Search

Background: While there has been widespread global acceptance of the importance of evidence-informed policy, many opportunities to inform health policy with research are missed, often because of a mismatch between when and where reliable evidence is needed, and when and where it is available. 'Living evidence' is an approach where systematic evidence syntheses (e.g. living reviews, living guidelines, living policy briefs, etc.) are continually updated to incorporate new relevant evidence as it becomes available. Living evidence approaches have the potential to overcome a major barrier to evidence-informed policy, making up-to-date systematic summaries of policy-relevant research available at any time that policy-makers need them. These approaches are likely to be particularly beneficial given increasing calls for policy that is responsive, and rapidly adaptive to changes in the policy context. We describe the opportunities presented by living evidence for evidence-informed policy-making and highlight areas for further exploration. Discussion: There are several elements of living approaches to evidence synthesis that might support increased and improved use of evidence to inform policy. Reviews are explicitly prioritised to be 'living' by partnerships between policy-makers and researchers based on relevance to decision-making, as well as uncertainty of existing evidence, and likelihood that new evidence will arise. The ongoing nature of the work means evidence synthesis teams can be dynamic and engage with policy-makers in a variety of ways over time; and synthesis topics, questions and methods can be adapted as policy interests or contextual factors shift. Policy-makers can sign-up to be notified when relevant new evidence is found, and can be confident that living syntheses are up-to-date and contain all research whenever they access them. The always up-to-date nature of living evidence syntheses means producers can rapidly demonstrate availability of relevant, reliable evidence when it is needed, addressing a frequently cited barrier to evidence-informed policymaking. Conclusions: While there are challenges to be overcome, living evidence provides opportunities to enable policy-makers to access up-to-date evidence whenever they need it and also enable researchers to respond to the issues of the day with up-to-date research; and update policy-makers on changes in the evidence base as they arise. It also provides an opportunity to build flexible partnerships between researchers and policy-makers to ensure that evidence syntheses reflect the changing needs of policy-makers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Capacity 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.Methods: We 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).Results: Response 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.Conclusions: Initial 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical practice guidelines are essential for driving evidence-based clinical care to patients. In an era of ever-increasing research evidence, keeping guidelines up to date is a challenging and resource-intensive process. Advances in technological platforms provide opportunities to develop new models of guideline development that will allow for continuous, rapid updates to recommendations as new evidence emerges. As Australia and other countries begin to develop these models, we have an opportunity to work more closely together to ensure the most efficient use of resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is essential that health policies are based on the best available evidence including that from research, to ensure their effectiveness in terms of both cost and health outcomes for the wider community. The present study describes the development of SAGE (Staff Assessment of enGagement with Evidence), a measure that combines an interview and document analysis to evaluate how policymakers engaged with research (i.e., how research was searched for, appraised, or generated, and whether interactions with researchers occurred), how policymakers used research (i.e., conceptually, instrumentally, tactically, or imposed), and what barriers impacted upon the use of research, in the development of a specific policy product. A multifaceted strategy was used to develop the SAGE interview and the accompanying interview-scoring tool. These included consultations with experts in health policy and research, review and analysis of the literature on evidence-informed policymaking and previous measures of research use, qualitative analysis of interviews with policymakers, and pilot-testing with senior policymakers. These steps led to the development of a comprehensive interview and scoring tool that captures and evaluates a broad range of key actions policymakers perform when searching for, appraising, generating, and using research to inform a specific policy product. Policy organizations can use SAGE to not only provide a thorough evaluation of their current level of research engagement and use, but to help shed light on programs to improve their research use capacity, and evaluate the success of these programs in improving the development of evidence-informed policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence-informed policymaking is more likely if organisations have cultures that promote research use and invest in resources that facilitate staff engagement with research. Measures of organisations' research use culture and capacity are needed to assess current capacity, identify opportunities for improvement, and examine the impact of capacity-building interventions. The aim of the current study was to develop a comprehensive system to measure and score organisations' capacity to engage with and use research in policymaking, which we entitled ORACLe (Organisational Research Access, Culture, and Leadership).Method: We used a multifaceted approach to develop ORACLe. Firstly, we reviewed the available literature to identify key domains of organisational tools and systems that may facilitate research use by staff. We interviewed senior health policymakers to verify the relevance and applicability of these domains. This information was used to generate an interview schedule that focused on seven key domains of organisational capacity. The interview was pilot-tested within four Australian policy agencies. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was then undertaken using an expert sample to establish the relative importance of these domains. This data was used to produce a scoring system for ORACLe.Results: The ORACLe interview was developed, comprised of 23 questions addressing seven domains of organisational capacity and tools that support research use, including (1) documented processes for policymaking; (2) leadership training; (3) staff training; (4) research resources (e.g. database access); and systems to (5) generate new research, (6) undertake evaluations, and (7) strengthen relationships with researchers. From the DCE data, a conditional logit model was estimated to calculate total scores that took into account the relative importance of the seven domains. The model indicated that our expert sample placed the greatest importance on domains (2), (3) and (4).Conclusion: We utilised qualitative and quantitative methods to develop a system to assess and score organisations' capacity to engage with and apply research to policy. Our measure assesses a broad range of capacity domains and identifies the relative importance of these capacities. ORACLe data can be used by organisations keen to increase their use of evidence to identify areas for further development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The importance of utilising the best available research evidence in the development of health policies, services, and programs is increasingly recognised, yet few standardised systems for quantifying policymakers' research use are available. We developed a comprehensive measurement and scoring tool that assesses four domains of research use (i.e. instrumental, conceptual, tactical, and imposed). The scoring tool breaks down each domain into its key subactions like a checklist. Our aim was to develop a tool that assigned appropriate scores to each subaction based on its relative importance to undertaking evidence-informed health policymaking. In order to establish the relative importance of each research use subaction and generate this scoring system, we conducted conjoint analysis with a sample of knowledge translation experts. Methods: Fifty-four experts were recruited to undertake four choice surveys. Respondents were shown combinations of research use subactions called profiles, and rated on a 1 to 9 scale whether each profile represented a limited (1–3), moderate (4–6), or extensive (7–9) example of research use. Generalised Estimating Equations were used to analyse respondents' choice data, which calculated a utility coefficient for each subaction. A large utility coefficient indicated that a subaction was particularly influential in guiding experts' ratings of extensive research use. Results: Utility coefficients were calculated for each subaction, which became the points assigned to the subactions in the scoring system. The following subactions yielded the largest utilities and were regarded as the most important components of each research use domain: using research to directly influence the core of the policy decision; using research to inform alternative perspectives to deal with the policy issue; using research to persuade targeted stakeholders to support a predetermined decision; and using research because it was a mandated requirement by the policymaker's organisation. Conclusions: We have generated an empirically derived and context-sensitive means of measuring and scoring the extent to which policymakers used research to inform the development of a policy document. The scoring system can be used by organisations to not only quantify the extent of their research use, but also to provide them with insights into potential strategies to improve subsequent research use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Effective use of research to inform policymaking can be strengthened by policymakers undertaking various research engagement actions (e.g., accessing, appraising, and applying research). Consequently, we developed a thorough measurement and scoring tool to assess whether and how policymakers undertook research engagement actions in the development of a policy document. This scoring tool breaks down each research engagement action into its key 'subactions' like a checklist. The primary aim was to develop the scoring tool further so that it assigned appropriate scores to each subaction based on its effectiveness for achieving evidence-informed policymaking. To establish the relative effectiveness of these subactions, we conducted a conjoint analysis, which was used to elicit the opinions and preferences of knowledge translation experts. Method: Fifty-four knowledge translation experts were recruited to undertake six choice surveys. Respondents were exposed to combinations of research engagement subactions called 'profiles', and rated on a 1-9 scale whether each profile represented a limited (1-3), moderate (4-6), or extensive (7-9) example of each research engagement action. Generalised estimating equations were used to analyse respondents' choice data, where a utility coefficient was calculated for each subaction. A large utility coefficient indicates that a subaction was influential in guiding experts' ratings of extensive engagement with research. Results: The calculated utilities were used as the points assigned to the subactions in the scoring system. The following subactions yielded the largest utilities and were regarded as the most important components of engaging with research: searching academic literature databases, obtaining systematic reviews and peer-reviewed research, appraising relevance by verifying its applicability to the policy context, appraising quality by evaluating the validity of the method and conclusions, engaging in thorough collaborations with researchers, and undertaking formal research projects to inform the policy in question. Conclusions: We have generated an empirically-derived and context-sensitive method of measuring and scoring the extent to which policymakers engaged with research to inform policy development. The scoring system can be used by organisations to quantify staff research engagement actions and thus provide them with insights into what types of training, systems, and tools might improve their staff's research use capacity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims and objectives The South-East Asia Optimising Reproductive and Child Health in Developing Countries (SEA-ORCHID) project aimed to improve health outcomes for mothers and babies in nine hospitals in South-East Asia by supporting evidence-based perinatal health care. In this research, we aimed to identify and explore the factors that may have acted as barriers to or enablers of evidence-based practice change at each of the hospitals. Methods During the final 6 months of the intervention phase of the project, semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were undertaken with 179 nurses, midwives and doctors from the maternal and neonatal departments at each of the nine participating South-East Asian hospitals. Results The interviews identified several factors that participants believed had a substantial impact on the effectiveness of the SEA-ORCHID intervention. These included knowledge, skills, hierarchy, multidisciplinarity and leadership, beliefs about consequences, resources, and the nature of the behaviours. The success of the SEA-ORCHID intervention in improving practice may reflect the extent to which tailored strategies were effective in overcoming these barriers. Conclusion Effective interventions to align practice with evidence rely on identifying and addressing barriers to practice change. The barriers identified in this study may be useful for those designing similar clinical practice improvement projects, as well as for continued efforts to improve practice in the SEA-ORCHID hospitals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]