Dataset Information

A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The gap between research and practice or policy is often described as a problem. To identify new barriers of and facilitators to the use of evidence by policymakers, and assess the state of research in this area, we updated a systematic review. METHODS: Systematic review. We searched online databases including Medline, Embase, SocSci Abstracts, CDS, DARE, Psychlit, Cochrane Library, NHSEED, HTA, PAIS, IBSS (Search dates: July 2000 - September 2012). Studies were included if they were primary research or systematic reviews about factors affecting the use of evidence in policy. Studies were coded to extract data on methods, topic, focus, results and population. RESULTS: 145 new studies were identified, of which over half were published after 2010. Thirteen systematic reviews were included. Compared with the original review, a much wider range of policy topics was found. Although still primarily in the health field, studies were also drawn from criminal justice, traffic policy, drug policy, and partnership working. The most frequently reported barriers to evidence uptake were poor access to good quality relevant research, and lack of timely research output. The most frequently reported facilitators were collaboration between researchers and policymakers, and improved relationships and skills. There is an increasing amount of research into new models of knowledge transfer, and evaluations of interventions such as knowledge brokerage. CONCLUSIONS: Timely access to good quality and relevant research evidence, collaborations with policymakers and relationship- and skills-building with policymakers are reported to be the most important factors in influencing the use of evidence. Although investigations into the use of evidence have spread beyond the health field and into more countries, the main barriers and facilitators remained the same as in the earlier review. Few studies provide clear definitions of policy, evidence or policymaker. Nor are empirical data about policy processes or implementation of policy widely available. It is therefore difficult to describe the role of evidence and other factors influencing policy. Future research and policy priorities should aim to illuminate these concepts and processes, target the factors identified in this review, and consider new methods of overcoming the barriers described.

SUBMITTER: Oliver K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3909454 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers.

Oliver Kathryn K Innvar Simon S Lorenc Theo T Woodman Jenny J Thomas James J

BMC health services research 20140103

<h4>Background</h4>The gap between research and practice or policy is often described as a problem. To identify new barriers of and facilitators to the use of evidence by policymakers, and assess the state of research in this area, we updated a systematic review.<h4>Methods</h4>Systematic review. We searched online databases including Medline, Embase, SocSci Abstracts, CDS, DARE, Psychlit, Cochrane Library, NHSEED, HTA, PAIS, IBSS (Search dates: July 2000 - September 2012). Studies were included ...[more]

PMID: 24383766

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe third sector is becoming a growing provider of public, social, and health services. However, there is little evidence on the effectiveness of third sector organisations (TSOs), and their capacity to implement evidence-based interventions (EBIs). Understanding implementation aspects of service delivery remains an important issue in clinical practice, but is poorly understood in the context of TSOs. This is problematic, since implementation issues are known to be critical for effective intervention outcomes.ObjectivesTo identify and synthesise existing research on what barriers and facilitators influence the implementation process of TSOs delivering EBIs.MethodsThis review is reported according to PRISMA guidelines and was pre-registered in PROSPERO. Key databases were searched using relevant terms, experts in the field were contacted, and websites were reviewed. All identified studies were double-screened, and data were extracted independently by two authors. Included studies were synthesised using thematic analysis and were quality appraised.ResultsThirty-one studies were included, most of which were conducted in North America. The thematic synthesis identified resource limitations, in particular staff and finance, to be the most reported barrier to TSOs implementing EBIs. Organisational culture, including factors such as alignment between the mission of the TSO and EBI, and support/prioritisation of the implementation process were the most reported facilitators. These findings generalise across the included studies and are robust to study quality assessment.ConclusionsWhile it is often assumed that good outcomes follow when implementing interventions that have been developed and tested according to best practice, little attention has been paid to how EBIs are best transported, contextualised, and implemented by third sector providers. This systematic review found that TSOs faced considerable challenges in implementing EBIs, which were primarily a lack of support and expertise, and unclear/insufficient guidelines on how to adapt EBIs to different populations. To address these challenges, it is important to engage with central stakeholders, such as funders, researchers, policymakers, and practitioners, to discuss how these needs can be met.Trial registrationPROSPERO: CRD42017073090 .

Project description:In Nigeria, interest in the evidence-to-policy process is gaining momentum among policymakers involved in maternal, newborn and child health (MNCH). However, numerous gaps exist among policymakers on use of research evidence in policymaking. The objective of this study was to assess the perception of MNCH policymakers regarding their needs and the barriers and facilitators to use of research evidence in policymaking in Nigeria.The study design was a cross-sectional assessment of perceptions undertaken during a national MNCH stakeholders' engagement event convened in Abuja, Nigeria. A questionnaire designed to assess participants' perceptions was administered in person. Group consultations were also held, which centred on policymakers' evidence-to-policy needs to enhance the use of evidence in policymaking.A total of 40 participants completed the questionnaire and participated in the group consultations. According to the respondents, the main barriers to evidence use in MNCH policymaking include inadequate capacity of organisations to conduct policy-relevant research; inadequate budgetary allocation for policy-relevant research; policymakers' indifference to research evidence; poor dissemination of research evidence to policymakers; and lack of interaction fora between researchers and policymakers. The main facilitators of use of research evidence for policymaking in MNCH, as perceived by the respondents, include capacity building for policymakers on use of research evidence in policy formulation; appropriate dissemination of research findings to relevant stakeholders; involving policymakers in research design and execution; and allowing policymakers' needs to drive research. The main ways identified to promote policymakers' use of evidence for policymaking included improving policymakers' skills in information and communication technology, data use, analysis, communication and advocacy.To improve the use of research evidence in policymaking in Nigeria, there is a need to establish mechanisms that will facilitate the movement from evidence to policy and address the needs identified by policymakers. It is also imperative to improve organisational initiatives that facilitate use of research evidence for policymaking.

Project description:ObjectiveThe study sought to identify barriers to and facilitators of point-of-care information seeking and use of knowledge resources.Materials and methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library from 1991 to February 2017. We included qualitative studies in any language exploring barriers to and facilitators of point-of-care information seeking or use of electronic knowledge resources. Two authors independently extracted data on users, study design, and study quality. We inductively identified specific barriers or facilitators and from these synthesized a model of key determinants of information-seeking behaviors.ResultsForty-five qualitative studies were included, reporting data derived from interviews (n = 26), focus groups (n = 21), ethnographies (n = 6), logs (n = 4), and usability studies (n = 2). Most studies were performed within the context of general medicine (n = 28) or medical specialties (n = 13). We inductively identified 58 specific barriers and facilitators and then created a model reflecting 5 key determinants of information-seeking behaviors: time includes subthemes of time availability, efficiency of information seeking, and urgency of information need; accessibility includes subthemes of hardware access, hardware speed, hardware portability, information restriction, and cost of resources; personal skills and attitudes includes subthemes of computer literacy, information-seeking skills, and contextual attitudes about information seeking; institutional attitudes, cultures, and policies includes subthemes describing external individual and institutional information-seeking influences; and knowledge resource features includes subthemes describing information-seeking efficiency, information content, information organization, resource familiarity, information credibility, information currency, workflow integration, compatibility of recommendations with local processes, and patient educational support.ConclusionsAddressing these determinants of information-seeking behaviors may facilitate clinicians' question answering to improve patient care.

Project description:Physical activity (PA), including engagement in structured exercise, has a key role in the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA). However, maintaining a physically active lifestyle is a challenge for people with OA. PA determinants in this population need to be understood better so that they can be optimised by public health or healthcare interventions and social policy changes. OBJECTIVES:The primary aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review of the existing qualitative evidence on barriers and facilitators of PA for patients with hip or knee OA. Secondary objective is to explore differences in barriers and facilitators between (1) lifestyle PA and exercise and (2) PA uptake and maintenance. METHODS:Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, Grey literature and qualitative journals were searched. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme-Qualitative checklist and Lincoln and Guba's criteria were used for quality appraisal. Thematic synthesis was applied. FINDINGS:Ten studies were included, seven focusing on exercise regimes, three on overall PA. The findings showed a good fit with the biopsychosocial model of health. Aiming at symptom relief and mobility, positive exercise experiences and beliefs, knowledge, a 'keep going' attitude, adjusting and prioritising PA, having healthcare professionals' and social support emerged as PA facilitators. Pain and physical limitations; non-positive PA experiences, beliefs and information; OA-related distress; a resigned attitude; lack of motivation, behavioural regulation, professional support and negative social comparison with coexercisers were PA barriers. All themes were supported by high and medium quality studies. Paucity of data did not allow for the secondary objectives to be explored. CONCLUSION:Our findings reveal a complex interplay among physical, personal including psychological and social-environmental factors corresponding to the facilitation and hindrance of PA, particularly exercise, engagement. Further research on the efficacy of individualised patient education, psychological interventions or social policy change to promote exercise engagement and lifestyle PA in individuals with lower limb OA is required. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42016030024.

Project description:IntroductionQualitative research on antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence interventions can provide a deeper understanding of intervention facilitators and barriers. This systematic review aims to synthesize qualitative evidence of interventions for improving ART adherence and to inform patient-centred policymaking.MethodsWe searched 19 databases to identify studies presenting primary qualitative data on the experiences, attitudes and acceptability of interventions to improve ART adherence among PLHIV and treatment providers. We used thematic synthesis to synthesize qualitative evidence and the CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research) approach to assess the confidence of review findings.ResultsOf 2982 references identified, a total of 31 studies from 17 countries were included. Twelve studies were conducted in high-income countries, 13 in middle-income countries and six in low-income countries. Study populations focused on adults living with HIV (21 studies, n=1025), children living with HIV (two studies, n=46), adolescents living with HIV (four studies, n=70) and pregnant women living with HIV (one study, n=79). Twenty-three studies examined PLHIV perspectives and 13 studies examined healthcare provider perspectives. We identified six themes related to types of interventions, including task shifting, education, mobile phone text messaging, directly observed therapy, medical professional outreach and complex interventions. We also identified five cross-cutting themes, including strengthening social relationships, ensuring confidentiality, empowerment of PLHIV, compensation and integrating religious beliefs into interventions. Our qualitative evidence suggests that strengthening PLHIV social relationships, PLHIV empowerment and developing culturally appropriate interventions may facilitate adherence interventions. Our study indicates that potential barriers are inadequate training and compensation for lay health workers and inadvertent disclosure of serostatus by participating in the intervention.ConclusionsOur study evaluated adherence interventions based on qualitative data from PLHIV and health providers. The study underlines the importance of incorporating social and cultural factors into the design and implementation of interventions. Further qualitative research is needed to evaluate ART adherence interventions.

Project description:BackgroundAdolescent HIV and pregnancy rates in Southern Africa are amongst the highest in the world. Despite decades of sexual and reproductive health (SRH) programming targeting adolescents, recent trends suggest there is a continued need for interventions targeting condom use for this age group.MethodsThis review synthesises evidence from qualitative studies that describe the determinants of condom use among adolescents in Southern Africa. We conducted systematic searches in four databases. Data were extracted, appraised for quality and analysed using a 'best-fit' framework synthesis approach.ResultsWe coded deductively findings from 23 original studies using an a priori framework and subsequently conducted thematic analysis. Synthesised findings produced six key themes relating to: 1) pervasive unequal gender norms and restrictive masculinities favouring male sexual decision-making and stigmatising condom use in committed relationships; 2) other social norms reflecting negative constructions of adolescent sexuality and non-traditional family planning; 3) economic and political barriers including poverty and a lack of policy support for condom use; 4) service-level barriers including a lack of youth-friendly SRH services and comprehensive sex education in schools; 5) interpersonal barriers and facilitators including unequal power dynamics in sexual partnerships, peer influences and encouraging condoning condom use, and inadequate communication about SRH from parents/caregivers; and 6) negative attitudes and beliefs about condoms and condom use among adolescents. A conceptual model was generated to describe determinants of condom use, illustrating individual-, interpersonal- and structural-level barriers and facilitating factors.ConclusionSRH programming targeting barriers and facilitators of condom use at multiple levels is recommended in Southern Africa. We present a multilevel integrated model of barriers and facilitators to guide adolescent SRH decision-making, programme planning and evaluation. Given the existence of multilevel barriers and facilitators, interventions should, likewise, take a multilevel approach that incorporates locally relevant understanding of the individual-, interpersonal- and structural-level barriers and facilitators to condom use among adolescents in the region.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Epilepsy affects nearly 50 million people worldwide. Self-management is critical for individuals with epilepsy in order to maintain optimal physical, cognitive, and emotional health. Implementing and adopting a self-management program requires considering many factors at the person, program, and systems levels. We conducted a systematic review of qualitative and mixed-methods studies to identify facilitators and barriers that impact implementation and adoption of self-management programs for adults with epilepsy. METHODS:We used established systematic review methodologies for qualitative and mixed-methods studies. We included studies addressing facilitators (i.e., factors that aided) or barriers (i.e., factors that impeded) to implementation and adoption of self-management interventions for adults with epilepsy. We conducted a narrative thematic synthesis to identify facilitators and barriers. RESULTS:The literature search identified 2700 citations; 13 studies met eligibility criteria. Our synthesis identified five themes that categorize facilitators and barriers to successful implementation epilepsy self-management: (1) relevance, intervention content that facilitates acquisition of self-management skills; (2) personalization, intervention components that account for the individual's social, physical, and environmental characteristics; (3) intervention components, components and dosing of the intervention; (4) technology considerations, considerations that account for individual's use, familiarity with, and ownership of technology; and (5) clinician interventionist, role and preparation of the individual who leads intervention. We identified facilitators in 11 of the 13 studies and barriers in 11 of the 13 studies and classified these by social-ecological level (i.e., patient/caregiver, program, site/system). CONCLUSION:Identification of facilitators and barriers at multiple levels provides insight into disease-specific factors that influence implementation and adoption of self-management programs for individuals with epilepsy. Our findings indicate that involving individuals with epilepsy and their caregivers in intervention development, and then tailoring intervention content during the intervention, can help ensure the content is relevant to intervention participants. Our findings also indicate the role of the clinician (i.e., the individual who provides self-management education) is important to intervention implementation, and key issues with clinicians were identified as barriers and opportunities for improvement. Overall, our findings have practical value for those seeking to implement and adopt self-management interventions for epilepsy and other chronic illnesses. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO registration number is CRD42018098604.

Dataset Information

A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers.

Publications

A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets