Research Evidence In Policy Research Articles

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

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. 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. 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. 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.

Connecting the dots: Adoption of maternal, newborn and child health research evidence in policy and practice.

Connecting the dots: Adoption of maternal, newborn and child health research evidence in policy and practice.

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

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. 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. 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. 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. 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

BackgroundEvidence-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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsThe 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).ConclusionThe 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.

Decision Maker's Experiences with Rapid Evidence Summaries to Support Real-time Evidence-Informed Decision Making in Crises: A Mixed Methods Study

Introduction:There is a clear need for research evidence to drive policymaking and emergency responses so lives are saved and resources are not wasted. The need for evidence support for health and humanitarian crisis is pertinent because of the time and practical constraints that decision makers in these settings face. To improve the use of research evidence in policy and practice, it is important to provide evidence resources tailored to the target audience. This study aims to gain real-world insights from decision makers about how they use evidence summaries to inform real-time decision making in crisis settings, and to use the findings to improve the format of evidence summaries.Method:This study used an explanatory sequential mixed method study design. First, a survey was used to identify the views and experiences of those who were directly involved in crisis response in different contexts, and who may or may not have used evidence summaries. Second, the insights generated from the survey helped inform qualitative interviews with decision makers in crisis-settings to derive an in-depth understanding of how they use evidence summaries and their desired format for evidence summaries.Results:Twenty-six decision-makers working in health and humanitarian emergencies were interviewed. The study identified challenges decision makers face when trying to find and use research evidence in crises, including insufficient time and increased burden of responsibilities during crises. Decision makers preferred the following components in evidence summaries: title, target audience, presentation of key findings in an actionable checklist, implementation considerations, and assessment of the quality of evidence presented. The study developed an evidence summary template with accompanying training material to inform real-time decision making in crisis settings.Conclusion:The study provided a deeper understanding of the preferences of decision-makers working in health and humanitarian emergencies regarding the format of evidence summaries to enable real-time evidence-informed decision-making.

Decision-makers’ experiences with rapid evidence summaries to support real-time evidence informed decision-making in crises: a mixed methods study

BackgroundThere is a clear need for research evidence to drive policymaking and emergency responses so that lives are saved and resources are not wasted. The need for evidence support for health and humanitarian crisis is even more pertinent because of the time and practical constraints that decision-makers in these settings face. To improve the use of research evidence in policy and practice, it is important to provide evidence resources tailored to the target audience. This study aims to gain real-world insights from decision-makers about how they use evidence summaries to inform real-time decision-making in crisis-settings, and to use our findings to improve the format of evidence summaries.MethodsThis study used an explanatory sequential mixed method study design. First, we used a survey to identify the views and experiences of those who were directly involved in crisis response in different contexts, and who may or may not have used evidence summaries. Second, we used the insights generated from the survey to help inform qualitative interviews with decision-makers in crisis-settings to derive an in-depth understanding of how they use evidence summaries and their desired format for evidence summaries.ResultsWe interviewed 26 decision-makers working in health and humanitarian emergencies. The study identified challenges decision-makers face when trying to find and use research evidence in crises, including insufficient time and increased burden of responsibilities during crises, limited access to reliable internet connection, large volume of data not translated into user friendly summaries, and little information available on preparedness and response measures. Decision-makers preferred the following components in evidence summaries: title, target audience, presentation of key findings in an actionable checklist or infographic format, implementation considerations, assessment of the quality of evidence presented, citation and hyperlink to the full review, funding sources, language of full review, and other sources of information on the topic. Our study developed an evidence summary template with accompanying training material to inform real-time decision-making in crisis-settings.ConclusionsOur study provided a deeper understanding of the preferences of decision-makers working in health and humanitarian emergencies about the format of evidence summaries to enable real-time evidence informed decision-making.

Reflections on the Use of Evidence in Child Welfare: A Commentary on Barth et al.

To create a child welfare system that meets the needs of abused and neglected children, it is essential to critically evaluate core claims and assumptions about how the current child welfare system operates and its impacts on children and families. Yet, misleading and false claims are frequently repeated in academic, professional, and media outlets. Barth and colleagues (2021) sought to name and evaluate some of these claims, reasserting the central role of research evidence in policy and practice debates. In this commentary, I argue that a commitment to “consider the evidence” may do little to improve the quality of policies or practices in the child welfare system. Rather, I assert that because research findings are commonly mischaracterized and overgeneralized, we are left with widespread disagreement about what to conclude from existing research and how certain those conclusions are.

Simulating the role of knowledge brokers in policy making in state agencies: An agent-based model.

To model children's mental health policy making dynamics and simulate the impacts of knowledge broker interventions. Primary data from surveys (n=221) and interviews (n=64) conducted in 2019-2021 with mental health agency (MHA) officials in state agencies. A prototype agent-based model (ABM) was developed using the PARTE (Properties, Actions, Rules, Time, Environment) framework and informed through primary data collection. In each simulation, a policy is randomly generated (salience weights: cost, contextual alignment, and strength of evidence) and discussed among agents. Agents are MHA officials and heterogenous in their properties (policy making power and network influence) and policy preferences (based on salience weights). Knowledge broker interventions add agents to the MHA social network who primarily focus on the policy's research evidence. A sequential explanatory mixed method approach was used. Descriptive and regression analyses were used for the survey data and directed content analysis was used to code interview data. Triangulated results informed ABM development. In the ABM, policy makers with various degrees of decision influence interact in a scale-free network before and after knowledge broker interventions. Over time, each decides to support or oppose a policy proposal based on policy salience weights and their own properties and interactions. The main outcome is an agency-level decision based on policy maker support. Each intervention and baseline simulation runs 250 times across 50 timesteps. Surveys and interviews revealed that barriers to research use could be addressed by knowledge brokers. Simulations indicated that policy decision outcomes varied by policy making context within agencies. This is the first application of ABM to evidence-informed mental health policy making. Results suggest that the presence of knowledge brokers can: (1) influence consensus formation in MHAs, (2) accelerate policy decisions, and (3) increase the likelihood of evidence-informed policy adoption.

Mapping the community: use of research evidence in policy and practice

The use of research evidence (URE) in policy and practice is relevant to many academic disciplines, as well as policy and practice domains. Although there has been increased attention to how such evidence is used, those engaged in scholarship and practice in this area face challenges in advancing the field. This paper attempts to “map the field” with the objective of provoking conversation about where we are and what we need to move forward. Utilizing survey data from scholars, practitioners, and funders connected to the study of the use of research evidence, we explore the extent to which URE work span traditional boundaries of research, practice, and policy, of different practice/policy fields, and of different disciplines. Descriptive and network analyses point to the boundary spanning and multidisciplinarity of this community, but also suggest exclusivity, as well as fragmentation among disciplines and literatures on which this work builds. We conclude with opportunities for to improve the connectedness, inclusiveness, relationship to policy and practice, and sustainability of URE scholarship.

Health researchers and policy makers involvement in knowledge translation activities in Malawi

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore health researchers’ involvement of policy or decision makers in knowledge translation activities in Malawi.Design/methodology/approachThe case study collected quantitative through questionnaire from health researchers from the University of Malawi. The study used inferential statistics for the analysis of the quantitative data. Pearson χ2 test was used to establish the relationship between categorical data and determine whether any observed difference between the data sets arose by chance. The Kruskal–Wallis H test was used to determine if there were statistically significant differences between independent variable and dependent variables. Data has been presented in a form of tables showing means, standard deviation and p-values.FindingsHealth researchers sometimes involve policy or decision makers in government-sponsored meetings (M=2.5, SD=1.17). They rarely involve policy or decision makers in expert committee or group meetings (M=2.4, SD=1.20). Researchers rarely involve policy or decision makers in conferences and workshops (M=2.4, SD=1.31). Rarely do researchers involve policy or decision makers in formal private or public networks (M=2.4, SD=1.17). In events organised by the colleges researchers rarely involve policy or decision makers (M=2.3, SD=1.11); and rarely share weblinks with policy or decision makers (M=2.0, SD=1,17). On average, health researchers occasionally conduct deliberate dialogues with key health policy makers and other stakeholders (M=2.5, SD=1.12). The researchers rarely established and maintained long-term partnerships policy or decision makers (M=2.2, SD=1.20). They rarely involve policy or decision makers in the overall direction of the health research conducted by themselves or the Colleges (M=2.1, SD=1.24).Research limitations/implicationsThe study recommends that there should be deliberate efforts by health researchers and policy makers to formally engage each other. Individuals need technical skills, knowledge of the processes and structures for engaging with health research evidence to inform policy and decision making. At the institutional level, the use of research evidence should be embedded within support research engagement structures and linked persons.Practical implicationsFormal interactions in a form of expert meetings and technical working groups between researchers and policy makers can facilitate the use of health research evidence in policy formulation.Social implicationsIn terms of framework there is need to put in place formal interaction frameworks between health researchers and policy makers within the knowledge translation and exchange.Originality/valueThere is dearth of literature on the levels of involvement and interaction between health researchers and health policy or decision makers in health policy, systems and services research in Malawi. This study seeks to bridge the gap with empirical evidence.

Levels of research evidence in health policy assessment in Malawi.

The purpose of this study is to examine levels of health research evidence in health policies in Malawi. The study selected a typology of health policies in Malawi from 2002 to 2017. The study adopted the SPIRIT conceptual framework and assessed the levels of research evidence in health policy, systems and services research using the revised SAGE policy assessment tool. Documentary analysis was used to assess levels of health research evidence in health policies in Malawi. In 29 (96.7 per cent) of the health policies, policy formulators including healthcare directors and managers used generic search engines such as Google or Google Scholar to look for heath research evidence. In 28 (93.3 per cent) of the health policies, they searched for grey literature and other government documents. In only 6 (20 per cent) of the heath policy documents, they used academic literature in a form of journal articles and randomised controlled trials. No systematic reviews or policy briefs were consulted. Overall, in 23 (76.7 per cent) of the health policy documents, health research evidence played a minimal role and had very little influence on the policy documents or decision-making. The empirical evidence in the health policy documents are limited because of insufficient research citation, low retrievability of health research evidence in the policy documents and biased selectivity of what constitutes health research evidence. The study indicates that unfiltered information (data from policy evaluations and registries) constitutes majority of the research evidence in health policies both in health policy, systems and services research. The study seeks to advocate for the use of filtered information (peer reviewed, clinical trials and data from systematic reviews) in formulating health policies. There is dearth of literature on the levels of health research evidence in health policy-making both in health policy, systems and services research. This study seeks to bridge the gap with empirical evidence from a developing country perspective.

The Unbearable Enlightenment (and Lightness) of Rigorous Research Evidence in Policy Making

In sectors outside of medicine and health care, the promotion and implementation of rigorous research-based evidence in policy making in three, affluent, English-speaking Western countries, namely the U.S., the U.K., and Australia, is futile. There are two components to Evidence-Based Policy Making: the evidence must be used in policy making, and the policy must lead to better outcomes. First, in the U.S. and the U.K., the civil servants are required to use evidence in policy making. Thus, the promotion of evidence use may be a non-issue. Second, there is little empirical support for the effectiveness of evidence use in policy making. Third, politics is an integral part of policy making. Fourth, the policy making process may not be conducive to the use of rigorous research evidence. Fifth, the use of rigorous research evidence may not be appropriate for wicked social problems. Sixth, the use of research evidence is indirect via enlightenment.

Researcher and policymaker dialogue: the Policy BUDDIES Project in Western Cape Province, South Africa

Dialogue and exchange between researchers and policy personnel may increase the use of research evidence in policy. We piloted and evaluated a programme of formalised dialogue between researchers and provincial...

Using evidence to influence policy: Oxfam\u2019s experience

Policymaking is rarely ‘evidence-based’. Rather, policy can only be strongly evidence-informed if its advocates act effectively. Policy theories suggest that they can do so by learning the rules of political systems, and by forming relationships and networks with key actors to build up enough knowledge of their environment and trust from their audience. This knowledge allows them to craft effective influencing strategies, such as to tell a persuasive and timely story about an urgent policy problem and its most feasible solution. Empirical case studies help explain when, how, and why such strategies work in context. If analysed carefully, they can provide transferable lessons for researchers and advocates that are seeking to inform or influence policymaking. Oxfam Great Britain has become an experienced and effective advocate of evidence-informed policy change, offering lessons for building effective action. In this article, we combine insights from policy studies with specific case studies of Oxfam campaigns to describe four ways to promote the uptake of research evidence in policy: (1) learn how policymaking works, (2) design evidence to maximise its influence on specific audiences, (3) design and use additional influencing strategies such as insider persuasion or outsider pressure, and adapt the presentation of evidence and influencing strategies to the changing context, and (4) embrace trial and error. The supply of evidence is one important but insufficient part of this story.

Networks, advocacy and evidence in public health policymaking: insights from case studies of European Union smoke-free and English health inequalities policy debates

The past two decades witnessed the international consensus around the idea that health policy decisions should be ‘evidence-based’. These efforts have stimulated a wealth of studies explicitly concerned with understanding the use of research evidence in policy. The majority of such studies suggest there are few examples of public health policy outcomes that might reasonably be labelled ‘evidence-based’. Only a small number of these studies seek to explore how political dynamics interacted with evidence to shape policy outcomes. Here, we draw on two empirical case studies of efforts to promote public health evidence to decision makers (protection from secondhand smoke in Europe and tackling health inequalities in England), to highlight the primacy of ‘policy networks’ and ‘advocacy’ for understanding the role of evidence in achieving policy change. Reflecting on our empirical findings, we argue that the policy networks literature usefully foregrounds the roles that diverse ‘policy actors’ can play in connecting research and policy. However, our case studies also suggest that popular accounts of policy networks, such as Haas’ ‘epistemic communities’ and Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith’s Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), overstate the role of core values in driving policy network efforts, while underplaying the role of advocacy, leadership, network communication and trust, scientific consensus, political context and strategic policy trade-offs in network success. We conclude by arguing for further efforts to connect analyses of policy networks and evidence use. We also reflect on the implications of our findings for those seeking to employ evidence to effect policy change.

In the Shadow of Politics: The Pathways of Research Evidence to Health Policy Making

Research-based evidence has the potential to influence health policy making, but its impact is contingent on a number of factors. Past analyses have underscored the role of politics in shaping policy choices, reflecting the nature of the social learning process and access of political forces at every stage of the policy continuum from agenda formation to policy enactment and implication. This article focuses on the mechanisms of the research evidence enterprise itself, delving directly into what influences the pathways of research evidence into policy making, taking into consideration both the production and consumption functions of such evidence. It presents a process model of the role of research evidence in policy making, examining in conceptual detail variations in the production of evidence in the research community; the communication of policy-relevant results through translation, framing, and other means; the methods of acquisition of the evidence by policy makers and their advisers; and the multiple ways in which evidence is put to use in policy decision making. I use examples from health care reform to illustrate features of the process model.

Use of Research Evidence in Policy and Decision-Making: Views, Attitudes and Practices of Health Policy Makers in Lusaka Province of Zambia

Background: The integration of relevant high-quality research evidence into the health decision and policy formulation process is a key strategy for improving health systems especially in developing countries such as Zambia. However, the lack of capacity to understand and value research evidence by policy and decision makers makes it difficult for them to find and use research evidence in a timely manner even when motivated to do so. This study aimed to establish the views, attitudes and practices of policy makers on the use of research evidence in policy and decision-making process in Zambia. Methodology: This descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted in Lusaka, Zambia among selected public health decision and policy making institutions. A purposive sample of 21 consenting policy makers who were working in different positions in the Ministry of Health Headquarters, Provincial and District Health Offices, Health Professions Regulatory Bodies, United Nations Agencies, International Non-Governmental Organizations and University Deans from the University of Zambia participated in the study. A self-administered questionnaire was used to collect data. The IBM? SPSS? Statistics for Windows Version 20.0 was used for data analysis. Results: The concept of Evidence Informed Health Policy was not well understood such that only less than half (47.5%) of the participants reported having heard specifically about Evidence Informed Health Policy meanwhile almost two thirds (61.9%) reported that they used research evidence in decision making and policy formulation. Similar discrepancy was expressed in the understanding of and use of rapid response mechanisms such that although (47.6%) of the participants reported having heard about it, (57%) had never used rapid response mechanisms for deci-sion-making. With regard to the sources of information, about half (52.3) of the participants reported scholarly articles as their main source of evidence. Con-clusion and Recommendations: There is need for more sensitization and ca-pacity building among the decision and policy makers on the importance of using research evidence in decision and policy making process as incorporation of relevant high-quality research evidence into the health policy making pro-cess is a key strategy for improving health systems.

A priority-driven, policy-relevant research program to support a response to blood-borne viruses and sexually transmissible infections in NSW, Australia.

Strong collaboration between researchers, policy makers and practitioners supports the use of research evidence in policy and practice. Strategies for increasing the use of evidence in policy development and implementation include creating more opportunities for closer collaboration between researchers and policy makers, ensuring research syntheses are more accessible to policy makers, and increasing workforce capacity to utilise evidence. Type of program or service: The BBV & STI Research, Intervention and Strategic Evaluation Program, 2014-2019 (BRISE) is a coherent and integrated program that delivers policy-relevant research, strategic advice, capacity building and communications to support the response to blood-borne viruses (BBV) and sexually transmissible infections (STI) in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. BRISE has five key objectives: generate high-quality research; maximise the use of research; build research capacity; communication and marketing; and governance and management. BRISE facilitates the coproduction of research where researchers and policy makers are meaningfully involved in all stages of research priority setting and codesign from development to application, building an understanding of the way evidence is generated to allow for greater integration between research and use of evidence. Bringing multiple research projects together under a single contract and budget provided the NSW Ministry of Health (the Ministry) with cost efficiencies and streamlined contract management and project reporting. A flexible work plan allowed for a mix of longer-term (up to 5-year) projects and shorter projects that were responsive to emerging policy-relevant research priorities. The Ministry became involved in the production of collaborative research as a research partner, rather than solely a research 'funder'. The joint management of research projects involving a policy officer from the Ministry provided opportunities for individuals to build on their research capabilities and literacy. Collaborative priority setting and project work, and increased research literacy, improved the likelihood that research generated would then be used in policy and practice.

Assessment of policy makers' individual and organizational capacity to acquire, assess, adapt and apply research evidence for maternal and child health policy making in Nigeria: a cross-sectional quantitative survey.

Throughout the world, there is increasing awareness and acknowledgement of the value of research evidence in the development of effective health policy and in quality health care practice and administration. Among the major challenges associated with the lack of uptake of research evidence into policy and practice in Nigeria is the capacity constraints of policymakers to use research evidence in policy making. To assess the capacity of maternal and child health policy makers to acquire, access, adapt and apply available research evidence. This cross-sectional quantitative survey was conducted at a national maternal, newborn and child health (MNCH) stakeholders' engagement event. An evidence to policy self-assessment questionnaire was used to assess the capacity of forty MNCH policy makers to acquire, assess, adapt and apply research evidence for policy making. Low mean ratings were observed ranging from 2.68-3.53 on a scale of 5 for knowledge about initiating/conducting research and capacity to assess authenticity, validity, reliability, relevance and applicability of research evidence and for organizational capacity for promoting and using of research for policy making. There is need to institute policy makers' capacity development programmes to improve evidence-informed policymaking.

Knowledge Translation Platform Increasing Use of Research Evidence in Physical Activity Policy Making - A Case Study in Finland

BACKGROUND: Knowledge Translation Platform (KTP) in partnerships between policymakers, stakeholders, and researchers was established in order to enhance evidence-informed policymaking on physical activity. The article aims to give answers to specific questions, such as what were the main knowledge translation tools to improve access to research evidence in physical activity policy in Finland; which factors facilitated the improvements in use of research evidence, and what kind of procedures were implemented to improve the use of research evidence in policy making.METHODS: The study triangulated qualitative data from documents, reviews and observations of meetings between 2012 and 2013. Purposive sampling of meeting documents was used and data was analysed using a thematic content analysis of documents.RESULTS: KTP contributed to an increased awareness of the importance of the use of research evidence in physical activity policymaking, and strengthened relationships between policymakers, stakeholders and researchers. Support from policymakers and professionals as well as a window of opportunity facilitated KTP activities. Based on the KTP experience, institutionalization within the government could help to keep the use of research evidence high on the agenda.CONCLUSIONS: The case study provided unique insights into what counts for developing use of research evidence in policymaking. The expectations of the public policy were to give a larger role to evidence-informed policymaking, but expectations conflicted between the interests of various stakeholders. The establishment of KTP was a promising development in supporting the use of research evidence in physical activity policymaking. Real-time lesson drawing from the experiences of KTP can support improvements in the functioning of KTP in the short term, while making the case for sustaining their work in the long term.