Search

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]

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]

Health Research and Policy Systems (HARPS) has gone from strength to strength since it was established in 2003. As new Editors-in-Chief, we look forward to a bright future for HARPS, and we would like to start a conversation with you, HARPS readers, authors, editors and others, about how HARPS can best support ongoing progress and debate on evidence-informed health research policy and systems, particularly in developing countries. As a starting point for discussion, we would like to highlight three areas that we are passionate about, namely supporting an integrated community of researchers and policy-makers; building a focus on how health research and policy systems can support achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals; and strengthening our commitment to communicating and disseminating the work published in HARPS. We invite you to contribute your thoughts, ideas and suggestions on the future of HARPS, as we work together towards an evidence-informed future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence mapping describes the quantity, design and characteristics of research in broad topic areas, in contrast to systematic reviews, which usually address narrowly-focused research questions. The breadth of evidence mapping helps to identify evidence gaps, and may guide future research efforts. The Global Evidence Mapping (GEM) Initiative was established in 2007 to create evidence maps providing an overview of existing research in Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Spinal Cord Injury (SCI). Methods: The GEM evidence mapping method involved three core tasks: 1. Setting the boundaries and context of the map: Definitions for the fields of TBI and SCI were clarified, the prehospital, acute inhospital and rehabilitation phases of care were delineated and relevant stakeholders (patients, carers, clinicians, researchers and policymakers) who could contribute to the mapping were identified. Researchable clinical questions were developed through consultation with key stakeholders and a broad literature search. 2. Searching for and selection of relevant studies: Evidence search and selection involved development of specific search strategies, development of inclusion and exclusion criteria, searching of relevant databases and independent screening and selection by two researchers. 3. Reporting on yield and study characteristics: Data extraction was performed at two levels - 'interventions and study design' and 'detailed study characteristics'. The evidence map and commentary reflected the depth of data extraction. Results: One hundred and twenty-nine researchable clinical questions in TBI and SCI were identified. These questions were then prioritised into high (n = 60) and low (n = 69) importance by the stakeholders involved in question development. Since 2007, 58 263 abstracts have been screened, 3 731 full text articles have been reviewed and 1 644 relevant neurotrauma publications have been mapped, covering fifty-three high priority questions. Conclusions: GEM Initiative evidence maps have a broad range of potential end-users including funding agencies, researchers and clinicians. Evidence mapping is at least as resource-intensive as systematic reviewing. The GEM Initiative has made advancements in evidence mapping, most notably in the area of question development and prioritisation. Evidence mapping complements other review methods for describing existing research, informing future research efforts, and addressing evidence gaps. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It is important that healthcare provided in crisis settings is based on the best available research evidence. We reviewed guidelines for child and perinatal health care in crisis situations to determine whether they were based on research evidence, whether Cochrane systematic reviews were available in the clinical areas addressed by these guidelines and whether summaries of these reviews were provided in Evidence Aid.Methods: Broad internet searches were undertaken to identify relevant guidelines. Guidelines were appraised using AGREE and the clinical areas that were relevant to perinatal or child health were extracted. We searched The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify potentially relevant reviews. For each review we determined how many trials were included, and how many were conducted in resource-limited settings.Results: Six guidelines met selection criteria. None of the included guidelines were clearly based on research evidence. 198 Cochrane reviews were potentially relevant to the guidelines. These reviews predominantly addressed nutrient supplementation, breastfeeding, malaria, maternal hypertension, premature labour and prevention of HIV transmission. Most reviews included studies from developing settings. However for large portions of the guidelines, particularly health services delivery, there were no relevant reviews. Only 18 (9.1%) reviews have summaries in Evidence Aid.Conclusions: We did not identify any evidence-based guidelines for perinatal and child health care in disaster settings. We found many Cochrane reviews that could contribute to the evidence-base supporting future guidelines. However there are important issues to be addressed in terms of the relevance of the available reviews and increasing the number of reviews addressing health care delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the non-governmental organization Cochrane Collaboration which organize medical research information wherein the organization is using machine learning to reduce time for research management.

The article provides an update on health and medical research from the database collection, The Cochrane Library. These include studies on the long-term effects of weight-reducing diets in hypertensive patients, effectiveness of psychological and pharmacological interventions in patients with coronary artery disease who are coping with depression, and use of probiotics to prevent acute upper respiratory tract infections.

The article presents an evidence-based medicine (EBM) teaching activity which demonstrates the concept of concealment of allocation. This exercise requires the use of several envelopes and lollipops. The students are asked how the results came about and how these would affect a clinical trial.

Objective: We present a multistep process for identifying priority research areas in rehabilitation and long-term care of traumatic braininjured (TBI) patients. In particular, we aimed to (1) identify which stakeholders should be involved; (2) identify what methods are appropriate; (3) examine different criteria for the generation of research priority areas; and (4) test the feasibility of linkage and exchange among researchers, decision makers, and other potential users of the research. Study Design and Setting: Potential research questions were identified and developed using an initial scoping meeting and preliminary literature search, followed by a facilitated mapping workshop and an online survey. Identified research questions were then prioritized against specific criteria (clinical importance, novelty, and controversy). Existing evidence was then mapped to the high-priority questions using usual processes for search, screening, and selection. A broad range of stakeholders were then brought together at a forum to identify priority research themes for future research investment. Using clinical and research leaders, smaller targeted planning workshops prioritized specific research projects for each of the identified themes. Results: Twenty-six specific questions about TBI rehabilitation were generated, 14 of which were high priority. No one method identified all high-priority questions. Methods that relied solely on the views of clinicians and researchers identified fewer high-priority questions compared with methods that used broader stakeholder engagement. Evidence maps of these high-priority questions yielded a number of evidence gaps. Priority questions and evidence maps were then used to inform a research forum, which identified 12 priority themes for future research. Conclusion: Our research demonstrates the value of a multistep and multimethod process involving many different types of stakeholders for prioritizing research to improve the rehabilitation outcomes of people who have suffered TBI. Enhancing stakeholder representation can be augmented using a combination of methods and a process of linkage and exchange. This process can inform decisions about prioritization of research areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]