Research use in children's mental health policy in Canada: Maintaining vigilance amid ambiguity

2005 ◽  
Vol 61 (8) ◽  
pp. 1649-1657 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Waddell ◽  
John N. Lavis ◽  
Julia Abelson ◽  
Jonathan Lomas ◽  
Cody A. Shepherd ◽  
...  
2007 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 181-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Waddell ◽  
Cody A. Shepherd ◽  
John N. Lavis ◽  
Jonathan Lomas ◽  
Julia Abelson ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Andrew Passey

Abstract This article enhances our understanding of institutional work, through a study of professional health commissioners in the English National Health Service. Using a case study of mental health policy implementation, commissioners are conceptualized as institutional agents involved in shaping the organizational field and its boundary. Health service commissioners face a series of challenges as institutional agents. Commissioning is a relatively new health profession. It lacks a strong professional association and has predominantly been externally professionalized. Commissioners have limited direct organizational strategic management control. In the case study, commissioners were charged with leading implementation of the policy, which required them to address fragmentation in the field. Using existing typologies as an analytical frame, activities by commissioners in the case study are identified and explored as different modes of institutional work. Commissioners created a new normative network and instigated specific processes to embed and routinize cross-organization working. They undertook boundary-spanning cognitive institutional work, creating new knowledge by commissioning education of school staff in the basics of children’s mental health. Their institutional work involved challenging existing working practices, both in the health field and in the contiguous education field. The article elucidates connections between different modes of institutional work and attends to boundary work by commissioners in parallel with institutional work in the field. It also outlines how a profession seemingly lacking many of the ingredients of institutional power might pursue its own professional project through institutional work. Findings have resonance in other geographical and policy areas and fields.


2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Purtle ◽  
Katherine L. Nelson ◽  
Sarah Mc Cue Horwitz ◽  
Mary M. McKay ◽  
Kimberly E. Hoagwood

Abstract Background Research use in policymaking is multi-faceted and has been the focus of extensive study. However, virtually no quantitative studies have examined whether the determinants of research use vary according to the type of research use or phase of policy process. Understanding such variation is important for selecting the targets of implementation strategies that aim to increase the frequency of research use in policymaking. Methods A web-based survey of US state agency officials involved with children’s mental health policymaking was conducted between December 2019 and February 2020 (n = 224, response rate = 33.7%, 49 states responding (98%), median respondents per state = 4). The dependent variables were composite scores of the frequency of using children’s mental health research in general, specific types of research use (i.e., conceptual, instrumental, tactical, imposed), and during different phases of the policy process (i.e., agenda setting, policy development, policy implementation). The independent variables were four composite scores of determinants of research use: agency leadership for research use, agency barriers to research use, research use skills, and dissemination barriers (e.g., lack of actionable messages/recommendations in research summaries, lack of interaction/collaboration with researchers). Separate multiple linear regression models estimated associations between determinant and frequency of research use scores. Results Determinants of research use varied significantly by type of research use and phase of policy process. For example, agency leadership for research use was the only determinant significantly associated with imposed research use (β = 0.31, p < 0.001). Skills for research use were the only determinant associated with tactical research use (β = 0.17, p = 0.03) and were only associated with research use in the agenda-setting phase (β = 0.16, p = 0.04). Dissemination barriers were the most universal determinants of research use, as they were significantly and inversely associated with frequency of conceptual (β = −0.21, p = 0.01) and instrumental (β = −0.22, p = 0.01) research use and during all three phases of policy process. Conclusions Decisions about the determinants to target with policy-focused implementation strategies—and the strategies that are selected to affect these targets—should reflect the specific types of research use that these strategies aim to influence.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document