Dataset Information

Academic-Policy Partnerships in Evidence-Based Practice Implementation and Policy Maker Use of Child Mental Health Research.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Strategies are needed to improve policy makers' evidence-informed decision making and the availability of evidence-based, state-supported services. This study examined whether academic-policy partnerships could promote these outcomes.

Methods

Data from two national surveys of state mental health agency representatives were used to compare barriers to implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) and policy makers' use of child mental health research in states with strong academic-policy partnerships in workforce training or in program implementation/evaluation (IE) with barriers in states with no or limited partnerships in these areas.

Results

Strong IE partnerships were associated with more confidence in research use and fewer issues with provider readiness and capacity but with more issues with EBP fidelity. Strong training partnerships were associated with fewer endorsements of lack of time as a barrier to research use.

Conclusions

Academic-policy partnerships had some benefit for states' research use and EBP implementation. Because these partnerships may reduce barriers, further research should explore characteristics of effective collaborations.

SUBMITTER: Cervantes PE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8410622 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Academic-Policy Partnerships in Evidence-Based Practice Implementation and Policy Maker Use of Child Mental Health Research.

Cervantes Paige E PE Seag Dana E M DEM Nelson Katherine L KL Purtle Jonathan J Hoagwood Kimberly Eaton KE Horwitz Sarah McCue SM

Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) 20210618 9

<h4>Objective</h4>Strategies are needed to improve policy makers' evidence-informed decision making and the availability of evidence-based, state-supported services. This study examined whether academic-policy partnerships could promote these outcomes.<h4>Methods</h4>Data from two national surveys of state mental health agency representatives were used to compare barriers to implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) and policy makers' use of child mental health research in states with st ...[more]

PMID: 34139883

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionCommunity involvement in HIV research has increased over recent years, enhancing community-academic partnerships. Several terms have been used to describe community participation in research. Clarification is needed to determine whether these terms are synonymous or actually describe different research processes. In addition, it remains unclear if the role that communities play in the actual research process follows the recommendations given in theoretical frameworks of community-academia research.ObjectivesThe objective of this study is to review the existing terms and definitions regarding community-academic partnerships and assess how studies are implementing these in relation to conceptual definitions.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted in PubMed. Two reviewers independently assessed each article, applying the following inclusion criteria: the article must be published in English before 2013; it must provide an explicit definition and/or defining methodology for a term describing research with a community component; and it has to refer to HIV or AIDS, reproductive health and/or STDs. When disagreements about the relevance of an article emerged, a third reviewer was involved until concordance was reached. Data were extracted by one reviewer and independently verified by a second. Qualitative data were analyzed using MaxQDA for content and thematic analyses while quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Community feedback on data analysis and presentation of results was also incorporated.ResultsIn total, 246 articles were retrieved, 159 of which fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The number of studies that included community participation in the field of HIV research increased between 1991 and 2012, and the terms used to describe these activities have changed, moving away from action research (AR) to participatory action research (PAR), community-based research (CBR) and community-based participatory research (CBPR), with the latter being the most commonly used term. While definitions of all terms had common characteristics (e.g. participation of community in research process), they varied with regard to the emphasis placed on these characteristics. The nature of community participation in reviewed studies differed considerably from that described in theoretical models.ConclusionsThis study indicates the increase of participatory approaches in HIV research and underlines the need for clarification of terms and a framework providing orientation to community-academia partnerships.

Project description:BackgroundEvidence generation partnerships between researchers and policy-makers are a potential method for producing more relevant research with greater potential to impact on policy and practice. Little is known about how such partnerships are enacted in practice, however, or how to increase their effectiveness. We aimed to determine why researchers and policy-makers choose to work together, how they work together, which partnership models are most common, and what the key (1) relationship-based and (2) practical components of successful research partnerships are.MethodsSemi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 18 key informants largely based in New South Wales, Australia, who were (1) researchers experienced in working in partnership with policy in health or health-related areas or (2) policy and programme developers and health system decision-makers experienced in working in partnership with researchers. Data was analysed thematically by two researchers.ResultsResearcher-initiated and policy agency-initiated evidence generation partnerships were common. While policy-initiated partnerships were thought to be the most likely to result in impact, researcher-initiated projects were considered important in advancing the science and were favoured by researchers due to greater perceived opportunities to achieve key academic career metrics. Participants acknowledged that levels of collaboration varied widely in research/policy partnerships from minimal to co-production. Co-production was considered a worthy goal by all, conferring a range of benefits, but one that was difficult to achieve in practice. Some participants asserted that the increased time and resources required for effective co-production meant it was best suited to evaluation and implementation projects where the tacit, experiential knowledge of policy-makers provided critical nuance to underpin study design, implementation and analysis. Partnerships that were mutually considered to have produced the desired outcomes were seen to be underpinned by a range of both relationship-based (such as shared aims and goals and trust) and practical factors (such as sound governance and processes).ConclusionsOur findings highlight the important role of policy-makers in New South Wales in ensuring the relevance of research. There is still much to understand about how to initiate and sustain successful research/policy partnerships, particularly at the highly collaborative end.

Project description:BackgroundAlmost 20 million children under one year of age did not receive basic vaccines in 2019, and most of these children lived in low- and middle-income countries. Implementation research has been recognized as an emerging area that is critical to strengthen the implementation of interventions proven to be effective. As a component of strengthening implementation, WHO has called for greater embedding of research within decision-making processes. One strategy to facilitate the embedding of research is to engage decision-makers as Principal Investigators of the research. Since 2015, the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research within the WHO and the United Nations Children's Fund have supported decision-maker led research by partnering with Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, in an initiative called "Decision-Maker Led Implementation Research". This synthesis paper describes the cross-cutting lessons from the initiative to further understand and develop future use of the decision-maker led strategy.MethodsThis study used qualitative methods of data collection, including a document review and in-depth interviews with decision-makers and researchers engaged in the initiative. Document extraction and thematic content analysis were applied. The individual project was the unit of analysis and the results were summarized across projects.ResultsResearch teams from 11 of the 14 projects participated in this study, for an overall response rate of 78.6%. Most projects were carried out in countries in Africa and conducted at the sub-state or sub-district level. Seven enablers and five barriers to the process of conducting the studies or bringing about changes were identified. Key enablers were the relevance, acceptability, and integration of the research, while key barriers included unclear results, limited planning and support, and the limited role of a single study in informing changes to strengthen implementation.ConclusionsDecision-maker led research is a promising strategy to facilitate the embedding of research into decision-making processes and contribute to greater use of research to strengthen implementation of proven-effective interventions, such as immunization. We identified several lessons for consideration in the future design and use of the decision-maker led strategy.

Dataset Information

Academic-Policy Partnerships in Evidence-Based Practice Implementation and Policy Maker Use of Child Mental Health Research.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Academic-Policy Partnerships in Evidence-Based Practice Implementation and Policy Maker Use of Child Mental Health Research.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets