Research for Policy (R4P): development of a reflection tool for researchers to improve knowledge utilization

Abstract

BackgroundTo improve knowledge utilization in policymaking, alignment between researchers and policymakers during knowledge production is essential, but difficult to maintain. In three previously reported case studies, we extensively evaluated complex research projects commissioned by policymakers to investigate how alignment is achieved in a research process and to discover ways to enhance knowledge contributions to health policy. In the present study, we investigated how the findings of these three research projects could be integrated into a practical tool for researchers to enhance their contribution to evidence-based policy.MethodsA cross-case analysis was conducted to integrate the findings of the evaluation of the three research projects and to identify important alignment areas in these projects. By means of an iterative process, we prepared a tool that includes reflection questions for researchers. The “Research for Policy” tool was tested with input from the project managers of three new research projects. Based on the findings, the final version of the Research for Policy tool was prepared.ResultsBy cross-case analysis of the three case studies, the following important alignment areas were identified: the goal, quality, relevance, timing, and presentation of research, the tasks and authorities of actors, the consultative structure and vertical alignment within organizations, and the organizational environment.The project managers regarded the Research for Policy tool as a useful checklist for addressing the important alignment areas in a research project. Based on their feedback, the illustrative examples from the case studies were added to the reflection questions. The project managers suggested making the tool accessible not only to researchers but also to policymakers. The format of the Research for Policy tool was further adjusted to users’ needs by adding clickable links.ConclusionsAlignment between research and policymaking requires continuous efforts and a clear understanding of process issues in the research project. The Research for Policy tool offers practical alignment guidance and facilitates reflection on process issues, which supports researchers in aligning with policymakers and in acting in a context-sensitive way.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0496-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

How are evidence generation partnerships between researchers and policy-makers enacted in practice? A qualitative interview study

“…Key informants in the current study highlighted a clear distinction between researcher and policy agency-initiated partnerships. In keeping with the literature, policy-makers were thought by both groups to be best placed to identify what evidence is needed to guide real world decision-making [5, 44, 45]. The relevance of the ensuing research and the ability of policy agencies to utilise it meant that policy agency-initiated work was reported to be particularly likely to lead to real-world impact [22, 34].…”

A systematic review of frameworks for the interrelationships of mental health evidence and policy in low- and middle-income countries

“…The elaborate stages of assessment of research utilisation in the interfaces and receptors model by Hanney et al [ 73 ] was developed further into pathways to the use of health services research in policy by Gold [ 133 ]. A number of tools and strategies were developed to improve research uptake [ 24 , 134 , 135 ], but increasingly the focus is on co-production [ 136 ], and push, pull and exchange [ 137 ]. A planned project looks at information exchange networks in Canada [ 138 ], while others focus on specific strategies such as deliberative models [ 139 ], and others build models around context in evidence utilisation [ 33 , 40 ].…”

Bridging the Silos: A Comparative Analysis of Implementation Science and Improvement Science

“…Implementation science is usually defined in terms of research on implementing evidence-based practices with convincing empirical support from clinical trials, preferably randomised controlled trials. In practice, however, this definition tends to be applied inconsistently as journals publishing implementation science studies also publish occasional studies involving practices that lack solid empirical support (99,100). We argue that the focus on practices that are evidence-based limits the ability to assess how important the strength of the evidence is relative to other determinants for implementation success.…”