Pathways to the Use of Health Services Research in Policy

Gold, Marsha

doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2009.00958.x

Cited by 64 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Participants' frequent mention of intermediaries (e.g. non-profit and advocacy groups, health departments) as trusted and valued sources of information is echoed in the literature and illustrates the vital role that these groups play in policy development, often serving as a bridge between researchers and policymakers [12,[24][25][26][27].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

State legislators’ sources and use of information: bridging the gap between research and policy

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research can inform policymakers of public health issues and shape policy decisions, hopefully benefiting public health; thus, improving dissemination of research to policymakers is important for developing effective public health policies that improve health and health equity. However, the utilization of research among policymakers is often not fully realized. This study builds upon current knowledge about what types of information legislators seek when working on health issues and where they go for information. Further, it explores what kinds of information legislators find most helpful and if there are ways researchers could better provide this evidence. Key-informant interviews were conducted with 25 U.S. state legislators holding health committee leadership positions between July and November, 2010. Regarding types of information sought, most legislators discussed their desire for data and statistics when working on healthrelated issues. When asked about their most trusted sources of information, participants mentioned government sources as well as advocacy, lobby and industry groups. A few mentioned universities and healthcare professionals. Results from this study offer public health researchers and practitioners' insights into the types of information that may be most helpful to policymakers. Insights gathered may improve the dissemination of research and bridge the gap between knowledge users and knowledge producers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

State legislators’ sources and use of information: bridging the gap between research and policy

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both formal and informal networks are needed to facilitate the transfer of research knowledge to decision-makers 100 and improved collaboration and communication between GDs and CRGs might facilitate the use of Cochrane Reviews in the development of guidelines. Previous research has identified a number of potential facilitators for increasing the impact of systematic reviews on the policy-making process.…”

Section: Implications Of the Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of Cochrane Reviews: a mixed-methods evaluation of outputs from Cochrane Review Groups supported by the National Institute for Health Research

Bunn

Trivedi

Alderson

et al. 2015

Health Technology Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe last few decades have seen a growing emphasis on evidence-informed decision-making in health care. Systematic reviews, such as those produced by Cochrane, have been a key component of this movement. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Systematic Review Programme currently supports 20 Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) in the UK and it is important that this funding represents value for money.Aims and objectivesThe overall aim was to identify the impacts and likely impacts on health care, patient outcomes and value for money of Cochrane Reviews published by 20 NIHR-funded CRGs during the years 2007–11.DesignWe sent questionnaires to CRGs and review authors, undertook interviews with guideline developers (GDs) and used bibliometrics and documentary review to get an overview of CRG impact and to evaluate the impact of a sample of 60 Cochrane Reviews. The evaluation was guided by a framework with four categories (knowledge production, research targeting, informing policy development and impact on practice/services).ResultsA total of 3187 new and updated reviews were published on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews between 2007 and 2011, 1502 (47%) of which were produced by the 20 CRGs funded by the NIHR. We found 40 examples where reviews appeared to have influenced primary research and reviews had contributed to the creation of new knowledge and stimulated debate. Twenty-seven of the 60 reviews had 100 or more citations in Google Scholar™ (Google, CA, USA). Overall, 483 systematic reviews had been cited in 247 sets of guidance. This included 62 sets of international guidance, 175 sets of national guidance (87 from the UK) and 10 examples of local guidance. Evidence from the interviews suggested that Cochrane Reviews often play an instrumental role in informing guidance, although reviews being a poor fit with guideline scope or methods, reviews being out of date and a lack of communication between CRGs and GDs were barriers to their use. Cochrane Reviews appeared to have led to a number of benefits to the health service including safer or more appropriate use of medication or other health technologies or the identification of new effective drugs or treatments. However, whether or not these changes were directly as a result of the Cochrane Review and not the result of subsequent clinical guidance was difficult to judge. Potential benefits of Cochrane Reviews included economic benefits through budget savings or the release of funds, improvements in clinical quality, the reduction in the use of unproven or unnecessary procedures and improvements in patient and carer experiences.ConclusionsThis study identified a number of impacts and likely impacts of Cochrane Reviews. The clearest impacts of Cochrane Reviews are on research targeting and health-care policy, with less evidence of a direct impact on clinical practice and the organisation and delivery of NHS services. Although it is important for researchers to consider how they might increase the influence of their work, such impacts are difficult to measure. More work is required to develop suitable methods for defining and quantifying the impact of research.FundingThe NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme.

show abstract

“…Despite this, there appears to remain a gap between the world of research and the world of health policy that has been frequently observed, and lamented. [1][2][3][4][5][6] Civil servants, who are in many ways the customers for health research, have difficulty in communicating effectively with the research community. [7][8][9] A survey of the situation in Europe with regard to health services research in 2009-2010 revealed a remarkably varied picture and poor use of such research by policy-makers, except with regard to new drugs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The research publications of members of European national noncommunicable disease health advisory committees

Pallari

Lewison

2015

J Sci Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes a new indicator of research impact or influence, namely the research experience of health advisory committee members in 21 European countries, and how this relates to the burden of disease in those countries. Attention is confined to five noncommunicable diseases (NCDs): Cancer, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, mental disorders, and chronic respiratory diseases, and the 5 years 2009-2013. In 2010, these five disease groups accounted for 57% of the disease burden in Europe as measured by Disability-Adjusted Life Years. The file of advisers' research papers contained 12,854 biomedical articles and reviews in the Web of Science, of which 5713 were concerned with one or more of the five NCDs. This output was compared with the relative disease burden in the countries concerned, and with the burden from different manifestations of these diseases such as cancer sites and alcoholism and dementia among mental disorders. such as alcoholism and dementia. The extent of other European countries' contributions to the advisers' research portfolios was also determined; it was higher than expected.

show abstract

Pathways to the Use of Health Services Research in Policy

Cited by 64 publications

References 24 publications

State legislators’ sources and use of information: bridging the gap between research and policy

State legislators’ sources and use of information: bridging the gap between research and policy

The impact of Cochrane Reviews: a mixed-methods evaluation of outputs from Cochrane Review Groups supported by the National Institute for Health Research

The research publications of members of European national noncommunicable disease health advisory committees

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About