Dataset Information

Measuring use of research evidence in public health policy: a policy content analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There are few Australian studies showing how research evidence is used to inform the development of public health policy. International research has shown that compensation for injury rehabilitation can have negative impacts on health outcomes. This study examined transport injury compensation policy in the Australian state of Victoria to: determine type and purpose of reference to information sources; and to identify the extent of reference to academic research evidence in transport related injury rehabilitation compensation policy.

Methods

Quantitative content analysis of injury rehabilitation compensation policies (N?=?128) from the Victorian state government transport accident compensation authority.

Results

The most commonly referenced types of information were Internal Policy (median?=?6 references per policy), Clinical/Medical (2.5), and Internal Legislation (1). Academic Research Evidence was the least often referenced source of information. The main purpose of reference to information was to support injury treatment and rehabilitation compensation claims decision-making.

Conclusions

Transport injury compensation policy development is complex; with multiple sources of information cited including legislation, internal policy, external policy and clinical/medical evidence. There is limited use of academic research evidence in Victorian state government injury treatment and rehabilitation compensation policies. Decisions regarding compensation for injury treatment and rehabilitation services could benefit from greater use of academic research evidence. This study is one of the first to examine the use of research evidence in existing Australian public health policy decision-making using rigorous quantitative methods. It provides a practical example of how use of research evidence in public health policy can be objectively measured.

SUBMITTER: Zardo P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4048040 | biostudies-literature | 2014 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Measuring use of research evidence in public health policy: a policy content analysis.

Zardo Pauline P Collie Alex A

BMC public health 20140523

<h4>Background</h4>There are few Australian studies showing how research evidence is used to inform the development of public health policy. International research has shown that compensation for injury rehabilitation can have negative impacts on health outcomes. This study examined transport injury compensation policy in the Australian state of Victoria to: determine type and purpose of reference to information sources; and to identify the extent of reference to academic research evidence in tr ...[more]

PMID: 24886092

Similar Datasets

Project description:When responding to a novel infectious disease outbreak, policies are set under time constraints and uncertainty which can limit the ability to control the outbreak and result in unintended consequences including lack of public confidence. The H1N1 pandemic highlighted challenges in public health decision-making during a public health emergency. Understanding this process to identify barriers and modifiable influences is important to improve the response to future emergencies. The purpose of this study is to examine the H1N1 pandemic decision-making process in Canada with an emphasis on the use of evidence for public health decisions. Using semi-structured key informant interviews conducted after the pandemic (July-November 2010) and a document analysis, we examined four highly debated pandemic policies: use of adjuvanted vaccine by pregnant women, vaccine priority groups and sequencing, school closures and personal protective equipment. Data were analysed for thematic content guided by Lomas' policy decision-making framework as well as indicative coding using iterative methods. We interviewed 40 public health officials and scientific advisors across Canada and reviewed 76 pandemic policy documents. Our analysis revealed that pandemic pre-planning resulted in strong beliefs, which defined the decision-making process. Existing ideological perspectives of evidence strongly influenced how information was used such that the same evidentiary sources were interpreted differently according to the ideological perspective. Participants recognized that current models for public health decision-making failed to make explicit the roles of scientific evidence in relation to contextual factors. Conflict avoidance theory explained policy decisions that went against the prevailing evidence. Clarification of roles and responsibilities within the public health system would reduce duplication and maintain credibility. A more transparent and iterative approach to incorporating evidence into public health decision-making that reflects the realities of the external pressures present during a public health emergency is needed.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough important syntheses and theoretical works exist in relation to understanding the organisational factors that facilitate research use, these contributions differ in their scope and object of study as well as their theoretical underpinnings. Therefore, from an exploratory angle, it may be useful to map out the current literature on organisational factors of research use in public health policy-making when revisiting existing theories and frameworks to gain further theoretical insights.MethodsHerein, a scoping review technique and thematic content analysis were used to bring together findings from both synthesised and empirical studies of different types to map out the organisational factors that facilitate research use in public health policy-making.ResultsA total of 14 reviews and 40 empirical studies were included in the analysis. These were thematically coded and the intra-organisational factors reported as enabling research use were examined. Five main categories of organisational factors that advance research use in policy organisations - (1) individual factors, (2) the management of research integration, (3) organisational systems and infrastructures of research use, (4) institutional structures and rules for policy-making, and (5) organisational characteristics - were derived as well as 18 subcategories and a total of 64 specific factors, where 27 factors were well supported by research.ConclusionsUsing a scoping review methodology, the intra-organisational factors influencing research use in policy-making (including individual factors) were systematically mapped and the theories applied in this area of research were assessed. The review findings confirm the importance of an intra-organisational perspective when exploring research use, showing that many organisational factors are critical facilitators of research use but also that many factors and mechanisms are understudied. The synthesis shows a lack of studies on politicians and the need for more theoretically founded research. Despite increased efforts to update the existing evidential and theoretical basis of research use, we still need frameworks that combine different approaches and theories to help us grasp the complex organisational mechanisms that facilitate research use in policy settings.

Project description:ObjectiveUse of research evidence in public health decision making can be affected by organizational supports. Study objectives are to identify patterns of organizational supports and explore associations with research evidence use for job tasks among public health practitioners.DesignIn this longitudinal study, we used latent class analysis to identify organizational support patterns, followed by mixed logistic regression analysis to quantify associations with research evidence use.SettingThe setting included 12 state public health department chronic disease prevention units and their external partnering organizations involved in chronic disease prevention.ParticipantsChronic disease prevention staff from 12 US state public health departments and partnering organizations completed self-report surveys at 2 time points, in 2014 and 2016 (N = 872).Main outcome measuresLatent class analysis was employed to identify subgroups of survey participants with distinct patterns of perceived organizational supports. Two classify-analyze approaches (maximum probability assignment and multiple pseudo-class draws) were used in 2017 to investigate the association between latent class membership and research evidence use.ResultsThe optimal model identified 4 latent classes, labeled as "unsupportive workplace," "low agency leadership support," "high agency leadership support," and "supportive workplace." With maximum probability assignment, participants in "high agency leadership support" (odds ratio = 2.08; 95% CI, 1.35-3.23) and "supportive workplace" (odds ratio = 1.74; 95% CI, 1.10-2.74) were more likely to use research evidence in job tasks than "unsupportive workplace." The multiple pseudo-class draws produced comparable results with odds ratio = 2.09 (95% CI, 1.31-3.30) for "high agency leadership support" and odds ratio = 1.74 (95% CI, 1.07-2.82) for "supportive workplace."ConclusionsFindings suggest that leadership support may be a crucial element of organizational supports to encourage research evidence use. Organizational supports such as supervisory expectations, access to evidence, and participatory decision making may need leadership support as well to improve research evidence use in public health job tasks.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious surveys of organizations that support the development of evidence-informed health policies have focused on organizations that produce clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) or undertake health technology assessments (HTAs). Only rarely have surveys focused at least in part on units that directly support the use of research evidence in developing health policy on an international, national, and state or provincial level (i.e., government support units, or GSUs) that are in some way successful or innovative or that support the use of research evidence in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).MethodsWe drew on many people and organizations around the world, including our project reference group, to generate a list of organizations to survey. We modified a questionnaire that had been developed originally by the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation in Europe (AGREE) collaboration and adapted one version of the questionnaire for organizations producing CPGs and HTAs, and another for GSUs. We sent the questionnaire by email to 176 organizations and followed up periodically with non-responders by email and telephone.ResultsWe received completed questionnaires from 152 (86%) organizations. More than one-half of the organizations (and particularly HTA agencies) reported that examples from other countries were helpful in establishing their organization. A higher proportion of GSUs than CPG- or HTA-producing organizations involved target users in the selection of topics or the services undertaken. Most organizations have few (five or fewer) full-time equivalent (FTE) staff. More than four-fifths of organizations reported providing panels with or using systematic reviews. GSUs tended to use a wide variety of explicit valuation processes for the research evidence, but none with the frequency that organizations producing CPGs, HTAs, or both prioritized evidence by its quality. Between one-half and two-thirds of organizations do not collect data systematically about uptake, and roughly the same proportions do not systematically evaluate their usefulness or impact in other ways.ConclusionThe findings from our survey, the most broadly based of its kind, both extend or clarify the applicability of the messages arising from previous surveys and related documentary analyses, such as how the 'principles of evidence-based medicine dominate current guideline programs' and the importance of collaborating with other organizations. The survey also provides a description of the history, structure, processes, outputs, and perceived strengths and weaknesses of existing organizations from which those establishing or leading similar organizations can draw.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious efforts to produce case descriptions have typically not focused on the organizations that produce research evidence and support its use. External evaluations of such organizations have typically not been analyzed as a group to identify the lessons that have emerged across multiple evaluations. Case descriptions offer the potential for capturing the views and experiences of many individuals who are familiar with an organization, including staff, advocates, and critics.MethodsWe purposively sampled a subgroup of organizations from among those that participated in the second (interview) phase of the study and (once) from among other organizations with which we were familiar. We developed and pilot-tested a case description data collection protocol, and conducted site visits that included both interviews and documentary analyses. Themes were identified from among responses to semi-structured questions using a constant comparative method of analysis. We produced both a brief (one to two pages) written description and a video documentary for each case.ResultsWe conducted 51 interviews as part of the eight site visits. Two organizational strengths were repeatedly cited by individuals participating in the site visits: use of an evidence-based approach (which was identified as being very time-consuming) and existence of a strong relationship between researchers and policymakers (which can be challenged by conflicts of interest). Two organizational weaknesses - a lack of resources and the presence of conflicts of interest - were repeatedly cited by individuals participating in the site visits. Participants offered two main suggestions for the World Health Organization (and other international organizations and networks): 1) mobilize one or more of government support, financial resources, and the participation of both policymakers and researchers; and 2) create knowledge-related global public goods.ConclusionThe findings from our case descriptions, the first of their kind, intersect in interesting ways with the messages arising from two systematic reviews of the factors that increase the prospects for research use in policymaking. Strong relationships between researchers and policymakers bodes well given such interactions appear to increase the prospects for research use. The time-consuming nature of an evidence-based approach, on the other hand, suggests the need for more efficient production processes that are 'quick and clean enough.' Our case descriptions and accompanying video documentaries provide a rich description of organizations supporting the use of research evidence, which can be drawn upon by those establishing or leading similar organizations, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of research evidence to underpin public health policy is strongly promoted. However, its implementation has not been straightforward. The objectives of this systematic review were to synthesise empirical evidence on the use of research evidence by public health decision makers in settings with universal health care systems.MethodsTo locate eligible studies, 13 bibliographic databases were screened, organisational websites were scanned, key informants were contacted and bibliographies of included studies were scrutinised. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Data were synthesised as a narrative review.Findings18 studies were included: 15 qualitative studies, and three surveys. Their methodological quality was mixed. They were set in a range of country and decision making settings. Study participants included 1063 public health decision makers, 72 researchers, and 174 with overlapping roles. Decision making processes varied widely between settings, and were viewed differently by key players. A range of research evidence was accessed. However, there was no reliable evidence on the extent of its use. Its impact was often indirect, competing with other influences. Barriers to the use of research evidence included: decision makers' perceptions of research evidence; the gulf between researchers and decision makers; the culture of decision making; competing influences on decision making; and practical constraints. Suggested (but largely untested) ways of overcoming these barriers included: research targeted at the needs of decision makers; research clearly highlighting key messages; and capacity building. There was little evidence on the role of research evidence in decision making to reduce inequalities.ConclusionsTo more effectively implement research informed public health policy, action is required by decision makers and researchers to address the barriers identified in this systematic review. There is an urgent need for evidence to support the use of research evidence to inform public health decision making to reduce inequalities.

Dataset Information

Measuring use of research evidence in public health policy: a policy content analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Measuring use of research evidence in public health policy: a policy content analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets