How is the use of research evidence in health policy perceived? A comparison between the reporting of researchers and policy-makers

Ellen, Moriah; Lavis, John N.; Horowitz, Einav; Berglas, Robin

doi:10.1186/s12961-018-0345-6

Cited by 35 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We were able to identify perceived facilitators among men and women, such as the presence of structures linking researchers and target audiences, the investment of target audiences in KTE efforts and the presence of stable contacts among target audience. To some extent these ndings are in-line with studies conducted in other settings (28)(29)(30).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Gender Barriers to Knowledge Transfer and Exchange Among Vaccine Researchers in Low-, Middle- and High-Income Countries – An International Cross-Sectional Study in 44 Countries

El-Halabi

McCabe

Forsberg

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Globally, women constitute 30% of researchers. Despite an increasing proportion of women in research, they are still less likely to have international collaborations. Literature on barriers to knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) between men and women, remain limited. This study aimed to elucidate perceived gender barriers to KTE activities in vaccination related research in low, middle- and high-income countries. Methods: This was a cross-sectional data from a self-administered questionnaire distributed to researchers in the field of vaccination research. Structural factors to KTE were assessed using 12 statements measured with 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). An index ranging from 12 to 60 points was created to assess structural factors to KTE, with higher score indicating higher perceived barriers. Linear regression modelling was applied to examine the association between KTE barriers and gender. Results: Regardless of gender, researchers experienced challenges with respect to KTE activities, particularly factors related to the availability of human and financial resources, and level of technical expertise among their target audience. We were also able to identify perceived facilitators among men and women, such as the presence of structures that link researchers and target audiences, the investment of target audiences in KTE efforts and the presence of stable contacts among target audience. Our linear regression analysis showed that women have a reduction of 1.069 in their scores in comparison with men (R2=0.014; B=-1.069; 95%CI -4.035;1.897). Conclusions: Men and women shared common perspectives on barriers to KTE. KTE activities could be strengthened by improving structural efforts to reduce gender differences and increase collaborations between researchers and their target audience.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Gender Barriers to Knowledge Transfer and Exchange Among Vaccine Researchers in Low-, Middle- and High-Income Countries – An International Cross-Sectional Study in 44 Countries

El-Halabi

McCabe

Forsberg

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Knowledge is an important source of wisdom and efficient actions in any organization [5]. Lack of synergy between knowledge and performance of health system is indeed a gap between knowledge and practice [6,7]. Promotion of public health requires attention to a knowledge-and evidence-based decision making system [8] and human development is possible by storing, using and sharing knowledge [9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge implementation in health care management: a qualitative study

Roohi

Mahmoodi

Khoddam

2020

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The gap between knowledge and practice is a global issue, which increases wasteful spending in healthcare. There are several models and frameworks to address this gap and try to solve the challenge. Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework highlights the interaction of three main elements: evidence, context and facilitation, to implement research into practice, successfully. This framework can use as a tool to evaluate the situation and guide the changing. This study conducted to explain the status of knowledge implementation in Iran's healthcare management system. Methods: This qualitative study was done by using a directive content analysis approach through conducting indepth, structured interviews with 15 health managers based on the PARIHS framework. Guiding questions were based on the three main elements of the framework: evidence, context and facilitation. The content of the interviews entered into the Qualitative Data Analysis software (MAXQDA version 10) and, then, analyzed. Results: The most common source of evidence used by managers for decision-making was local information and previous experience. Evaluation more emphasized compared to other sub-elements of context, i.e. culture and leadership. In terms of facilitation, performing tasks by others was the dominant opinion. Conclusion: Our results showed that managers in the healthcare system of Iran use their own and other manager's experience and the local information for decision-making and have no ideas about facilitation.

show abstract

“…[53,54]) and previous studies indicate some enduring differences between policymakers and researchers in how they view the same research/policy interactions. For example, Ellen et al [55] found that policy-makers were more likely to emphasise contextual barriers to research use while researchers complained of communicative barriers. However, policy-makers may often understand research better than researchers understand policy [56].…”

Section: Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge mobilisation in practice: an evaluation of the Australian Prevention Partnership Centre

Haynes

Rowbotham

Grunseit

et al. 2020

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

bstract Background: Cross-sector collaborative partnerships are a vital strategy in efforts to strengthen research-informed policy and practice and may be particularly effective at addressing the complex problems associated with chronic disease prevention. However, there is still a limited understanding of how such partnerships are implemented in practice and how their implementation contributes to outcomes. This paper explores the operationalisation and outcomes of knowledge mobilisation strategies within the Australian Prevention Partnership Centrea research collaboration between policy-makers, practitioners and researchers. Methods: The Centre's programme model identifies six knowledge mobilisation strategies that are hypothesised to be essential for achieving its objectives. Using a mixed methods approach combining stakeholder interviews, surveys, participant feedback forms and routine process data over a 5-year period, we describe the structures, resources and activities used to operationalise these strategies and explore if and how they have contributed to proximal outcomes. Results: Results showed that Centre-produced research, resources, tools and methods were impacting policy formation and funding. Policy-makers reported using new practical methodologies that were helping them to design, implement, evaluate and obtain funding for scaled-up policies and programmes, and co-creating compelling prevention narratives. Some strategies were better implemented and more impactful than others in supporting these outcomes, with variation in who they worked for. The activities used to effect engagement, capacity-building and partnership formation were mostly generating positive results, but co-production could be enhanced by greater shared decision-making. Considerably more work is needed to successfully operationalise knowledge integration and adaptive learning.Conclusions: Describing how collaborative cross-sector research partnerships are operationalised in practice, and with what effects, can provide important insights into practical strategies for establishing and growing such partnerships and for maximising their contributions to policy. Findings suggest that the Centre has many strengths but could benefit from more inclusive and transparent governance and internal processes that facilitate dialogue about roles, expectations and co-production practices.

show abstract

How is the use of research evidence in health policy perceived? A comparison between the reporting of researchers and policy-makers

Cited by 35 publications

References 47 publications

Gender Barriers to Knowledge Transfer and Exchange Among Vaccine Researchers in Low-, Middle- and High-Income Countries – An International Cross-Sectional Study in 44 Countries

Gender Barriers to Knowledge Transfer and Exchange Among Vaccine Researchers in Low-, Middle- and High-Income Countries – An International Cross-Sectional Study in 44 Countries

Knowledge implementation in health care management: a qualitative study

Knowledge mobilisation in practice: an evaluation of the Australian Prevention Partnership Centre

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About