Dataset Information

Research for Policy (R4P): development of a reflection tool for researchers to improve knowledge utilization.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To improve knowledge utilization in policymaking, alignment between researchers and policymakers during knowledge production is essential, but difficult to maintain. In three previously reported case studies, we extensively evaluated complex research projects commissioned by policymakers to investigate how alignment is achieved in a research process and to discover ways to enhance knowledge contributions to health policy. In the present study, we investigated how the findings of these three research projects could be integrated into a practical tool for researchers to enhance their contribution to evidence-based policy.

Methods

A cross-case analysis was conducted to integrate the findings of the evaluation of the three research projects and to identify important alignment areas in these projects. By means of an iterative process, we prepared a tool that includes reflection questions for researchers. The "Research for Policy" tool was tested with input from the project managers of three new research projects. Based on the findings, the final version of the Research for Policy tool was prepared.

Results

By cross-case analysis of the three case studies, the following important alignment areas were identified: the goal, quality, relevance, timing, and presentation of research, the tasks and authorities of actors, the consultative structure and vertical alignment within organizations, and the organizational environment. The project managers regarded the Research for Policy tool as a useful checklist for addressing the important alignment areas in a research project. Based on their feedback, the illustrative examples from the case studies were added to the reflection questions. The project managers suggested making the tool accessible not only to researchers but also to policymakers. The format of the Research for Policy tool was further adjusted to users' needs by adding clickable links.

Conclusions

Alignment between research and policymaking requires continuous efforts and a clear understanding of process issues in the research project. The Research for Policy tool offers practical alignment guidance and facilitates reflection on process issues, which supports researchers in aligning with policymakers and in acting in a context-sensitive way.

SUBMITTER: Hegger I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5045649 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Research for Policy (R4P): development of a reflection tool for researchers to improve knowledge utilization.

Hegger Ingrid I Marks Lisanne K LK Janssen Susan W J SW Schuit Albertine J AJ Keijsers Jolanda F M JF van Oers Hans A M HA

Implementation science : IS 20160930 1

<h4>Background</h4>To improve knowledge utilization in policymaking, alignment between researchers and policymakers during knowledge production is essential, but difficult to maintain. In three previously reported case studies, we extensively evaluated complex research projects commissioned by policymakers to investigate how alignment is achieved in a research process and to discover ways to enhance knowledge contributions to health policy. In the present study, we investigated how the findings ...[more]

PMID: 27716245

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundResearchers must adhere to ethical and scientific standards in their research involving human subjects; therefore, their knowledge of human subjects' rights is essential. A tool to measure the extent of this knowledge is necessary to ensure that studies with participants are conducted ethically and to enhance research integrity. Currently, no validated instrument is available for such an assessment. Therefore, the primary purpose of this study is to develop a reliable and valid instrument to assess researchers' knowledge of human subjects' rights in clinical settings, as well as a reliable and valid measure of their attitudes toward clinical research ethics education in Saudi Arabia.MethodsThe current study involves the development of a questionnaire about the rights of human subjects in research and the researchers' attitudes toward research ethics education. The content was developed based on an extensive review of research ethics guidelines. A panel of experts tested the questionnaire for face validity (n = 5) and content validity (n = 8). The reliability of the questionnaire was established by a split-half reliability coefficient and item analysis among a sample (n = 301) of clinical researchers.ResultsFace validity demonstrated that the questionnaire was quick to complete and easy to answer. The global content validity indices (S-CVIs) were greater than 0.78 for all questionnaire sections; the split-half reliability coefficient was 0.755 for knowledge items; Cronbach's alpha was 0.77 for researchers' attitudes, showing good internal consistency. The difficulty index ranged from 12.0% to 98.7% for all knowledge items. Most questions were at an acceptable level of reliability and discrimination criteria. The final version of the questionnaire contained 89 items, distributed as 15 questions on demographic and professional characteristics, 64 questions items on knowledge, and 10 items on attitudes.ConclusionsThe questionnaire is a valid and reliable tool to assess biomedical researchers' knowledge of human subjects' rights and their attitudes toward research ethics education. This instrument could help address the gap in researchers' knowledge of the rights and facilitate the development of educational intervention programs to set appropriate learning objectives.

Project description:The emergence of predatory journals is a global threat for scientific integrity, particularly in under-resourced settings such as low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). A bilingual course on predatory publishing using a distance education approach was developed for Moroccan researchers as a response to the imperative need for training on research ethics to implement good scientific practices. A cross-sectional survey-based study was conducted to evaluate outcomes after delivering two education sessions in both French and English. Before this course, 40% of participants indicated that they don’t verify journal quality before manuscript submission and most of them consider Scopus indexing and the impact factor as the best criteria for journal publication. Approximately 50% of surveyees did not have previous information on predatory journals before the webinar. Pressure to publish by supervisors, institutions of affiliation, or funding agencies, was noticed in 43.4% of participants. After the webinar course was delivered, remarkably, the proportion of participants with knowledge on predatory publishing was meaningfully increased from 48.9% to 81%. Importantly, 83.7% of participants indicated that they are motivated to share their new knowledge on predatory publishing with their colleagues. Moreover, the majority of respondents (73.8%) reported that publishing their research in predatory journals may damage their career and professional future. Promisingly, nearly a half or more of participants recommended the use of training based on distance education, surveillance of researchers by their mentors and affiliations, and social networks to increase awareness on predatory publishing. Almost all participants were satisfied with the content of the webinar. Trainers and research institutions in LMICs should benefit from the advent of distance education using webinar platforms to increase awareness on the issue of predatory publishing in their settings. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40979-023-00122-7.

Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding why research is conducted may help address the under-utilisation of research. This study examined the reasons for childhood obesity prevention knowledge production in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, and the factors influencing research choices from the perspective of the researchers and health policy agencies contributing to the research.MethodsA literature search of SCOPUS and ISI Web of Knowledge (affiliation and key word searches) was conducted to compile a database of NSW childhood obesity research outputs, published between 2000 and 2015 (n = 543). Descriptive statistics were used to quantify outputs by research type, differentiating measurement, descriptive, and intervention research, systematic reviews and other publications. Interviews were conducted with a sample of researchers drawn from the database (n = 13) and decision makers from health policy agencies who funded and contributed to childhood obesity research in NSW (n = 15). Researcher interviews examined views about societal impacts, why and under what circumstances the research was conducted. Decision-maker interviews examined policy agency research investment and how research was used in decision making. Content analysis and a thematic approach was used to analyse the interview transcripts.ResultsThe research in this case was conducted for mix of reasons including those traditionally associated with academic inquiry, as well as intentions to influence policy and practice. Differences in funding mechanisms, administrative and employment arrangements, and 'who' initiated the research, created differing incentives and perspectives for knowledge production. Factors associated with the characteristics and experience of the individuals involved also influenced goals, as did the type of research conducted. Policy agencies played a role in directing research to address policy needs.ConclusionsThe findings of this study confirm that researchers are strongly influenced by their working environment. Funding schemes and other incentives to support policy relevant knowledge production are important. Contextual factors such as policy priorities, policy-driven research funding and the embedded nature or strong connections between some researchers and the policy agencies involved, are likely to have influenced the extent to which policy goals were reported in this study.

Project description:BackgroundResearch codesign is generally defined as end-users' involvement in planning, implementation, and evaluation of projects. Recently, there has been a growing interest in codesign to maximise research acceptability, applicability, and impact and to address longstanding issues around power and depth of involvement. Frameworks have been developed to assist in understanding research codesign processes at a project level. However, little is known about how university based researchers construct or adopt a coherent approach to sustain research codesign in governance, methodological approaches, and practice. This study investigated the perspectives of researchers within a newly formed research institute about principles and practices of research codesign in the context of their previous and current projects. We also investigated their perceptions of institution-level enablers and barriers to codesign. University based researchers are our primary focus here and we intend to consult other stakeholders in future work.MethodsUsing an interview guide informed by exploratory work and a scoping review of the literature, we conducted 15 individual interviews with Caring Futures Institute (CFI) leaders and researchers at different career stages working across multiple areas of health, care, and social research. Qualitative thematic analysis was conducted.ResultsThe researchers we interviewed were involved in projects ranging from large nationally funded projects to small studies funded by the university or PhD projects. Research codesign activities were generally part of larger researcher-led projects but there were a few examples of community-led projects. There was agreement amongst participants on the principles and perceived benefits of research codesign such as partnership, co-learning, and power sharing. Less agreement was found regarding the definition of research codesign and best terminology to be used. Themes reflecting the success of research codesign included pre-existing community relationships, communication skills, knowledge, and training on codesign, balancing power relationships, use of external facilitators, and adequacy of funding, time, and resources.ConclusionsThe study reaffirmed the complexity of research codesign from researchers' perspectives and identified areas of potential action that may be beneficial for university based research institutions in building codesign skills, capacity and culture for example training, peer learning and funding support. Implications for practice improvement centre on a dual strategy of building practical capacity in researchers and integrating institutional dimensions (such as governance and leadership) into codesign frameworks. This can help to ensure research codesign is integrated into organisational culture and through the work of individual researchers.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of health policy and systems research (HPSR) to inform health policy-making is an international challenge. Incorporating HPSR into decision-making primarily involves two groups, namely researchers (knowledge producers) and policy-makers (knowledge users). The purpose of this study was to compare the perceptions of Israeli health systems and policy researchers and health services policy-makers regarding the role of HPSR, factors influencing its uses and potential facilitators and barriers to HPSR, and implementation of knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) activities.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was administered to researchers and policy-makers in Israel. The survey consisted of seven closed questions. Descriptive analyses were carried out for closed-ended questions and comparative analysis were conducted between groups using the χ2 test.ResultsA total of 37 researchers and 32 policy-makers responded to the survey. While some views were in alignment, others showed differences. More policy-makers than researchers perceived that the use of HPSR in policy was hindered by practical implementation constraints, whereas more researchers felt that its use was hindered by a lack of coordination between knowledge producers and users. A larger percentage of policy-makers, as compared to researchers, reported that facilitators to the KTE process are in place and a larger percentage of researchers perceived barriers within the KTE environment. A larger percentage of policy-makers perceived KTE activities were in place as compared to researchers. Results also showed large differences in the perceptions of the two groups regarding policy formulation and which organisations they perceived as exerting strong influence on policy-making.ConclusionsThis research demonstrated that there are differences in the perceptions of knowledge producers and users about the process of KTE. Future work should focus on minimising the challenges highlighted here and implementing new KTE activities. These activities could include making the researchers aware of the most effective manner in which to package their results, providing training to policy-makers and assuring that policy-makers have technical access to appropriate databases to search for HPSR. These results underscore the need for the groups to communicate and clarify to each other what they can offer and what they require.

Dataset Information

Research for Policy (R4P): development of a reflection tool for researchers to improve knowledge utilization.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Research for Policy (R4P): development of a reflection tool for researchers to improve knowledge utilization.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets