Factors affecting engagement between academic faculty and decision-makers: learnings and priorities for a school of public health

Abstract

BackgroundSchools of public health (SPHs) are increasingly being recognised as important contributors of human, social and intellectual capital relevant to health policy and decision-making. Few studies within the implementation science literature have systematically examined knowledge exchange experiences within this specific organisational context. The purpose of this study was therefore to elicit whether documented facilitators and barriers to engaging with government decision-makers resonates within an academic SPH context. We sought to understand the variations in such experiences at four different levels of government decision-making. Furthermore, we sought to elicit intervention priorities as identified by faculty.MethodsBetween May and December 2016, 211 (34%) of 627 eligible full-time faculty across one SPH in the United States of America participated in a survey on engagement with decision-makers at the city, state, federal and global government levels. Surveys were administered face-to-face or via Skype. Descriptive data as well as tests of association and logistic regression analyses were conducted using STATA.ResultsOver three-quarters of respondents identified colleagues with ties to decision-makers, institutional affiliation and conducting policy-relevant research as the highest facilitators. Several identified time constraints, academic incentives and financial support as important contributors to engagement. Faculty characteristics, such as research areas of expertise, career track and faculty rank, were found to be statistically significantly associated with facilitators. The top three intervention priorities that emerged were (1) creating incentives for engagement, (2) providing funding for engagement and (3) inculcating an institutional culture around engagement.ConclusionsThe data suggest that five principal categories of factors – individual characteristics, institutional environment, relational dynamics, research focus and funder policies – affect the willingness and ability of academic faculty to engage with government decision-makers. This study suggests that SPHs could enhance the relevance of their role in health policy decision-making by (1) periodically measuring engagement with decision-makers; (2) enhancing individual capacity in knowledge translation and communication, taking faculty characteristics into account; (3) institutionalising a culture that supports policies and practices for engagement in decision-making processes; and (4) creating a strategy to expand and nurture trusted, relevant networks and relationships with decision-makers.

Academic incentives for enhancing faculty engagement with decision-makers—considerations and recommendations from one School of Public Health

“…Study aims. This paper explores one aspect of a larger study on engagement between academic faculty at JHSPH and government decision-makers (Jessani et al, 2018a(Jessani et al, , 2018b within which the issue of incentives appeared as the primary concern. Given the extensive interest in the issue of academic incentives for KT within academia, we sought to add to the scholarship in this area with the following aims in mind:…”

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

“…Studies have mapped existing relationships between researchers and decision makers,11 25 and surveyed academics to identify factors influencing engagements between academics and public health decision makers 26. Many have called for initiatives to build relationships,27 some have tried mentorship28 but few have implemented and evaluated strategies to build relationships between policymakers and researchers.…”

Exploring the evolution of engagement between academic public health researchers and decision-makers: from initiation to dissolution

“…Two separate semi-structured interview guides were createdone for faculty members and another for decision-makers. The instruments were adapted from a previous study [68,69] and revised in light of results from Phase I [70]. Colleagues from the Schools of Medicine and Nursing who were not eligible for the study also reviewed the instrument in order to ensure applicability.…”