Schools of Public Health and the Health of the Public: Enhancing the Capabilities of Faculty to Be Influential in Policymaking

Longest, Beaufort B.; Huber, George A.

doi:10.2105/ajph.2009.164749

Cited by 19 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We offer several ideas that are likely to result in more effective dissemination: Shift the academic culture and incentives to include a greater focus on linking scientists with research users (eg, involvement in policy making and practice placements for faculty members). 45 , 88 , 89 Enhance expectations from funders of research for more consistent and intentional dissemination. 22 Identify and emphasize related incentives for dissemination in other organizations with a stake in dissemination (eg, creative approaches among publishers).…”

Section: Conclusion: Moving Our Field Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Getting the Word Out: New Approaches for Disseminating Public Health Science

Brownson

Eyler

Harris

et al. 2018

Journal of Public Health Management and Practice

298

236

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The gap between discovery of public health knowledge and application in practice settings and policy development is due in part to ineffective dissemination. This article describes (1) lessons related to dissemination from related disciplines (eg, communication, agriculture, social marketing, political science), (2) current practices among researchers, (3) key audience characteristics, (4) available tools for dissemination, and (5) measures of impact. Dissemination efforts need to take into account the message, source, audience, and channel. Practitioners and policy makers can be more effectively reached via news media, social media, issue or policy briefs, one-on-one meetings, and workshops and seminars. Numerous “upstream” and “midstream” indicators of impact include changes in public perception or awareness, greater use of evidence-based interventions, and changes in policy. By employing ideas outlined in this article, scientific discoveries are more likely to be applied in public health agencies and policy-making bodies.

show abstract

Section: Conclusion: Moving Our Field Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Shift the academic culture and incentives to include a greater focus on linking scientists with research users (eg, involvement in policy making and practice placements for faculty members). 45 , 88 , 89 …”

Section: Conclusion: Moving Our Field Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

Getting the Word Out: New Approaches for Disseminating Public Health Science

Brownson

Eyler

Harris

et al. 2018

Journal of Public Health Management and Practice

298

236

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Like many other SPHs [ 51 , 61 , 77 ], JHSPH has several initiatives underway that reflect its appreciation of EIDM and the role that the institution could play in advancing EIDM. These include advocacy skill-building workshops, seminars to develop and build consensus around policy recommendations, small funding opportunities for the development of dissemination products, placements for decision-makers-in-residence, and creation of a ‘Professors of Practice’ title for faculty with extensive policy-making experience.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Schools of public health (SPHs) are especially critical to advancing KT given their applied orientation and mandate. Given that they can have a significant impact in influencing EIDM [ 23 , 51 , 52 ], factors affecting this potential need to be better understood [ 53 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Attention to the role of SPHs has not gone unnoticed as reflected in studies dedicated to studying their influence on decision-making [ 51 , 60 – 63 ]. However, there is relatively limited understanding of the factors that influence engagement between SPH academic researchers and government decision-makers, how the individual and institutional factors interact, and how this may be different at the city, state, federal and global levels.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Jessani

Siddiqi

Babcock

et al. 2018

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

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

Jessani

Valmeekanathan

Babcock

et al. 2020

Humanit Soc Sci Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In academia, faculty are bound by three pillars of scholarship: Teaching, Research and Service. Academic promotion and tenure depend on metrics of assessment for these three pillars. However, what is and is not acceptable as “service” is often nebulous and left to the discretion of internal committees. With evolving requirements by funders to demonstrate wider impacts of research, we were keen to understand the financial and non-financial incentives for academic faculty to engage in knowledge translation and research utilization. Between November 2017–February 2018, 52 faculty from one School of Public Health (SPH) were interviewed. Data was analyzed using Atlas.Ti and furthermore with framework analysis. The appeal of incentives varied according to personal values, previous experiences, relevance of research to decision-making, individual capacities, and comfort ranging from instinctive support to reflexive resistance. Discussions around types of incentives elicited a plethora of ideas within 4 different categories: (a) Monetary Support, (b) Professional Recognition, (c) Academic Promotion, and (d) Capacity Enhancement. However, concerns included adverse incentives, disadvantaging suboptimally-equipped faculty, risk of existing efforts going unnoticed, vaguely defined evaluation metrics, and the impacts on promotion given that engagement activities often occur outside of the traditional grant cycle. With a shift in funder requests to demonstrate greater social return on their research investments, as well as renewed global attention to research, science and evidence for decision making, SPHs such as this one, are likely going to be concerned about the implications of an enhanced “service” pillar on the other two pillars: teaching and research. The role of incentives in enhancing academic engagement with policy and practice is therefore neither simple nor universally ideal. A tempered approach that considers the various professional aspirations of faculty, the capacities required, organisational culture of values around specific discovery sciences, funder conditions, as well as alignment with the institution’s mission is critical. Deliberations on incentives leads to a larger debate on how to we shift the culture of academia beyond incentives for individuals who are engagement-inclined to institutions that are engagement-ready, without imposing on or penalizing faculty who are choice-disengaged.

show abstract

Schools of Public Health and the Health of the Public: Enhancing the Capabilities of Faculty to Be Influential in Policymaking

Cited by 19 publications

References 1 publication

Getting the Word Out: New Approaches for Disseminating Public Health Science

Getting the Word Out: New Approaches for Disseminating Public Health Science

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

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About