Supporting Policy In health with Research: an Intervention Trial (SPIRIT)—protocol for a stepped wedge trial

Barker, Daniel; Redman, Sally; Jorm, Louisa; Green, S.; D’Este, Cate; Shakeshaft, Anthony; Davies, H. T. O.; Louviere, Jordan J.; Flynn, Timothy W.; Haines, Mary; Milat, Andrew; O’Connor, Denise; Thackway, Sarah; Blyth, Fiona; Carter, S.; Williamson, Anna; Haynes, Abby; Darsana, E.; McGrath, Catherine; Makkar, Steve R.; Turner, Tari; Lewis, Nicky; Campbell, Danielle

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005293

Cited by 39 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Co-developed by researchers, policymakers and knowledge exchange specialists, the framework derives from a synthesis of published models and research, insights gained from semi-structured interviews with policymakers, and consultation with experts in the utilisation of research in health policy (detailed analysis reported elsewhere [36]). The SPIRIT Action Framework is undergoing initial testing in a trial examining the effects of a multi-faceted intervention designed to build capacity for research use in policy agencies (the SPIRIT study) [37]. SEER is one of three instruments developed for measuring outcomes of the trial; the others being a self-report measure of organisational capacity (ORACLe) [25] and a direct measure of research engagement and use which is based on interviews and document analysis (SAGE) [38].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and validation of SEER (Seeking, Engaging with and Evaluating Research): a measure of policymakers’ capacity to engage with and use research

Brennan

McKenzie

Turner

et al. 2017

Health Res Policy Sys

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCapacity building strategies are widely used to increase the use of research in policy development. However, a lack of well-validated measures for policy contexts has hampered efforts to identify priorities for capacity building and to evaluate the impact of strategies. We aimed to address this gap by developing SEER (Seeking, Engaging with and Evaluating Research), a self-report measure of individual policymakers’ capacity to engage with and use research.MethodsWe used the SPIRIT Action Framework to identify pertinent domains and guide development of items for measuring each domain. Scales covered (1) individual capacity to use research (confidence in using research, value placed on research, individual perceptions of the value their organisation places on research, supporting tools and systems), (2) actions taken to engage with research and researchers, and (3) use of research to inform policy (extent and type of research use). A sample of policymakers engaged in health policy development provided data to examine scale reliability (internal consistency, test-retest) and validity (relation to measures of similar concepts, relation to a measure of intention to use research, internal structure of the individual capacity scales).ResultsResponse rates were 55% (150/272 people, 12 agencies) for the validity and internal consistency analyses, and 54% (57/105 people, 9 agencies) for test-retest reliability. The individual capacity scales demonstrated adequate internal consistency reliability (alpha coefficients > 0.7, all four scales) and test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficients > 0.7 for three scales and 0.59 for fourth scale). Scores on individual capacity scales converged as predicted with measures of similar concepts (moderate correlations of > 0.4), and confirmatory factor analysis provided evidence that the scales measured related but distinct concepts. Items in each of these four scales related as predicted to concepts in the measurement model derived from the SPIRIT Action Framework. Evidence about the reliability and validity of the research engagement actions and research use scales was equivocal.ConclusionsInitial testing of SEER suggests that the four individual capacity scales may be used in policy settings to examine current capacity and identify areas for capacity building. The relation between capacity, research engagement actions and research use requires further investigation.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0162-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and validation of SEER (Seeking, Engaging with and Evaluating Research): a measure of policymakers’ capacity to engage with and use research

Brennan

McKenzie

Turner

et al. 2017

Health Res Policy Sys

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We selected the five agencies that had the highest number of members registered to the site prior to the study period, and who were not currently involved in a separate intervention trial called SPIRIT (Supporting Policy In health with Research: an Intervention Trial), which aims to increase policy agencies’ capacity to use research in policymaking [32]. The agencies were all Australian-based.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of tailored blogs and content on usage of Web CIPHER – an online platform to help policymakers better engage with evidence from research

Makkar

Howe

Williamson

et al. 2016

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThere is a need to develop innovations that can help bridge the gap between research and policy. Web CIPHER is an online tool designed to help policymakers better engage with research in order to increase its use in health policymaking. The aim of the present study was to test interventions in order to increase policymakers’ usage of Web CIPHER. Namely, the impact of posting articles and blogs on topics relevant to the missions and scope of selected policy agencies in the Web CIPHER community.MethodsFive policy agencies were targeted for the intervention. Web CIPHER usage data was gathered over a 30-month period using Google Analytics. Time series analysis was used to evaluate whether publication of tailored articles and blogs led to significant changes in usage for all Web CIPHER members from policy agencies, including those from the five target agencies. We further evaluated whether these users showed greater increases in usage following publication of articles and blogs directly targeted at their agency, and if these effects were moderated by the blog author.ResultsWeb CIPHER usage gradually increased over time and was significantly predicted by the number of articles but not blogs that were posted throughout the study period. Publication of articles on sexual and reproductive health was followed by sustained increases in usage among all users, including users from the policy agency that targets this area. This effect of topic relevance did not occur for the four remaining target agencies. Finally, page views were higher for articles targeted at one’s agency compared to other agencies. This effect also occurred for blogs, particularly when the author was internal to one’s agency.ConclusionThe findings suggest that Web CIPHER usage in general was motivated by general interest, engagement and appeal, as opposed to the agency specificity of content and work relevance. Blogs in and of themselves may not be effective at promoting usage. Thus, in order to increase policymakers’ engagement with research through similar online platforms, a potentially effective approach would be to post abundant, frequently updated, engaging, interesting and widely appealing content irrespective of form.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0157-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…83 SPIRIT is informing an ongoing evaluation of a multifaceted programme to build organisational capacity for the use of research evidence in policy and programme development in Australia. 84 Findings from this will help shed light on the value of the Framework to develop and test other interventions to build organisational capacity to use research.…”

Section: Reflections On Deliverymentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of a demand-led evidence briefing service on the uptake and use of research evidence by commissioners of health services: a controlled before-and-after study

Wilson

Farley

Bickerdike

et al. 2017

Health Serv Deliv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe Health and Social Care Act 2012 (Great Britain.Health and Social Care Act 2012. London: The Stationery Office; 2012) has mandated research use as a core consideration of health service commissioning arrangements. We evaluated whether or not access to a demand-led evidence briefing service improved the use of research evidence by commissioners, compared with less intensive and less targeted alternatives.DesignControlled before-and-after study.SettingClinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in the north of England.Main outcome measuresChange at 12 months from baseline of a CCG’s ability to acquire, assess, adapt and apply research evidence to support decision-making. Secondary outcomes measured individual clinical leads’ and managers’ intentions to use research evidence in decision-making.MethodsNine CCGs received one of three interventions: (1) access to an evidence briefing service; (2) contact plus an unsolicited push of non-tailored evidence; or (3) an unsolicited push of non-tailored evidence. Data for the primary outcome measure were collected at baseline and 12 months post intervention, using a survey instrument devised to assess an organisation’s ability to acquire, assess, adapt and apply research evidence to support decision-making. In addition, documentary and observational evidence of the use of the outputs of the service was sought and interviews with CCG participants were undertaken.ResultsMost of the requests were conceptual; they were not directly linked to discrete decisions or actions but were intended to provide knowledge about possible options for future actions. Symbolic use to justify existing decisions and actions were less frequent and included a decision to close a walk-in centre and to lend weight to a major initiative to promote self-care already under way. The opportunity to impact directly on decision-making processes was limited to work to establish disinvestment policies. In terms of impact overall, the evidence briefing service was not associated with increases in CCGs’ capacity to acquire, assess, adapt and apply research evidence to support decision-making, individual intentions to use research findings or perceptions of CCGs’ relationships with researchers. Regardless of the intervention received, at baseline participating CCGs indicated that they felt that they were inconsistent in their research-seeking behaviours and their capacity to acquire research remained so at follow-up. The informal nature of decision-making processes meant that there was little or no traceability of the use of evidence.LimitationsLow baseline and follow-up response rates (of 68% and 44%, respectively) and missing data limit the reliability of these findings.ConclusionsAccess to a demand-led evidence briefing service did not improve the uptake and use of research evidence by NHS commissioners compared with less intensive and less targeted alternatives. Commissioners appear to be well intentioned but ad hoc users of research.Future workFurther research is required on the effects of interventions and strategies to build individual and organisational capacity to use research. Resource-intensive approaches to providing evidence may best be employed to support instrumental decision-making. Comparative evaluation of the impact of less intensive but targeted strategies on the uptake and use of research by commissioners is warranted.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

show abstract

Supporting Policy In health with Research: an Intervention Trial (SPIRIT)—protocol for a stepped wedge trial

Cited by 39 publications

References 23 publications

Development and validation of SEER (Seeking, Engaging with and Evaluating Research): a measure of policymakers’ capacity to engage with and use research

Development and validation of SEER (Seeking, Engaging with and Evaluating Research): a measure of policymakers’ capacity to engage with and use research

Impact of tailored blogs and content on usage of Web CIPHER – an online platform to help policymakers better engage with evidence from research

Effects of a demand-led evidence briefing service on the uptake and use of research evidence by commissioners of health services: a controlled before-and-after study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About