Search

Access to reliable and timely information ensures that decision-makers can operate effectively. The motivations and challenges of parliamentarians and policy-makers in accessing evidence have been well documented in the policy literature. However, there has been little focus on research-providers. Understanding both the demand- and the supply-side of research engagement is imperative to enhancing impactful interactions. Here, we examine the broader experiences, motivations and challenges of UK-based research professionals engaging with research-users relevant to policy-making and scrutiny in the UK using a nationwide online questionnaire. The context of the survey partly involved contributing to the UK Evidence Information Service (EIS), a proposed rapid match-making service to facilitate interaction between parliamentary arenas that use evidence and research-providers. Our findings reveal, at least for this sub-sample who responded, that there are gender-related differences in policy-related experience, motivations, incentives and challenges for research professionals to contribute to evidence-informed decision-making through initiatives such as the EIS. Male and female participants were equally likely to have policy experience; however, males reported both significantly broader engagement with the research-users included in the survey and significantly higher levels of engagement with each research-user. Reported incentives for engagement included understanding what the evidence will be used for, guidance on style and content of contribution, and acknowledgement of contributions by the policymaker or elected official. Female participants were significantly more likely to select the guidance-related options. The main reported barrier was workload. We discuss how academia-policy engagement initiatives can best address these issues in ways that enhance the integration of research evidence with policy and practice across the UK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Since the global financial crisis, UK NHS spending has reduced considerably. Respiratory care is a large cost driver for Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, the largest health board in Wales. Under the remit of 'prudent healthcare' championed by the Welsh Health Minister, a Programme Budgeting Marginal Analysis (PBMA) of the North Wales respiratory care pathway was conducted. Methods A PBMA panel of directors of medicines management, therapies finance, planning, public health and healthcare professionals used electronic voting to establish criteria for decision-making and vote on candidate interventions in which to disinvest and invest. Results A sum of £86.9 million was spent on respiratory care in 2012-13. Following extensive discussion of 13 proposed candidate interventions facilitated by a chairperson, 4 candidates received recommendations to disinvest, 7 to invest and 2 to maintain current activity. Marginal analysis prioritized mucolytics and high antibiotic prescribing as areas for disinvestment, and medicines waste management and pulmonary rehabilitation for investment. Conclusions This exercise demonstrates the potential for health boards to use evidence-based approaches to reach potentially controversial disinvestment and investment decisions. Initial progress has begun with communication from the Medical Director in relation to the disinvestment in mucolytics prescribing and possible redirection of funding options being explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Critical Commentary reviews progress in research into planning and reviewing for children in care in England and Wales since the publication of two major studies in the late 1990s (roughly coinciding with the New Labour period). It briefly considers the changing context of law, regulation and guidance and the aims and objectives of the care planning and review system. It then reviews the limited research literature available, in relation to a series of key topics. Consideration is also given to guides for children and practitioners on the subject. The Commentary concludes by suggesting that this is an area in which research has failed to keep pace with changes in policy and practice, and recommends a more systematic approach. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objectives: To identify ethical dilemmas experienced by occupational and physical therapists working in the UK National Health Service (NHS). To compare ethical contexts, themes and principles across the two groups.Design: A structured questionnaire was circulated to the managers of occupational and physical therapy services in England and Wales.Subjects: The questionnaires were given to 238 occupational and 249 physical therapists who conformed to set criteria.Results: Ethical dilemmas experienced during the previous six months were reported by 118 occupational and 107 physical therapists. The two groups were similar in age, grade, and years of experience. Fifty of the occupational therapy dilemmas occurred in mental health settings but no equivalent setting emerged for physical therapy. Different ethical themes emerged between the two groups, with the most common in occupational therapy being difficult/dangerous behaviour in patients and unprofessional staff behaviour, and for physical therapists resource limitations and treatment effectiveness. No differences were found in the ethical principles used.Conclusion: The ethical dilemmas reported by the therapists were primarily concerned with health care ethics, rather than the more dramatic ethics reported in much of the biomedical ethics literature. Differences were found between the two professional groups when ethical contexts and themes were compared but not when ethical principles were compared. This suggests that educators and researchers need to be aware of work settings and the interdisciplinary nature of employment as well as ethical principles held by individual therapists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]