Use Of Research Evidence Research Articles

Evidence use in higher education decision-making and policy: a scoping review of empirical studies from 2010 to 2022

In this article, we review empirical studies on the use of evidence in higher education decision-making and policy from 2010 to 2022. In our scoping review, we identify 77 studies in English or German, of which 69 meet minimum quality standards. We map the current state of knowledge on the use of data and research evidence in higher education and research institutions, and higher education and research policy, using qualitative coding. The results depict a growing, US-dominated, research field characterised by a large variety of methodological approaches, influenced by heterogeneous sets of paradigms and shaped by professional publications. We compare studies on evidence use in higher education and research institutions, and higher education and research policy, and find conceptual and empirical differences regarding the studied dimensions of evidence use, the types of evidence taken into account, and factors influencing evidence use. Our review highlights the need for comparative organisational research on evidence use, further research on mechanisms and pathways of evidence uses and a closer linkage between concepts and empirical findings.

Co-producing research on universal health system reform in the context of COVID-19

Abstract Issue How to co-produce and embed research into universal health system reform implementation in the context of COVID-19. In many respects the pandemic revolutionised the use of data and research, with near real-time data informing key health policy and system decisions. This was evident in the production of publicly available data sets tracking COVID-19 infection as well as health system dashboard tracking activity in real-time and influencing day-to-day decisions made. How can this use of data and research evidence become the norm for all health system reform and policy decisions? Results The Foundations’ research project is a partnership project in place since Autumn 2019. Initially focused on producing evidence to inform the design and implementation of new regional areas with the Department of Health Sláintecare Reform Office and the Irish national Health Service Executive as partners. When COVID-19 occurred all work on the regions was paused the research pivoted to harness the learnings form the COVID-19 response to inform universal health system reform. The partnership applied research nature of the programme allowed research to be coproduced and co-designed with health system leaders, meant the researchers understood if and when it was possible to engage with partners and how to feed result into the health system at the earliest opportunity. Lessons Trust and pre-existing working relationships with partners allowed the research to pivot and to continue during the pandemic. The applied partnership nature of the research meant that at times the health system was very engaged in the research and at other times (eg during COVID waves and surges or the cyber-attack) there was limited engagement. The co-production nature of the research allowed a dynamic, ongoing, two-way learning between the health system and the research team. It is extremely difficult to measure impact of research on health system and reform decisions.

Addressing infodemic for pandemic preparedness in the digital age: a focus on Middle Africa.

The 21st century has brought about a damaging information crisis, significantly challenging and undermining efforts to increase the uptake of scientific research evidence in both policy and practice. The World Health Organization (WHO) recognizes misinformation and disinformation as major drivers of pandemic spread and impact, dedicating a policy brief to pandemic preparedness on this issue. In this study, we examine the impact of mis/disinformation on the use of research evidence in public policy decision-making in West and Central Africa and reflect on how this can inform future pandemic preparedness. What factors affect the uptake of scientific evidence during disease outbreaks in Africa? We used the JBI Scoping Review and Prevalence/Incidence Review methodologies to synthesize the best available evidence. A DELPHI survey was conducted in two stages: the first gathered experiences from policymakers, practitioners, and citizens in Cameroon, Nigeria, and Senegal regarding mis/disinformation and its impact. The second stage explored potential situations related to the issues identified in the first stage. Qualitative data analysis was conducted using MAXQDA. The research identified the origins (n = 5), transmission platforms (n = 15), cases (n = 4), mitigation strategies (n = 6), and impacts (n = 4) of infodemic on policy design, implementation, and uptake. Online platforms were identified as the main source of infodemic in 53.3% of cases, compared to 46.7% attributed to offline platforms. We conclude that the severity of COVID-19 as a global pandemic has highlighted the dangers of mis/disinformation, with a considerable number of studies from Middle Africa demonstrating a significant negative impact on the uptake of health policies and to an extend evidence informed policy making. It is also imperative to consider addressing evidence hesitancy in citizens through innovative and indigenous approaches like storytelling. Digital technologies, especially social media, play a key role in the propagation of infodemics. For future pandemic preparedness, stakeholders must consider using digital tools and platforms to prevent and mitigate pandemics. This study adds new evidence to the existing body of evidence, emphasizing the need to address infodemics within the context of future pandemic preparedness in Middle Africa.

Use of research evidence in U.S. federal policymaking: A reflexive report on intra-stage mixed methods

The policymaking process is largely opaque, especially regarding the actual writing of the policy. To attempt to better understand this complex process, we utilized mixed methods in our evaluation of an intervention. However, the process of mixing methods can be messy, and thus may require recalibration during the evaluation itself. Yet, in comparison to reporting results, relatively little attention is paid to the effects of mixing methods on the evaluation process. In this article, we take a reflexive approach to reporting a mixed methods evaluation of an intervention on the use of research evidence in U.S. federal policymaking. We focus on the research process in a qualitative coding team, and the effects of mixing methods on that process. Additionally, we report in general terms how to interpret multinomial logistic regressions, an underused analysis type applicable to many evaluations. Thus, this reflexive piece contributes (1) findings from evaluation of the intervention on the policymaking process, (2) an example of mixing methods leading to unexpected findings and future directions, (3) a report about the evaluation process itself, and (4) a tutorial for those new to multinomial logistic regressions.

Health research evidence: its current usage in health planning, determinants and readiness to use knowledge translation tools among health planning teams in Tanzania—an exploratory mixed-methods study protocol

IntroductionAchieving universal health coverage requires using research evidence to inform decision-making. However, little information is available on the use of research evidence in planning in lower middle-income countries, including Tanzania....

Policy utilisation of occupational safety and health research: results from a tripartite unicameral parliamentary system in Denmark

Background: Use of research evidence in policy decisions is under-researched. Especially, there is a need for more research in countries with different forms of government than bicameral legislatures. Aims and objectives: This article examines the impact of occupational safety and health (OSH) research on decision-makers in a tripartite unicameral parliamentary system (legislature and agreements). More specifically, we identify and discuss information acquisition and types of research use in policy decisions. Methods: Using both semi-structured and structured questions, we conducted 30 interviews distributed evenly within three groups of elite political actors: elected members of parliament; top-level public administrators; and social partner politicians. Analysis and reporting were subject to investigator triangulation. Findings: The three groups of elite political actors acquire information about OSH issues from different sources. The most important are: interest groups, networks and internal specialists. Findings show that elite actors generally use research knowledge conceptually and instrumentally, and to a lesser degree strategically and tactically. Many types of information influence politicians. They mostly perceive themselves as initiators of new research. The social partners primarily perceive themselves as users of new research results to initiate change and influence political decisions. Discussion and conclusion: How and when research knowledge is used differs between the three groups. It is important for researchers to tailor research communication to the particular needs of different stakeholders and interact directly with the elite actors and indirectly through lower level specialists from stakeholder organisations, and gain exposure through external sources such as the press and social media.

Building bridges from PreK to K-3 through the use of research evidence

ABSTRACT As education systems in the United States of America become increasingly focused on making evidence-based decisions, it remains unclear how leaders in state education agencies are using research. This qualitative study describes how three state prekindergarten (PreK) leaders use research evidence in interactions with state kindergarten through third grade (K = 3) leaders to influence and inform decisions of policy and practice. Applying a use of research evidence framework revealed the types of research PreK leaders described using, how they used their knowledge of research, and the strategic ways they did so to overcome the challenge of collaborating across systems. As PreK leaders are positioned at the nexus between early childhood education and care systems and the kindergarten through twelfth grade education system, they are positioned to serve as a bridge between these two worlds. Findings suggest that research can support bridge building efforts if there is a culture of collaboration and shared commitment to using research, but the burden of brokering this knowledge in our study fell to state PreK leaders. Implications for future research are discussed.

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.

Shifting the paradigm of research-to-policy impact: Infrastructure for improving researcher engagement and collective action.

The body of scientific knowledge accumulated by the scholarly disciplines such as Developmental Psychopathology can achieve meaningful public impact if wielded and used in policy decision-making. Scientific study of how policymakers use research evidence underscores the need for researchers' policy engagement; however, barriers in the academy create conditions in which there is a need for infrastructure that increases the feasibility of researchers' partnership with policymakers. This need led to the development of the Research-to-Policy Collaboration model, a systematic approach for developing "boundary spanning" infrastructure, which has been experimentally tested and shown to improve policymakers' use of research evidence and bolster researchers' policy skills and engagement. This paper presents original research regarding the optimization of the RPC model, which sought to better serve and engage scholars across the globe. Trial findings shed light on ways to improve conditions that make good use of researchers' time for policy engagement via a virtual platform and enhanced e-communications. Future directions, implications, and practical guidelines for how scientists can engage in the political process and improve the impact of a collective discipline are also discussed.

Bridging the gap between pregnancy loss research and policy and practice: insights from a qualitative survey with knowledge users

BackgroundThe loss of a pregnancy or the death of baby around the time of their birth can have profound impacts on parents, families and staff involved. There is much opportunity to enhance the systematic uptake of evidence-based interventions to enhance service provision, lived experiences and outcomes. Challenges exist to translating pregnancy loss research evidence into policy and practice, however. Pregnancy loss remains a neglected area of research and resourcing and is steeped in stigma. While barriers and facilitators to the use of research evidence by decision-makers in public health and health services are well documented, we aimed to better understand the factors that influence the translation of pregnancy loss research into practice and policy.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative online survey of pregnancy loss research knowledge users in Ireland, identified through our clinical and academic networks, between January and March 2022. The survey comprised ten questions, with three closed questions, informed by the Knowledge Translation Planning Template©. Questions included who could benefit from pregnancy loss research, perceived barriers and facilitators to the use of research evidence and preferred knowledge translation strategies. We analysed data using reflexive thematic analysis.ResultsWe included data from 46 participants in our analysis, from which we generated two central themes. The first—‘End the silence; stigma and inequality around pregnancy loss to enhance awareness and understanding, public health and services and supports’—addresses issues related to the stigma, sensitivities and silence, lack of awareness and understanding, and lack of relevance or priority afforded to pregnancy loss. The second theme—‘Use a range of tailored, accessible approaches to engage a large, diverse range of knowledge users’—highlights the need to use relevant, accessible, and engaging information, resources or materials in knowledge translation efforts, and a variety of tailored approaches to suit different audiences, including materials, workshops/webinars, media, knowledge brokers and champions or opinion leaders.ConclusionsOur analysis provides rich insights into the barriers and facilitators to knowledge translation in the field of pregnancy loss research. We identified key strategies that can be used to inform knowledge translation planning in Ireland, and which have international applicability.

A planetary health perspective on the translation of climate change research into public health policy and practice: A scoping review protocol.

Climate Change (CC) emanating from anthropocentric human activities is a great threat to the quality of human life and well-being worldwide. The translation of CC research evidence can play a critical role in promoting the formulation of climate-sensitive policies to equip public health systems for CC-associated disaster preparedness, response, and management. This scoping review seeks to explore knowledge translation approaches for promoting, the uptake, and use of CC research evidence in public health policy and practice. This scoping review will be conducted according to the guidelines of Arksey and O'Malley. A search strategy will be developed for published articles in PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus databases and for grey literature in the World Health Organization, Planetary Health Alliance, and the University of the Western Cape repositories. The proposed scoping review will gather existing evidence on the relationship between knowledge translation, CC research, and public health decision-making. This will provide insights into research and practice gaps, and recommendations will be made to ensure effective knowledge translation for CC related decision-making.

Evidence – Informed Policy Formulation and Implementation: A case study of ‘Clean Air Policy’ in Punjab, Pakistan

Background: There has been an accelerating momentum globally, for the use of scientific research evidence to support public health policy formulation and implementation. Policymakers, nonetheless use a variety of information over and above research evidence in the process. A case study of ‘the Clean Air policy’ was undertaken to explore the Policy makers practices related to Evidence Informed Policy in Punjab, Pakistan. Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate policy makers’ perceptions regarding ‘evidence’ and how it is gathered and used in policy formulation and implementation processes Methods: The empirical data was collected by qualitative research techniques. Document review and semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with 87 purposively selected policymakers between December’22-October’23. Data Analysis was guided by principals of grounded theory. A conceptual model for Evidence Informed Policy Formulation and Implementation (derived from the Frameworks of Bowen and Zwi and Dodson et al.) was experientially applied to organize the data. Results: The case study of the ‘Clean Air Policy’ of the Govt. of Punjab highlighted that the policy had been formulated in a structured manner with incorporation of relevant evidence (research and other) at all stages of policy formulation. Policy makers considered ‘evidence’ as an expansive concept not limited to research evidence. Overall, the use of evidence for policy-making and implementation is rooted in complexities inherent to the local context, policymakers understanding and organizational culture and processes. Conclusion: The study contributed to understanding the arena of Evidence Informed policy practices in Pakistan. Addressing the highlighted challenges can inform strategies for enhancing evidence use in policy processes for improving health system performance.

How policymakers innovate around behavioral health: adoption of the New Mexico "No Behavioral Health Cost-Sharing" law.

State policymakers have long sought to improve access to mental health and substance use disorder (MH/SUD) treatment through insurance market reforms. Examining decisions made by innovative policymakers ("policy entrepreneurs") can inform the potential scope and limits of legislative reform. Beginning in 2022, New Mexico became the first state to eliminate cost-sharing for MH/SUD treatment in private insurance plans subject to state regulation. Based on key informant interviews (n = 30), this study recounts the law's passage and intended impact. Key facilitators to the law's passage included receptive leadership, legislative champions with medical and insurance backgrounds, the use of local research evidence, advocate testimony, support from health industry figures, the severity of MH/SUD, and increased attention to MH/SUD during the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings have important implications for states considering similar laws to improve access to MH/SUD treatment.

What are the research priorities for strengthening public health emergency preparedness and response in Africa?

BackgroundResearch evidence is needed to strengthen capacities in emergency preparedness and response (EPR). However, the absence of a clear research agenda limits the optimal use of research evidence. This paper reports on the prioritization of research questions and topics that could contribute to evidence-informed strengthening of EPR capacities in the African region.MethodsThe priority-setting consisted of desk review and stakeholder consultation workshop. Twenty-nine people participated in the workshop, including representatives from WHO regional office and EPR focal points in Africa, representatives of research institutions, and partners from Science for Africa Foundation, United Nations Children's Fund and Africa Center for Disease Control. Modified Delphi technique was used to systematically arrive at specific and cross-cutting research priorities in the three broad areas of the EPR, which are program Implementation, Clinical and Epidemiology. The research questions/topics were ranked on five-point Likert scale (1 = very low to 5 = very high) based on seven agreed-on criteria. Research priority score was calculated for each question as the mean of the criteria scores.ResultsA total of 123 research questions comprising, 29 on Epidemiology, 22 on Clinical, 23 on program Implementation, and 49 on cross-cutting issues were ranked. The top ten research priorities were: knowledge and skills of healthcare workers in detecting and responding effectively to disease outbreaks; quality of data (accuracy, timeliness, completeness) for epidemic prone diseases; determinants of vaccine hesitancy; determinants of infection transmission among health care workers during PHE; effective measures for protecting health workers from highly infectious pathogens in PHE; strategies to improve the effectiveness of contact tracing for epidemic prone diseases; effectiveness of current case definitions as screening tools for epidemic and pandemic prone diseases; measures to strengthen national and sub-national laboratory capacity for timely disease confirmation within the Integrated Diseases Surveillance and Response framework; factors affecting prompt data sharing on epidemic-prone diseases; and effective strategies for appropriate community participation in EPR.ConclusionsThe collaborative multi-stakeholder workshop produced a starting list of priority research questions and topics for strengthening EPR capacities in Africa. Action needs to be taken to continuously update the research agenda and support member States to contextualize the research priorities and commission research for timely generation and uptake of evidence.

How can educational psychology inform policy?

The authors in this special issue focus on ways educational psychology scholarship can and should strive to inform education policy. In this commentary, I describe how each of the articles speaks to policymakers’ (ranging from those in decision-making positions in school districts to legislators) use of research evidence. In addition, I present my thoughts on some of the challenges educational psychologists face in their efforts to inform policy with research. I will conclude my commentary with thoughts on the kind of training scholars must have to ensure their research is accessible to those who develop and make decisions on policy.

Influence of research evidence on the use of cardiovascular clinical prediction rules in primary care: an exploratory qualitative interview study

BackgroundCardiovascular clinical prediction rules (CPRs) are widely used in primary care. They accumulate research evidence through derivation, external validation, and impact studies. However, existing knowledge about the influence of research evidence on the use of CPRs is limited. Therefore, we explored how primary care clinicians’ perceptions of and experiences with research influence their use of cardiovascular CPRs.MethodsWe conducted an exploratory qualitative interview study with thematic analysis. Primary care clinicians were recruited from the WWAMI (Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana and Idaho) region Practice and Research Network (WPRN). We used purposeful sampling to ensure maximum variation within the participant group. Data were collected by conducting semi-structured online interviews. We analyzed data using inductive thematic analysis to identify commonalities and differences within themes.ResultsOf 29 primary care clinicians who completed the questionnaire, 15 participated in the interview. We identified two main themes relating to the influence of clinicians’ perceptions of and experiences with cardiovascular CPR research on their decisions about using cardiovascular CPRs: “Seek and judge” and “be acquainted and assume.” When clinicians are familiar with, trust, and feel confident in using research evidence, they might actively search and assess the evidence, which may then influence their decisions about using cardiovascular CPRs. However, clinicians, who are unfamiliar with, distrust, or find it challenging to use research evidence, might be passively acquainted with evidence but do not make their own judgment on the trustworthiness of such evidence. Therefore, these clinicians might not rely on research evidence when making decisions about using cardiovascular CPRs.ConclusionsClinicians’ perceptions and experiences could influence how they use research evidence in decisions about using cardiovascular CPRs. This implies, when promoting evidence-based decisions, it might be useful to target clinicians’ unfamiliarity, distrust, and challenges regarding the use of research evidence rather than focusing only on their knowledge and skills. Further, because clinicians often rely on evidence-unrelated factors, guideline developers and policymakers should recommend cardiovascular CPRs supported by high-quality evidence.

The sizzle and fizzle of teacher evaluation in the United States and the selective use of research evidence

In 2009, the United States funded the largest federal educational reform effort in the nation’s history. Referred to as Race to the Top (RTTT), a cornerstone of this effort was the high-stakes evaluation of all teachers, with a significant emphasis on the use of highly researched statistical methods that ascribed changes in student test scores to a teacher’s quality. The widespread endorsement of these policies across a broad range of the political spectrum was based on a theory of action that faced technical, organizational, and political challenges. Enthusiasm for these evaluation efforts was substantially muted in a mere 5 years. Among a number of factors, we argue that the framing of the problem together with privileging particular lines of research and voices, as well as the lack of consideration of other frames and attention to other research and voices, resulted in an evidence base that was wholly insufficient to justify the large-scale policy changes that were enacted.

The Implementation in Context (ICON) Framework: A meta-framework of context domains, attributes and features in healthcare

BackgroundThere is growing evidence that context mediates the effects of implementation interventions intended to increase healthcare professionals’ use of research evidence in clinical practice. However, conceptual clarity about what comprises context is elusive. The purpose of this study was to advance conceptual clarity on context by developing the Implementation in Context Framework, a meta-framework of the context domains, attributes and features that can facilitate or hinder healthcare professionals’ use of research evidence and the effectiveness of implementation interventions in clinical practice.MethodsWe conducted a meta-synthesis of data from three interrelated studies: (1) a concept analysis of published literature on context (n = 70 studies), (2) a secondary analysis of healthcare professional interviews (n = 145) examining context across 11 unique studies and (3) a descriptive qualitative study comprised of interviews with heath system stakeholders (n = 39) in four countries to elicit their tacit knowledge on the attributes and features of context. A rigorous protocol was followed for the meta-synthesis, resulting in development of the Implementation in Context Framework. Following this meta-synthesis, the framework was further refined through feedback from experts in context and implementation science.ResultsIn the Implementation in Context Framework, context is conceptualized in three levels: micro (individual), meso (organizational), and macro (external). The three levels are composed of six contextual domains: (1) actors (micro), (2) organizational climate and structures (meso), (3) organizational social behaviour (meso), (4) organizational response to change (meso), (5) organizational processes (meso) and (6) external influences (macro). These six domains contain 22 core attributes of context and 108 features that illustrate these attributes.ConclusionsThe Implementation in Context Framework is the only meta-framework of context available to guide implementation efforts of healthcare professionals. It provides a comprehensive and critically needed understanding of the context domains, attributes and features relevant to healthcare professionals’ use of research evidence in clinical practice. The Implementation in Context Framework can inform implementation intervention design and delivery to better interpret the effects of implementation interventions, and pragmatically guide implementation efforts that enhance evidence uptake and sustainability by healthcare professionals.

Quality use of research evidence: practitioner perspectives

Background: This article comes in response to two gaps within the research use literature: a lack of work on quality of use as distinct from quality of evidence, and a lack of research use models based on practitioner, as opposed to researcher, perspectives. Aims and objectives: The study probes into the views of education practitioners about ‘using research well’, and explores: (1) the extent to which those views align with or differ from a conceptual framework of quality research use; and (2) whether and how practitioner views can provide deeper insights into quality use of research in practice. Methods: The article draws on open-text survey (n=492) and interview (n=27) responses from Australian teachers and school leaders, which were analysed in relation to components of the Quality Use of Research Evidence (QURE) Framework. Findings: There was considerable alignment between the practitioners’ views and the QURE Framework, but greater recognition for certain enablers such as ‘skillsets’ and ‘leadership’, as compared with others, such as ‘relationships’ and ‘infrastructure’. The practitioners’ accounts provided nuanced descriptions and elaborations of different aspects of using research well. Discussion and conclusions: The findings suggest that: the QURE Framework has empirical validity as a way of conceptualising quality research use; practitioners’ views on using research well can inform future capacity building efforts; and research use as a field needs far more work that is focused on the quality of use and the perspectives of users.

Barriers and facilitators to integrating depression care in tuberculosis services in South Asia: a multi-country qualitative study

BackgroundDepression is common among people with tuberculosis (TB). The condition is typically unrecognised or untreated despite available and effective treatments in most low- and middle-income countries. TB services in these countries are relatively well established, offering a potential opportunity to deliver integrated depression screening and care. However, there is limited evidence on how such integration could be achieved. This study aimed to understand the barriers and facilitators to integrate depression care in TB services.MethodsWe conducted nine workshops with 76 study participants, including people with TB, their carers, and health service providers in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan, seeking views on integrating depression care into TB clinics. We used a deductive thematic approach to analyse the translated transcripts of audio recordings, contemporaneous notes made during workshops for Bangladesh and India and workshop reports for Pakistan. Using the SURE (Supporting the Use of Research Evidence) thematic framework, we extracted and categorised barriers and facilitators into various domains.ResultsReported barriers to integrating depression care in TB services included lack of knowledge about depression amongst patients and the staff, financial burden, and associated stigma for people with TB and their carers. Government buy-in and understanding of how to identify and screen for depression screening were potential facilitators reported. Additionally, breaking through mental health stigma and providing the additional resources required to deliver this service (human resources and consultation time) were essential for integrating depression and TB care.ConclusionsDepression is a common condition found among people with TB, requiring early identification among people with TB. Integrating depression care into Tb services by health workers requires the availability of political support and the provision of resources.