An integrated model for increasing the use of evidence by decision-makers for improved development

Stewart, Ruth; Langer, Laurenz; Erasmus, Yvonne

doi:10.1080/0376835x.2018.1543579

Cited by 25 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We anticipate disagreement and discussion, and support a multitude of ways of approaching the issues we identify above. Some may feel that our energies should be directed to democratising knowledge for all and ensuring that this is mobilised to maximise equality and fairness (Stewart et al, 2018). Others may feel that our task is to observe, problematise and critique these processes, rather than engage in them directly (Fuller, 1997).…”

Section: Next Steps and Concrete Outputsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transforming evidence for policy and practice: creating space for new conversations

Oliver

Boaz

2019

Palgrave Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For decades, the question of how evidence influences policy and practice has captured our attention, cutting across disciplines and policy/practice domains. All academics, funders, and publics have a stake in this conversation. There are pockets of great expertise about evidence production and use, which all too often remains siloed. Practical and empirical lessons are not shared across disciplinary boundaries and theoretical and conceptual leaps remain contained. This means that we are not making the most of vast and increasing investment in knowledge production. Because existing lessons about how to do and use research well are not shared, funders and researchers are poorly equipped to realise the potential utility of research, and waste resources on-for exampleineffective strategies to create research impact. It also means that the scarce resources available to study evidence production and use are misspent on overlynarrow or already-answered questions. Patchy and intermittent funding has failed to build broadly relevant empirical or theoretical knowledge about how to make better use of evidence, or to build the communities required to act on this knowledge. To transform how we as a community think about what evidence is, how to generate it, and how to use it well, we must better capture lessons being learned in our different research and practice communities. We must find ways to share this knowledge, to embed it in the design of our research systems and practices, and work jointly to establish genuine knowledge gaps about evidence production and use. This comment sets out one vision of how that might be accomplished, and what might result.

show abstract

Section: Next Steps and Concrete Outputsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transforming evidence for policy and practice: creating space for new conversations

Oliver

Boaz

2019

Palgrave Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Evidence has an important role to play in improving policy, programme and practice decisions that ultimately improve development effectiveness [1–5]. Even then, it is widely acknowledged that policy-making is a complex, political process, with evidence being but one of the factors that shape or inform it [6, 7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strengthening capacity to use research evidence in health sector policy-making: experience from Kenya and Malawi

Oronje

Murunga

Zulu

2019

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAmong the many barriers to evidence use in decision-making, weak capacity for evidence use has attracted a lot of focus in the last decade. The study aims to inform and enrich ongoing and future efforts to strengthen capacity for evidence use by presenting and discussing the experiences and lessons of a project implemented in Kenya and Malawi to strengthen individual and institutional capacity for evidence use within the ministries of health (MoHs).MethodsThis paper draws on the internal and external evaluations of a 3-year project funded by the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development, the Strengthening Capacity to Use Research Evidence in Health Policy (SECURE Health). To strengthen individual capacity, the project implemented a training and mentorship programme for 60 mid-level policy-makers in the two MoHs. To strengthen institutional capacity, the project conducted sustained advocacy with top leaders to strengthen structures that enable evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM), supported Kenya to develop research-for-health policies and priorities, supported Malawi to review the implementation of its health research agenda, developed EIDM guidelines for both MoHs, and supported bi-annual evidence dialogues to improve interactions and raise the profile of evidence. Internal evaluation included baseline and endline surveys (93 baseline and 92 endline interviews), 60 in-depth interviews, and intervention-specific evaluations (pre–post tests for training workshops, feedback forms for policy dialogues and tracking effects of advocacy efforts). The external evaluation was implemented alongside project implementation, conducting three annual evaluations.ResultsThe results show that training and mentorship programmes in EIDM were effective in improving competencies of civil servants. However, such programmes need to train a critical mass to be effective in enhancing EIDM practice at the MoHs. On strengthening institutional capacity for EIDM, while the project achieved some success, it did not realise long-lasting effects because of its limited time of implementation and limited focus on sustained political economy analysis, which meant that the intervention was negatively affected by frequently changing interests within the MoHs.ConclusionsAlthough training and mentorship are effective in improving EIDM competencies, they need to be incorporated in existing pre-service and in-service training programmes for sustainability. Strengthening institutional capacity for evidence use is complex and needs sustained political commitment and long-term investments.

show abstract

“…The first mechanism consists of strategies to make users aware of the usefulness of research and to change their opinions about it. Strategies to improve decision makers’ attitudes towards research in general are a “vital next step” [ 24 , 25 ]. There is solid evidence on the effectiveness of strategies such as social marketing and awareness-raising campaigns.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research use at the Ministry of Health in Burkina Faso: the decision-makers’ perspective

Dagenais

2021

Implement Sci Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Despite the increased emphasis placed on the use of evidence for policy development, relatively few initiatives have been developed to support evidence-informed decision-making, especially in West Africa. Moreover, studies examining the conditions under which policy-makers use research-based evidence are still scarce, but they show that their attitudes and opinions about research are one of the main determinants of such use. In February 2017, Burkina Faso’s Minister of Health planned to create a unit to promote evidence-informed decision-making within the ministry. Before the unit was set up, documenting the attitudes towards research at the highest levels of his Ministry appeared profitable to the unit’s planning. Method Individual interviews were conducted by the author with 14 actors positioned to consider evidence during decision-making from the Burkina Faso’s Minister of health cabinet. An interview grid was used to explore several themes such as attitudes towards research, obstacles and facilitators to research use, example of research use in decision-making and finally, ways to increase decision-makers’ participation in knowledge transfer activities. Interviews were partially transcribed and analysed by the author. Results The results show a mixed attitude towards research and relatively little indication of research use reported by respondents. Important obstacles were identified: evidence inaccessibility, lack of implementation guidelines, absence of clear communication strategy and studies’ lack of relevance for decision-making. Many suggestions were proposed such as raising awareness, improving access and research communication and prioritizing interactions with researchers. Respondents agree with the low participation of decision-makers in knowledge transfer activities: more leadership from the senior officials was suggested and greater awareness of the importance of their presence. Conclusions The conclusion presents avenues for reflection and action to increase the potential impact of the knowledge transfer unit planned within the Ministry of Health of Burkina Faso. This innovative initiative will be impactful if the obstacles identified in this study and policy-makers’ preferences and needs are taken into account during its development and implementation.

show abstract

An integrated model for increasing the use of evidence by decision-makers for improved development

Abstract: Erasmus (2019) An integrated model for increasing the use of evidence by decision-makers for improved development, Development

Cited by 25 publications

References 34 publications

Transforming evidence for policy and practice: creating space for new conversations

Transforming evidence for policy and practice: creating space for new conversations

Strengthening capacity to use research evidence in health sector policy-making: experience from Kenya and Malawi

Research use at the Ministry of Health in Burkina Faso: the decision-makers’ perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About