Research Evidence In Policymaking Research Articles

Information literacy and its link to evidence-informed policymaking in Zimbabwe

This paper explored the link between information literacy (IL) and other factors that enable or inhibit the utilisation of research evidence in policymaking in Zimbabwe. The study assumes that if policymakers possess appropriate IL skills to access, assess, synthesise, and apply research evidence, they will naturally use the evidence to inform their policy decisions. Face-to-face interviews with 26 policymakers — technocrats selected from the Parliament of Zimbabwe and two ministries, Industry and Commerce, and Youth, Sport, and Recreation — produced evidence to inform the findings and conclusions. Data synthesis using thematic content analysis confirmed the findings. The results show that while IL skills are critical in enabling policymakers' use of research evidence, multiple other factors also influence the use of research evidence in policymaking due to the complexity of the process. The political and socioeconomic context plays a profound role because of the intricate and nonlinear nature of the policymaking process. Therefore, enhancing evidence use in policymaking revolves around strengthening IL skills at the individual level, including institutional and the broader policy ecosystem, by acknowledging and leveraging personal and institutional relationships. This insight illuminates the need to reorient IL programmes to link them to these other factors.

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.

Use of research evidence in the policy domain: A best‐evidence synthesis of social science research in Africa, Asia, and Latin America

AbstractThe use of research evidence in policymaking provides policymakers with a sound basis for policy decisions and actions. While the use of research evidence is on the rise, its evidence remains largely under‐reported especially from social sciences and developing world context. This may perpetuate the prevailing myth that policymakers do not use research evidence in policy deliberations and, thus, discourage researchers, funders, and policymakers from making greater investment in producing, disseminating, and using research evidence. Using the intersection of Weiss’ typology of research use and a best‐evidence synthesis approach, this paper reviews and reports evidence on the use of research evidence in the policy domain from four national level studies undertaken in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Conceptual and instrumental uses of research evidence are evident through a demand for research evidence, research‐based policy products, and citations of research in policy documents. The paper broadens our understanding on the use of research evidence from developing countries context and social science research, and informs different funders, researchers, and policymakers about the potential utility of research they respectively fund and/or undertake.

Promoting the use of evidence in health policy-making in the economic commission of the West African States Region: Exploring the perception of policy-makers on the necessity of an evidence-based policy-making guidance.

The West African Health Organization (WAHO) is promoting the use of evidence in policy-making within West Africa. The need for increased understanding of the complexities of the evidence-to-policy process among policy-makers in West Africa necessitates the development of evidence-based policy-making (EBPM) guidance. The purpose of this study was to interact with policy-makers from West African countries to identify the necessity of EBPM guidance for the subregion. A cross-sectional qualitative study design was used to elicit the views/opinions of senior health policy-makers from across the 15 West African countries on why an EBPM Guidance is necessary for the subregion. The policy-makers were engaged during WAHO-organized regional evidence-to-policy meetings on the improvement of maternal and child health outcomes held in Senegal in 2019. Face-to-face, one-on-one interactions, interviews, and deliberations during the meeting plenary sessions were held with the policy-makers, who participated in the regional meeting. Up to 23 policy-makers representing 15 West African countries participated in the study. Policy-makers who took part in the study supported the development of an EBPM Guidance to facilitate evidence-to-policy process. Among the identified reasons why an EBPM Guidance for West Africa is a necessity were to understand: (i) how to deal with barriers and facilitators that influence evidence to policy process; (ii) how to acquire, access, adapt, and apply available research evidence in policy-making; (iii) how to deal with contextual issues and broad range of evidence; and (iv) how to engage parliamentarians and policy legislators to promote policy development. An EBPM is a valuable tool that can provide health sector policy-makers the needed guide on the evidence-to-policy process. Studies that will evaluate the impact of EBPM guidance on the policy-making process in low- and middle-income countries are advocated.

Policy options to increase motivation for improving evidence-informed health policy-making in Iran

BackgroundCurrent incentive programmes are not sufficient to motivate researchers and policy-makers to use research evidence in policy-making. We conducted a mixed-methods design to identify context-based policy options for strengthening motivations among health researchers and policy-makers to support evidence-informed health policy-making (EIHP) in Iran.MethodsThis study was conducted in 2019 in two phases. In the first phase, we conducted a scoping review to extract interventions implemented or proposed to strengthen motivations to support EIHP. Additionally, we employed a comparative case study design for reviewing the performance evaluation (PE) processes in Iran and other selected countries to determine the current individual and organizational incentives to encourage EIHP. In the second phase, we developed two policy briefs and then convened two policy dialogues, with 12 and 8 key informants, respectively, where the briefs were discussed. Data were analysed using manifest content analysis in order to propose contextualized policy options.ResultsThe policy options identified to motivate health researchers and policy-makers to support EIHP in Iran were: revising the criteria of academic PE; designing appropriate incentive programmes for nonacademic researchers; developing an indicator for the evaluation of research impact on policy-making or health outcomes; revising the current policies of scientific journals; revising existing funding mechanisms; presenting the knowledge translation plan when submitting a research proposal, as a mandatory condition; encouraging and supporting mechanisms for increasing interactions between policy-makers and researchers; and revising some administrative processes (e.g. managers and staff PEs; selection, appointment, and changing managers and reward mechanisms).ConclusionsThe current individual or organizational incentives are mainly focused on publications, rather than encouraging researchers and policy-makers to support EIHP. Relying more on incentives that consider the other impacts of research (e.g. impacts on health system and policy, or health outcomes) is recommended. These incentives may encourage individuals and organizations to be more involved in conducting research evidence, resulting in promoting EIHP.Trial registrationNA.

Health research knowledge translation into policy in Zambia: policy-maker and researcher perspectives

BackgroundThe translation of public health research evidence into policy is critical to strengthening the capacity of local health systems to respond to major health challenges. However, a limited amount of public health research evidence generated in developing countries is actually translated into policy because of various factors. This study sought to explore the process of health research knowledge translation into policy and to identify factors that facilitate or hinder the process in Zambia.MethodsThis work was an exploratory qualitative study comprising two phases. Firstly, a document review of health policies and strategic frameworks governing research was undertaken to understand the macro-environment for knowledge translation in Zambia. Secondly, key informant interviews were conducted with those responsible for health research and policy formulation. The study interviewed 15 key informants and a thematic analysis approach was used.ResultsThe document review showed that there are policy efforts to promote knowledge translation through improvement of the research macro-environment. However, the interviews showed that coordination and linkage of the knowledge creation, translation and policy-making processes remains a challenge owing to lack of research knowledge translation capacity, limited resources and lack of knowledge hubs. Emerging local research leadership and the availability of existing stock of underutilized local health research data provide an opportunity to enhance knowledge translation to feed into policy processes in Zambia.ConclusionsPublic health research knowledge translation into policy remains a challenge in Zambia. To enhance the uptake of research evidence in policy-making, this study suggests the need for improved coordination, financing and capacity-building in knowledge translation processes for both health researchers and policy-makers.

Embedding implementation research to enhance health policy and systems: a multi-country analysis from ten settings in Latin America and the Caribbean

BackgroundProgress towards universal health coverage requires health policies and systems that are informed by contextualised and actionable research. Many challenges impede the uptake of evidence to enhance health policy implementation and the coverage, quality, efficiency and equity of health systems. To address this need, we developed an innovative model of implementation research embedded in real-world policy and programme cycles and led directly by policy-makers and health systems decision-makers. The approach was tested in ten settings in Latin America and the Caribbean, supported under a common funding and capacity strengthening initiative. The present study aims to analyse ten embedded implementation research projects in order to identify barriers and facilitators to embedding research into policy and practice as well as to assess the programme, policy and systems improvements and the cross-cutting lessons in conducting research embedded in real-world policy and systems decision-making.MethodsThe multi-country analysis is based on the triangulation of data collected via three methods, namely (1) document review, (2) an electronic questionnaire and (3) in-depth interviews with decision-makers. Data from the document review was charted and narratively synthesised. Data from the questionnaire was used to assess three characteristics of the decision-maker’s participation in embedded research, namely (1) level of engagement in different stages of research; (2) extent to which their capacities to conduct and use research were developed; and (3) the level of confidence in undertaking implementation research activities. Interview data was analysed using a thematic approach.ResultsThe main barriers to effective delivery or scale-up of health interventions identified in the research projects were inadequate financing, fragmentation of healthcare services and information systems, limited capacity of health system stakeholders, insufficient time, cultural factors, and a lack of information. Decision-makers’ experience in embedded research showed strong engagement in protocol development, moderate engagement in data collection and low engagement in data analysis. The in-depth interviews identified 17 facilitators and 8 barriers to embedding research into policy and systems. The principal facilitating factors were actionability of findings, relevance of research and engagement of decision-makers, whereas the main barriers were time and political processes. In Argentina, the research led to the development of new monitoring indicators to improve the implementation of the perinatal health policy, while in Chile, empirical findings supported the establishment of a training programme on reproductive rights, targeted to municipal health facilities.ConclusionsThis multi-country analysis contributes to the evidence base for the embedded research approach to support health policy and systems decisions-making. Embedding research into policy and practice stimulates the relevance and applicability of research, while promoting decision-makers’ engagement and likelihood to use research evidence in policy-making and health systems strengthening.

Use of research evidence in policymaking in three Danish municipalities

This article analyses the use of research evidence (RE) in three policy processes, at the local level, dealing with physical activity. We analysed an extensive number of policy documents and a total of 14 interviews with policymakers. Results show an unsystematic way of using RE, where demographic and statistical data as well as expert consultation were mostly used. Lack of transparency of RE use complicated the tracking of sources from introduction to actual policy impact. It can be concluded that the policymakers engaged in health issues have a wider use of RE than the policymakers working with more sports-oriented issues.

A guide to policy analysis as a research method.

Policy analysis provides a way for understanding how and why governments enact certain policies, and their effects. Public health policy research is limited and lacks theoretical underpinnings. This article aims to describe and critique different approaches to policy analysis thus providing direction for undertaking policy analysis in the field of health promotion. Through the use of an illustrative example in nutrition it aims to illustrate the different approaches. Three broad orientations to policy analysis are outlined: (i) Traditional approaches aim to identify the 'best' solution, through undertaking objective analyses of possible solutions. (ii) Mainstream approaches focus on the interaction of policy actors in policymaking. (iii) Interpretive approaches examine the framing and representation of problems and how policies reflect the social construction of 'problems'. Policy analysis may assist understanding of how and why policies to improve nutrition are enacted (or rejected) and may inform practitioners in their advocacy. As such, policy analysis provides researchers with a powerful tool to understand the use of research evidence in policymaking and generate a heightened understanding of the values, interests and political contexts underpinning policy decisions. Such methods may enable more effective advocacy for policies that can lead to improvements in health.

Using Obesity Research to Shape Obesity Policy in Minnesota: Stakeholder Insights and Feasibility of Recommendations.

Preventing childhood obesity requires innovative, evidence-based policy approaches. This study examines the use of research evidence by obesity policy stakeholders in Minnesota and develops pilot tools for communicating timely evidence to policymakers. From November 2012 to January 2013, semistructured interviews were conducted with 51 Minnesota stakeholders in childhood obesity prevention. Interviewees included 16 state legislators and staff; 16 personnel from the Minnesota Department of Education, Minnesota Department of Health, and Minnesota Department of Transportation; and 19 advocates for and against childhood obesity prevention legislation (response rate = 71%). Participants were asked their views on 3 themes: (1) Whether and how they used research evidence in their current decision-making processes; (2) barriers to using research evidence for policymaking; and (3) suggestions for improving the evidence translation process. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. A team approach to qualitative analysis was used to summarize themes, compare findings across interviewees' professional roles, and highlight unexpected findings, areas of tension, or illuminating quotes. Stakeholders used research evidence to support policy decisions, educate the public, and overcome value-based arguments. Common challenges included the amount and complexity of research produced and limited relationships between researchers and decision makers. Responding to interviewee recommendations, we developed and assessed 2 pilot tools: a directory of research experts and a series of research webinars on topics related to childhood obesity. Stakeholders found these materials relevant and high-quality but expressed uncertainty about using them in making policy decisions. Stakeholders believe that research evidence should inform the design of programs and policies for childhood obesity prevention; however, many lack the time and resources to consult research consistently. Future efforts to facilitate evidence-informed policymaking should emphasize approaches to designing and presenting research that better meets the needs of policy and programmatic decision makers.

Promoting Researchers and Policy-Makers Collaboration in Evidence-Informed Policy-Making in Nigeria: Outcome of a Two-Way Secondment Model between University and Health Ministry.

Background: There is need to strengthen institutions and mechanisms that can more systematically promote interactions between researchers, policy-makers and other stakeholders who can influence the uptake of research findings. In this article, we report the outcome of a two-way secondment model between Ebonyi State University (EBSU) and Ebonyi State Ministry of Health (ESMoH) in Nigeria as an innovative collaborative strategy to promote capacity enhancement for evidence-to-policy-to-action. Methods: This study was an exploratory design with a quantitative cross-sectional survey technique. A secondment memorandum of understanding (MOU) was signed between heads of EBSU and ESMoH. The secondment program lasted six months with ten researchers and ten policy-makers spending up to two days per week in each other’s organization. The secondee researchers got engaged in policy-making and implementation activities in ESMoH, while the policy-maker secondees got involved in research activities in EBSU. Secondees evidence-to-policy capacity enhancement meetings were held and questionnaires designed in 5-point Likert scale were used to assess their impact. Results: The secondee policy-makers and researchers admitted having considerable knowledge of secondment with mean ratings (MNRs) of 3.40 and 3.74 respectively on the 5 points scale. Secondment appeared to be more common in the policy-makers’ organization (MNRs: 2.80-3.07) than in the researchers’ institution (MNRs: 2.58-2.84). The secondee policy-makers participated in some academic and research activities including serving in research ethics committee in EBSU and provided policy-making perspective to the activities. The secondee researchers supported the policymaking process in ESMoH through policy advisory roles, and provided capacity enhancement for staff of the ministry on the use of research evidence in policy-making. There was a noteworthy increase on knowledge of policy analysis and contextualization among the secondees ranging from 20.7% to 50.4% and 31.3% to 42.8% respectively following a training session. A Society for Health Policy Research and Knowledge Translation was established by mutual agreement of secondees as a platform to permanently institutionalize the collaboration. Conclusion: The outcome of this study clearly suggests that secondment has great potential in promoting evidence informed policy-making and merits further consideration.

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.

Improving maternal and child health policymaking processes in Nigeria: an assessment of policymakers\u2019 needs, barriers and facilitators of evidence-informed policymaking

BackgroundIn Nigeria, interest in the evidence-to-policy process is gaining momentum among policymakers involved in maternal, newborn and child health (MNCH). However, numerous gaps exist among policymakers on use of research evidence in policymaking. The objective of this study was to assess the perception of MNCH policymakers regarding their needs and the barriers and facilitators to use of research evidence in policymaking in Nigeria.MethodsThe study design was a cross-sectional assessment of perceptions undertaken during a national MNCH stakeholders’ engagement event convened in Abuja, Nigeria. A questionnaire designed to assess participants’ perceptions was administered in person. Group consultations were also held, which centred on policymakers’ evidence-to-policy needs to enhance the use of evidence in policymaking.ResultsA total of 40 participants completed the questionnaire and participated in the group consultations. According to the respondents, the main barriers to evidence use in MNCH policymaking include inadequate capacity of organisations to conduct policy-relevant research; inadequate budgetary allocation for policy-relevant research; policymakers’ indifference to research evidence; poor dissemination of research evidence to policymakers; and lack of interaction fora between researchers and policymakers. The main facilitators of use of research evidence for policymaking in MNCH, as perceived by the respondents, include capacity building for policymakers on use of research evidence in policy formulation; appropriate dissemination of research findings to relevant stakeholders; involving policymakers in research design and execution; and allowing policymakers’ needs to drive research. The main ways identified to promote policymakers’ use of evidence for policymaking included improving policymakers’ skills in information and communication technology, data use, analysis, communication and advocacy.ConclusionTo improve the use of research evidence in policymaking in Nigeria, there is a need to establish mechanisms that will facilitate the movement from evidence to policy and address the needs identified by policymakers. It is also imperative to improve organisational initiatives that facilitate use of research evidence for policymaking.

Examining the use of health systems and policy research in the health policymaking process in Israel: views of researchers.

BackgroundAll too often, health policy and management decisions are made without making use of or consulting with the best available research evidence, which can lead to ineffective and inefficient health systems. One of the main actors that can ensure the use of evidence to inform policymaking is researchers. The objective of this study is to explore Israeli health systems and policy researchers’ views and perceptions regarding the role of health systems and policy research (HSPR) in health policymaking and the barriers and facilitators to the use of evidence in the policymaking process.MethodsA survey of researchers who have conducted HSPR in Israel was developed. The survey consisted of a demographics section and closed questions, which focused on support both within the researchers’ organisations and the broader environment for KTE activities, perceptions on the policymaking process, and the potential influencing factors on the process. The survey was sent to all health systems and policy researchers in Israel from academic institutions, hospital settings, government agencies, the four health insurance funds, and research institutes (n = 107). All responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. For close-ended questions about level of agreement we combined together the two highest categories (agree or strongly agree) for analysis.ResultsThirty-seven respondents participated in the survey. While many respondents felt that the use of HSPR may help raise awareness on policy issues, the majority of respondents felt that the actual use of HSPR was hindered for many reasons. While facilitators do exist to support the use of research evidence in policymaking, numerous barriers hinder the process such as challenges in government/provider relations, policymakers lacking the expertise for acquiring, assessing, and applying HSPR and priorities in the health system drawing attention away from HSPR. Furthermore, it is perceived by a majority of respondents that the health insurance funds and the physician organisations exert a strong influence in the policymaking process.ConclusionsHealth system and policy researchers in Israel need to be introduced to the benefits and potential advantages of evidence-informed policy in an organised and systematic way. Future research should examine the perceptions of policymakers in Israel and thus we can gain a broader perspective on where the actual issues lie.

A process evaluation accompanying an attempted randomized controlled trial of an evidence service for health system policymakers.

BackgroundWe developed an evidence service that draws inputs from Health Systems Evidence (HSE), which is a comprehensive database of research evidence about governance, financial and delivery arrangements within health systems and about implementation strategies relevant to health systems. Our goal was to evaluate whether, how and why a ‘full-serve’ evidence service increases the use of synthesized research evidence by policy analysts and advisors in the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care as compared to a ‘self-serve’ evidence service.MethodsWe attempted to conduct a two-arm, 10-month randomized controlled trial (RCT), along with a follow-up qualitative process evaluation, but we terminated the RCT when we failed to reach our recruitment target. For the qualitative process evaluation we modified the original interview guide to allow us to explore the (1) factors influencing participation in the trial; (2) usage of HSE, factors explaining usage patterns, and strategies to increase usage; (3) participation in training workshops and use of other supports; and (4) views about and experiences with key HSE features.ResultsWe terminated the RCT given our 15% recruitment rate. Six factors were identified by those who had agreed to participate in the trial as encouraging their participation: relevance of the study to participants’ own work; familiarity with the researchers; personal view of the importance of using research evidence in policymaking; academic background; support from supervisors; and participation of colleagues. Most reported that they never, infrequently or inconsistently used HSE and suggested strategies to increase its use, including regular email reminders and employee training. However, only two participants indicated that employee training, in the form of a workshop about finding and using research evidence, had influenced their use of HSE. Most participants found HSE features to be intuitive and helpful, although registration/sign-in and some page formats (particularly the advanced search page and detailed search results page) discouraged their use or did not optimize the user experience.ConclusionsThe qualitative findings informed a re-design of HSE, which allows users to more efficiently find and use research evidence about how to strengthen or reform health systems or in how to get cost-effective programs, services and drugs to those who need them. Our experience with RCT recruitment suggests the need to consider changing the unit of allocation to divisions instead of individuals within divisions, among other lessons.Trial registrationThis protocol for this study is published in Implementation Science and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (HHS/FHS REB 10–267).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-015-0066-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Exploring the use of research evidence in health-enhancing physical activity policies.

BackgroundThe gaps observed between the use of research evidence and policy have been reported to be based on the different methods of using research evidence in policymaking by researchers and actual policymakers. Some policies and policymaking processes may therefore be particularly well informed by research evidence compared to others. The aims of the present article are to explore the use of research evidence in health-enhancing physical activity (HEPA) policies, identify when research evidence was used, and find what other types of evidence were employed in HEPA policymaking.MethodsMultidisciplinary teams from six EU member states analysed the use of research evidence and other kinds of evidence in 21 HEPA policies and interviewed 86 key policymakers involved in the policies. Qualitative content analysis was conducted on both policy documents and interview data.ResultsResearch evidence was mostly used to justify the creation of HEPA policies and, generally, implicitly without citation. The policies analysed used many types of evidence other than citable research. The evidence used in HEPA policies was found to fall into the following categories: societal framework, media, everyday knowledge and intuition, research evidence, and other types of evidence.ConclusionsResearch evidence seems to be the only type of evidence used in policymaking. Competition between the use of other types of evidence and research evidence is constant due to the various sources of information on the Internet and elsewhere. However, researchers need to understand their role in translating research evidence into policymaking processes.

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).

Evaluating deliberative dialogues focussed on healthy public policy.

BackgroundDeliberative dialogues have recently captured attention in the public health policy arena because they have the potential to address several key factors that influence the use of research evidence in policymaking. We conducted an evaluation of three deliberative dialogues convened in Canada by the National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy in order to learn more about deliberative dialogues focussed on healthy public policy.MethodsThe evaluation included a formative assessment of participants’ views about and experiences with ten key design features of the dialogues, and a summative assessment of participants’ intention to use research evidence of the type that was discussed at the dialogue. We surveyed participants immediately after each dialogue was completed and again six months later. We analyzed the ratings using descriptive statistics and the written comments by conducting a thematic analysis.ResultsA total of 31 individuals participated in the three deliberative dialogues that we evaluated. The response rate was 94% (N = 29; policymakers (n = 9), stakeholders (n = 18), researchers (n = 2)) for the initial survey and 56% (n = 14) for the follow-up. All 10 of the design features that we examined as part of the formative evaluation were rated favourably by all participant groups. The findings of the summative evaluation demonstrated a mean behavioural intention score of 5.8 on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).ConclusionOur findings reinforce the promise of deliberative dialogues as a strategy for supporting evidence-informed public health policies. Additional work is needed to understand more about which design elements work in which situations and for different issues, and whether intention to use research evidence is a suitable substitute for measuring actual behaviour change.

Exchanging and using research evidence in health policy networks: a statistical network analysis.

BackgroundEvidence-informed health policymaking is a goal of equitable and effective health systems but occurs infrequently in reality. Past research points to the facilitating role of interpersonal relationships between policy-makers and researchers, imploring the adoption of a social network lens. This study aims to identify network-level factors associated with the exchange and use of research evidence in policymaking.MethodsData on social networks and research use were collected from seventy policy actors across three health policy cases in Burkina Faso (child health, malaria, and HIV). Networks were graphed for actors’ interactions, their provision of, and request for research evidence. Exponential random graph models estimated the probability of evidence provision and request between actors, controlling for network- and individual-level covariates. Logistic regression models estimated actors’ use of research evidence to inform policy.ResultsNetwork structure explained more than half of the evidence exchanges (ties) observed in these networks. Across all cases, a pair of actors was more likely to form a provision tie if they already had a request tie between them and visa versa (θ = 6.16, p < 0.05; θ = 2.87, p < 0.05; θ = 2.31, p < 0.05). The child health network displayed clustering tendencies, meaning that actors were more likely to form ties if they shared an acquaintance (θ = 2.36, p < 0.05). Actors’ use of research evidence was positively associated with their centrality (i.e., connectedness).ConclusionsThe exchange and use of research evidence in policymaking can be partly explained by the structure of actors’ networks of relationships. Efforts to support knowledge translation and evidence-informed policymaking should consider network factors.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0126-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Ontario Drug Policy Research Network: Bridging the gap between Research and Drug Policy

Policymakers have cited several barriers to using evidence in policy decisions, including lack of research relevance and timeliness. In recent years, several reports have focused on the successes and challenges of researcher–policymaker collaborations, a form of policy engagement intended to help overcome barriers to the use of research evidence in policymaking. Although these reports often demonstrate an increase in research relevance, rarely do they provide concrete methods of enhancing research timeliness, which is surprising given policymakers’ expressed need to receive “rapid-response” research. Additionally, the impact of researcher–policymaker collaborations is not well-discussed. In this paper, we aim to describe the collaboration between the Ontario Drug Policy Research Network (ODPRN) and its policymaker partner, the Ontario Public Drug Program (OPDP), with a particular focus on the ODPRN's research methodology and unique rapid-response approach for policy engagement. This approach is illustrated through a specific case example regarding drug funding policies for pulmonary arterial hypertension. Moreover, we discuss the impact of the ODPRN's research on pharmaceutical policy and lessons learned throughout the ODPRN and OPDP's five-year partnership. The described experiences will be valuable to those seeking to enhance evidence uptake in policymaking for immediate policy needs.