsThe breadth of evidence used was wide, ranging from expert opinions to systematic reviews. The choice of different types of evidence was found to overlap across actor categories. Key influences over actors’ choice of evidence were: (1) perceived robustness of evidence – comprehensive, representative, recent, scientifically sound; (2) roles in evidence process, i.e. their degree and level of participation in evidence generation and dissemination, with regards to their role in the policy process; and (3) contextual factors such as global agenda and influence, timeline for strategy development, availability of resources for evidence generation, and lessons learnt from previous unsuccessful policies/plans.ConclusionActors’ preferences for different types of evidence for policy are influenced not only by the characteristics of evidence itself, but on actors’ roles in the evidence process, their power to influence the policy, and the context in which evidence is used.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0098-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Enhancing evidence informed policymaking in complex health systems: lessons from multi-site collaborative approaches.

BackgroundThere is an increasing interest worldwide to ensure evidence-informed health policymaking as a means to improve health systems performance. There is a need to engage policymakers in collaborative approaches to generate and use knowledge in real world settings. To address this gap, we implemented two interventions based on iterative exchanges between researchers and policymakers/implementers. This article aims to reflect on the implementation and impact of these multi-site evidence-to-policy approaches implemented in low-resource settings.MethodsThe first approach was implemented in Mexico and Nicaragua and focused on implementation research facilitated by communities of practice (CoP) among maternal health stakeholders. We conducted a process evaluation of the CoPs and assessed the professionals’ abilities to acquire, analyse, adapt and apply research. The second approach, called the Policy BUilding Demand for evidence in Decision making through Interaction and Enhancing Skills (Policy BUDDIES), was implemented in South Africa and Cameroon. The intervention put forth a ‘buddying’ process to enhance demand and use of systematic reviews by sub-national policymakers. The Policy BUDDIES initiative was assessed using a mixed-methods realist evaluation design.ResultsIn Mexico, the implementation research supported by CoPs triggered monitoring by local health organizations of the quality of maternal healthcare programs. Health programme personnel involved in CoPs in Mexico and Nicaragua reported improved capacities to identify and use evidence in solving implementation problems. In South Africa, Policy BUDDIES informed a policy framework for medication adherence for chronic diseases, including both HIV and non-communicable diseases. Policymakers engaged in the buddying process reported an enhanced recognition of the value of research, and greater demand for policy-relevant knowledge.ConclusionsThe collaborative evidence-to-policy approaches underline the importance of iterations and continuity in the engagement of researchers and policymakers/programme managers, in order to account for swift evolutions in health policy planning and implementation. In developing and supporting evidence-to-policy interventions, due consideration should be given to fit-for-purpose approaches, as different needs in policymaking cycles require adapted processes and knowledge. Greater consideration should be provided to approaches embedding the use of research in real-world policymaking, better suited to the complex adaptive nature of health systems.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0089-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The development of SAGE: A tool to evaluate how policymakers’ engage with and use research in health policymaking

It is essential that health policies are based on the best available evidence including that from research, to ensure their effectiveness in terms of both cost and health outcomes for the wider community. The present study describes the development of SAGE (Staff Assessment of enGagement with Evidence), a measure that combines an interview and document analysis to evaluate how policymakers engaged with research (i.e., how research was searched for, appraised, or generated, and whether interactions with researchers occurred), how policymakers used research (i.e., conceptually, instrumentally, tactically, or imposed), and what barriers impacted upon the use of research, in the development of a specific policy product. A multifaceted strategy was used to develop the SAGE interview and the accompanying interview-scoring tool. These included consultations with experts in health policy and research, review and analysis of the literature on evidence-informed policymaking and previous measures of research use, qualitative analysis of interviews with policymakers, and pilot-testing with senior policymakers. These steps led to the development of a comprehensive interview and scoring tool that captures and evaluates a broad range of key actions policymakers perform when searching for, appraising, generating, and using research to inform a specific policy product. Policy organizations can use SAGE to not only provide a thorough evaluation of their current level of research engagement and use, but to help shed light on programs to improve their research use capacity, and evaluate the success of these programs in improving the development of evidence-informed policies.

Towards Evidence-Informed Policymaking in Physical Activity

There is strong evidence for physical activity enhancing health; also prominent calls were presented in the recent Lancet Series for Physical Activity to build policies and supporting daily living environment to sustain physical activity [1]. Papers also in this journal deal with interventions to increase physical activity [2,3]. Even when we do have accumulating research evidence on contextual factors being important to physical activity, it has proved difficult to integrate research evidence with real-life policymaking. One reason for this is that compared to clinical field mostly dealing with individuals, in policymaking, research evidence is seldom the driving force; instead, ‘other kinds of evidence’ such as local population characteristics, local values, priorities, and resources play an important role [4]. Applying research evidence to enhance physical activity in policies e.g. building a bicycle lane in a city needs to happen in collaboration and on equal footing between research producers and policy stakeholders. This kind of collaborative policymaking is called evidence-informed instead of evidence-based, meaning that research evidence only informs policymaking.

Prevalence of Chronic Kidney Disease in Korea: the Korean National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey 2011-2013.

Chronic kidney disease is a leading public health problem related to poor quality of life and premature death. As a resource for evidence-informed health policy-making, we evaluated the prevalence of chronic kidney disease using the data of non-institutionalized adults aged ≥ 20 years (n = 15,319) from the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in 2011–2013. Chronic kidney disease was defined as a urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio ≥ 30 mg/g or an estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 using the Chronic Kidney Disease-Epidemiology Collaboration equation. The total prevalence estimate of chronic kidney disease for adults aged ≥ 20 years in Korea was 8.2%. By disease stage, the prevalence of chronic kidney disease was as follows: stage 1, 3.0%; stage 2, 2.7%; stage 3a, 1.9%; stage 3b, 0.4%; and stages 4–5, 0.2%. When grouped into three risk categories according to the 2012 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes guidelines, the proportions for the moderately increased risk, high risk, and very high risk categories were 6.5%, 1.2%, and 0.5%, respectively. Factors including older age, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, body mass indexes of ≥ 25 kg/m2 and < 18.5 kg/m2, and rural residential area were independently associated with chronic kidney disease. Based on this comprehensive analysis, evidence-based screening strategies for chronic kidney disease in the Korean population should be developed to optimize prevention and early intervention of chronic kidney disease and its associated risk factors.

The development of ORACLe: a measure of an organisation's capacity to engage in evidence-informed health policy.

BackgroundEvidence-informed policymaking is more likely if organisations have cultures that promote research use and invest in resources that facilitate staff engagement with research. Measures of organisations’ research use culture and capacity are needed to assess current capacity, identify opportunities for improvement, and examine the impact of capacity-building interventions. The aim of the current study was to develop a comprehensive system to measure and score organisations’ capacity to engage with and use research in policymaking, which we entitled ORACLe (Organisational Research Access, Culture, and Leadership).MethodWe used a multifaceted approach to develop ORACLe. Firstly, we reviewed the available literature to identify key domains of organisational tools and systems that may facilitate research use by staff. We interviewed senior health policymakers to verify the relevance and applicability of these domains. This information was used to generate an interview schedule that focused on seven key domains of organisational capacity. The interview was pilot-tested within four Australian policy agencies. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was then undertaken using an expert sample to establish the relative importance of these domains. This data was used to produce a scoring system for ORACLe.ResultsThe ORACLe interview was developed, comprised of 23 questions addressing seven domains of organisational capacity and tools that support research use, including (1) documented processes for policymaking; (2) leadership training; (3) staff training; (4) research resources (e.g. database access); and systems to (5) generate new research, (6) undertake evaluations, and (7) strengthen relationships with researchers. From the DCE data, a conditional logit model was estimated to calculate total scores that took into account the relative importance of the seven domains. The model indicated that our expert sample placed the greatest importance on domains (2), (3) and (4).ConclusionWe utilised qualitative and quantitative methods to develop a system to assess and score organisations’ capacity to engage with and apply research to policy. Our measure assesses a broad range of capacity domains and identifies the relative importance of these capacities. ORACLe data can be used by organisations keen to increase their use of evidence to identify areas for further development.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-015-0069-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

David Sackett's Unintended Impacts on Health Policy.

David (Dave) Sackett’s death in May 2015 prompted much public reflection about his legacy for the practice of medicine, yet his legacy extends well beyond clinical practice to the fields of public health and health systems and the broad domain of health policy, including policies for clinical care (eg, listing prescription drugs on a public formulary), policies for public health (eg, mandating immunizations for toddlers), and policies for health systems (eg, setting the scope of practice for pharmacists). All these were topics that Dave never addressed directly, although many others did address them using approaches that he had pioneered or championed. Our focus here is on Dave’s legacy for health policy, which was, as far as either of us knows, both unintended and unappreciated by him. We cite 4 examples of how Dave’s contributions to the evidence-based medicine (EBM) movement1—which he would be the first to acknowledge that he made alongside many other giants in the field (a number of whom he trained and mentored)—cleared the path for what became the pursuit of evidence-informed health policymaking.

Evolving data use policy in Trinidad and Tobago: the search for actionable knowledge on educational improvement in a small island developing state

This paper presents a single-country case study of the use of large scale assessment (LSA) data to generate actionable knowledge at school and system levels. Actionable knowledge is data-informed insight into school and system processes that can be used to direct corrective action. The analysis is framed from the perspective of the country’s evolving national policy on data use for educational improvement between 1990 and 2013. Trinidad and Tobago first participated in international large scale assessments (ILSAs) in 1991 but also developed a centralized system of national large scale assessments (NLSAs) in 2004. Analyses of both datasets consistently pointed to low quality and high inequality as the main actionable issues in the education system. NLSA data also hinted at notable variation in performance across schools and education districts. Analyses for and of policy point to the need for multiple school performance measures to better inform site-based, formative action. Over the period, actionable knowledge appears to have had greater impact at school level, with evidence being used by some low-performing schools to improve. However, at the system level, the frequent non-use and misuse of actionable knowledge suggest the need to promote and strengthen structures and processes related to evidence-informed policy-making.

Evidence-informed policy formulation and implementation: a comparative case study of two national policies for improving health and social care in Sweden

BackgroundEvidence has come to play a central role in health policymaking. However, policymakers tend to use other types of information besides research evidence. Most prior studies on evidence-informed policy have focused on the policy formulation phase without a systematic analysis of its implementation. It has been suggested that in order to fully understand the policy process, the analysis should include both policy formulation and implementation. The purpose of the study was to explore and compare two policies aiming to improve health and social care in Sweden and to empirically test a new conceptual model for evidence-informed policy formulation and implementation.MethodsTwo concurrent national policies were studied during the entire policy process using a longitudinal, comparative case study approach. Data was collected through interviews, observations, and documents. A Conceptual Model for Evidence-Informed Policy Formulation and Implementation was developed based on prior frameworks for evidence-informed policymaking and policy dissemination and implementation. The conceptual model was used to organize and analyze the data.ResultsThe policies differed regarding the use of evidence in the policy formulation and the extent to which the policy formulation and implementation phases overlapped. Similarities between the cases were an emphasis on capacity assessment, modified activities based on the assessment, and a highly active implementation approach relying on networks of stakeholders. The Conceptual Model for Evidence-Informed Policy Formulation and Implementation was empirically useful to organize the data.ConclusionsThe policy actors’ roles and functions were found to have a great influence on the choices of strategies and collaborators in all policy phases. The Conceptual Model for Evidence-Informed Policy Formulation and Implementation was found to be useful. However, it provided insufficient guidance for analyzing actors involved in the policy process, capacity-building strategies, and overlapping policy phases. A revised version of the model that includes these aspects is suggested.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0359-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Print media coverage of primary healthcare and related research evidence in South Africa.

BackgroundThe news media is located at the nexus of the public and policy agendas and provides a window into issues concerning the public. Therefore, it could be a powerful tool for advocating for citizens’ health and could help promote evidence-based primary health systems responsive to the needs of citizens. However, research on the coverage of primary healthcare and related research evidence in the South African print media is virtually non-existent.MethodsWe examined 2,077 news stories that covered primary healthcare from 25 South African newspapers retrieved from the Lexis-Nexis online archive over a 16-year period (1997–2012). We analysed basic characteristics and conducted a content analysis of the news stories.ResultsOf the 2,077 news stories that mentioned primary healthcare, this was the main focus in 8.3% (n = 173). Of these, 45.7% discussed issues relating to clinics, whereas issues relating to community health workers and nurses were covered by 42.8% and 34.1% of news stories, respectively. The number of news stories discussing infectious diseases (55.5%) was more than twice the number discussing non-communicable diseases (21.4%). HIV/AIDS/TB illness- and service-related issues were covered by 54.3% of news stories and social determinants of health by 22%. Issues relating to how healthcare is organised to deliver services to the people received substantial coverage in the print media, with 72.8% discussing delivery arrangements, 72.3% governance arrangements, and 55% financial arrangements. A small fraction of news stories (7.5%) discussed research studies but none discussed a systematic review.ConclusionOur study underscores the potential role of media analyses in illuminating patterns in print media coverage of health issues. It also shows that an understanding of coverage of health research evidence could help spur efforts to support the climate for evidence-informed health policymaking. Researchers in low- and middle-income countries need to be more proactive in making use of media analyses to help illuminate health related issues that require the attention of health policymakers, stakeholders and reporters, and to identify potential areas of research.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-015-0051-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Evidence-informed policymaking in practice: country-level examples of use of evidence for iCCM policy.

Integrated Community Case Management of Childhood Illness (iCCM) is a policy for providing treatment for malaria, diarrhoea and pneumonia for children below 5 years at the community level, which is generating increasing evidence and support at the global level. As countries move to adopt iCCM, it becomes important to understand how this growing evidence base is viewed and used by national stakeholders. This article explores whether, how and why evidence influenced policy formulation for iCCM in Niger, Kenya and Mozambique, and uses Carol Weiss’ models of research utilization to further explain the use of evidence in these contexts. A documentary review and in-depth stakeholder interviews were conducted as part of retrospective case studies in each study country. Findings indicate that all three countries used national monitoring data to identify the issue of children dying in the community prior to reaching health facilities, whereas international research evidence was used to identify policy options. Nevertheless, policymakers greatly valued local evidence and pilot projects proved critical in advancing iCCM. World Health Organization and United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) functioned as knowledge brokers, bringing research evidence and experiences from other countries to the attention of local policymakers as well as sponsoring site visits and meetings. In terms of country-specific findings, Niger demonstrated both Interactive and Political models of research utilization by using iCCM to capitalize on the existing health infrastructure. Both Mozambique and Kenya exhibit Problem-Solving research utilization with different outcomes. Furthermore, the persistent quest for additional evidence suggests a Tactical use of research in Kenya. Results presented here indicate that while evidence from research studies and other contexts can be critical to policy development, local evidence is often needed to answer key policymaker questions. In the end, evidence may not be enough to overcome resistance if the policy is viewed as incompatible with national goals.

Understanding food policy change in Ghana

Evidence-based policy-making has become a critical aspect of development strategy in developing countries. Yet the assumption that policymakers will automatically use available evidence may not be valid in all contexts. To influence positive policy change requires an understanding of the unique policy process and drivers of policy change in the context of a particular country and sector. Strengthening the capacity of key agricultural policy stakeholders can facilitate evidence-informed policy-making. This article documents an approach to strengthening the capacity of parliamentarians in Ghana. It attempts to measure to what extent such investments could lead to informed policy-making to promote poverty reduction. Lessons are drawn from a group of Ghanaian parliamentarians following an exposure and learning visit to India.

Using conjoint analysis to develop a system of scoring policymakers' use of research in policy and program development.

BackgroundThe importance of utilising the best available research evidence in the development of health policies, services, and programs is increasingly recognised, yet few standardised systems for quantifying policymakers’ research use are available. We developed a comprehensive measurement and scoring tool that assesses four domains of research use (i.e. instrumental, conceptual, tactical, and imposed). The scoring tool breaks down each domain into its key subactions like a checklist. Our aim was to develop a tool that assigned appropriate scores to each subaction based on its relative importance to undertaking evidence-informed health policymaking. In order to establish the relative importance of each research use subaction and generate this scoring system, we conducted conjoint analysis with a sample of knowledge translation experts.MethodsFifty-four experts were recruited to undertake four choice surveys. Respondents were shown combinations of research use subactions called profiles, and rated on a 1 to 9 scale whether each profile represented a limited (1–3), moderate (4–6), or extensive (7–9) example of research use. Generalised Estimating Equations were used to analyse respondents’ choice data, which calculated a utility coefficient for each subaction. A large utility coefficient indicated that a subaction was particularly influential in guiding experts’ ratings of extensive research use.ResultsUtility coefficients were calculated for each subaction, which became the points assigned to the subactions in the scoring system. The following subactions yielded the largest utilities and were regarded as the most important components of each research use domain: using research to directly influence the core of the policy decision; using research to inform alternative perspectives to deal with the policy issue; using research to persuade targeted stakeholders to support a predetermined decision; and using research because it was a mandated requirement by the policymaker’s organisation.ConclusionsWe have generated an empirically derived and context-sensitive means of measuring and scoring the extent to which policymakers used research to inform the development of a policy document. The scoring system can be used by organisations to not only quantify the extent of their research use, but also to provide them with insights into potential strategies to improve subsequent research use.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-015-0022-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Is the quality of primary healthcare services influenced by the healthcare centre's type of ownership?-An observational study of patient perceived quality, prescription rates and follow-up routines in privately and publicly owned primary care centres.

BackgroundPrimary healthcare in Sweden has undergone comprehensive reforms, including freedom of choice regarding provider, freedom of establishment and increased privatisation aiming to meet demands for quality and availability. In this system privately and publicly owned primary care centres with different business models (for-profit vs non-profit) coexist and compete for patients, which makes it important to study whether or not the type of ownership influences the quality of the primary healthcare services.MethodsIn this retrospective observational study (April 2011 to January 2014) the patient perceived quality, the use of antibiotics and benzodiazepine derivatives, and the follow-up routines of certain chronic diseases were analysed for all primary care centres in Region Västra Götaland. The outcome measures were compared on a group level between privately owned (n = 86) and publicly owned (n = 114) primary care centres (PCC).ResultsIn comparison with the group of publicly owned PCCs, the group of privately owned PCCs were characterized by: a smaller, but continuously growing share of the population served (from 32 to 36 %); smaller PCC population sizes (avg. 5932 vs. 9432 individuals); a higher fraction of PCCs located in urban areas (57 % vs 35 %); a higher fraction of listed citizens in working age (62 % vs. 56 %) and belonging to the second most affluent socioeconomic quintile (26 % vs. 14 %); higher perceived patient quality (82.4 vs. 79.6 points); higher use of antibiotics (6.0 vs. 5.1 prescriptions per 100 individuals in a quarter); lower use of benzodiazepines (DDD per 100 patients/month) for 20–74 year olds (278 vs. 306) and >74 year olds (1744 vs.1791); lower rates for follow-ups of chronic diseases (71.2 % vs 74.6 %). While antibiotic use decreased, the use of benzodiazepines increased for both groups over time.ConclusionsThe findings of this study cannot unambiguously answer the question of whether or not the quality is influenced by the healthcare centre’s type of ownership. It can be questioned whether the reform created conditions that encouraged quality improvements. Tendencies of an (unintended) unequal distribution of the population between the two groups with disparities in age, socio-economy and geography might lead to unpredictable effects. Further studies are necessary for evidence-informed policy-making.

Enhancing the Capacity of Policy-Makers to Develop Evidence-Informed Policy Brief on Infectious Diseases of Poverty in Nigeria.

The lack of effective use of research evidence in policy-making is a major challenge in most low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). There is need to package research data into effective policy tools that will help policy-makers to make evidence-informed policy regarding infectious diseases of poverty (IDP). The objective of this study was to assess the usefulness of training workshops and mentoring to enhance the capacity of Nigerian health policy-makers to develop evidence-informed policy brief on the control of IDP. A modified "before and after" intervention study design was used in which outcomes were measured on the target participants both before the intervention is implemented and after. A 4-point Likert scale according to the degree of adequacy; 1 = "grossly inadequate," 4 = "very adequate" was employed. The main parameter measured was participants' perceptions of their own knowledge/understanding. This study was conducted at subnational level and the participants were the career health policy-makers drawn from Ebonyi State in the South-Eastern Nigeria. A one-day evidence-to-policy workshop was organized to enhance the participants' capacity to develop evidence-informed policy brief on IDP in Ebonyi State. Topics covered included collaborative initiative; preparation and use of policy briefs; policy dialogue; ethics in health policy-making; and health policy and politics. The preworkshop mean of knowledge and capacity ranged from 2.49-3.03, while the postworkshop mean ranged from 3.42-3.78 on 4-point scale. The percentage increase in mean of knowledge and capacity at the end of the workshop ranged from 20.10%-45%. Participants were divided into 3 IDP mentorship groups (malaria, schistosomiasis, lymphatic filariasis [LF]) and were mentored to identify potential policy options/recommendations for control of the diseases for the policy briefs. These policy options were subjected to research evidence synthesis by each group to identify the options that have the support of research evidence (mostly systematic reviews) from PubMed, Cochrane database and Google Scholar. After the evidence synthesis, five policy options were selected out of 13 for malaria, 3 out of 10 for schistosomiasis and 5 out of 11 for LF. The outcome suggests that an evidence-to-policy capacity enhancement workshop combined with a mentorship programme can improve policy-makers' capacity for evidence-informed policy-making (EIP).

Using conjoint analysis to develop a system to score research engagement actions by health decision makers.

BackgroundEffective use of research to inform policymaking can be strengthened by policymakers undertaking various research engagement actions (e.g., accessing, appraising, and applying research). Consequently, we developed a thorough measurement and scoring tool to assess whether and how policymakers undertook research engagement actions in the development of a policy document. This scoring tool breaks down each research engagement action into its key ‘subactions’ like a checklist. The primary aim was to develop the scoring tool further so that it assigned appropriate scores to each subaction based on its effectiveness for achieving evidence-informed policymaking. To establish the relative effectiveness of these subactions, we conducted a conjoint analysis, which was used to elicit the opinions and preferences of knowledge translation experts.MethodFifty-four knowledge translation experts were recruited to undertake six choice surveys. Respondents were exposed to combinations of research engagement subactions called ‘profiles’, and rated on a 1–9 scale whether each profile represented a limited (1–3), moderate (4–6), or extensive (7–9) example of each research engagement action. Generalised estimating equations were used to analyse respondents’ choice data, where a utility coefficient was calculated for each subaction. A large utility coefficient indicates that a subaction was influential in guiding experts’ ratings of extensive engagement with research.ResultsThe calculated utilities were used as the points assigned to the subactions in the scoring system. The following subactions yielded the largest utilities and were regarded as the most important components of engaging with research: searching academic literature databases, obtaining systematic reviews and peer-reviewed research, appraising relevance by verifying its applicability to the policy context, appraising quality by evaluating the validity of the method and conclusions, engaging in thorough collaborations with researchers, and undertaking formal research projects to inform the policy in question.ConclusionsWe have generated an empirically-derived and context-sensitive method of measuring and scoring the extent to which policymakers engaged with research to inform policy development. The scoring system can be used by organisations to quantify staff research engagement actions and thus provide them with insights into what types of training, systems, and tools might improve their staff’s research use capacity.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-015-0013-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Media and evidence-informed policy development: the case of mental health in Australia

This article draws together theory from political science, media, and science and technology studies to examine the past, present and possible future roles of ‘media’ in influencing evidence-informed policy-making in mental health in Australia. The authors develop a nuanced understanding of the role that media framing, focussing events and participation have played in the evolution of mental health policy. Media are shown to influence evidence utilisation in policy development in complex ways. The authors consider how the global circulation of ideas that media enable affects policy issues within national jurisdictions. Their findings are relevant to policy issues in areas where media are deliberately used both to achieve individual behaviour change and influence policy.

A call for a backward design to knowledge translation.

Despite several calls to support evidence-informed policy-making, variations in uptake of evidence into policy persist. This editorial brings together and builds on previous Knowledge Translation (KT) frameworks and theories to present a simple, yet, holistic approach for promoting evidence-informed policies. The proposed conceptual framework is characterized by its impact-oriented approach and its view of KT as a continuum from the evidence synthesis stage to uptake and evaluation, while highlighting capacity and resource requirement at every step. A practical example is given to guide readers through the different steps of the framework. With a growing interest in strengthening evidence-informed policy-making, there is a need to continuously develop theories to understand and improve the science of KT and its implementation within the field of policy-making.