scholarly journals 052 Systematic review: the use of research evidence by public health policy-makers

2010 ◽  
Vol 64 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. A21-A21 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Orton ◽  
F. Lloyd-Williams ◽  
D. Taylor-Robinson ◽  
M. O'Flaherty ◽  
S. Capewell
Author(s):  
Sara Masood ◽  
Anita Kothari ◽  
Sandra Regan

The use of robust research findings in public health policy has been strongly encouraged for bridging the evidence-policy gap. To assess and further promote evidence uptake, understanding how research evidence is being used by decision makers is very important. This systematic review examined primary studies exploring the use of research evidence in public health policy published between 2010 and January 2016; this work extended Orton et al’s (2011) review that covered studies published between 1980 and March 2010. The current systematic review incorporated 16 studies, representing 864 individuals, that provided insight into five topics pertaining to public health policy decision making: 1) the extent to which research evidence is used; 2) types of research evidence used; 3) the process of using research evidence; 4) factors other than research influencing decisions; and 5) barriers to and facilitators of evidence use. Relevant studies were identified using five different information sources including 14 electronic databases, websites of key organisations, forward citation search, reverse citation search, and internet search engines. Eligibility and methodological quality were assessed independently by two reviewers. The primary author conducted data extraction and the remaining authors reviewed the extraction results. Due to study heterogeneity, data were synthesised and findings were reported using a narrative approach. Findings aligned with previous literature to show that various types of research evidence are being accessed in public health policymaking. Further, challenges and enablers exist at multiple levels of the system, suggesting that use of research evidence is a complex, interdependent process.


2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 239-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Innvær ◽  
Gunn Vist ◽  
Mari Trommald ◽  
Andrew Oxman

Objectives: The empirical basis for theories and common wisdom regarding how to improve appropriate use of research evidence in policy decisions is unclear. One source of empirical evidence is interview studies with policy-makers. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the evidence from interview studies of facilitators of, and barriers to, the use of research evidence by health policy-makers. Methods: We searched multiple databases, including Medline, Embase, Sociofile, PsychLit, PAIS, IBSS, IPSA and HealthStar in June 2000, hand-searched key journals and personally contacted investigators. We included interview studies with health policy-makers that covered their perceptions of the use of research evidence in health policy decisions at a national, regional or organisational level. Two reviewers independently assessed the relevance of retrieved articles, described the methods of included studies and extracted data that were summarised in tables and analysed qualitatively. Results: We identified 24 studies that met our inclusion criteria. These studies included a total of 2041 interviews with health policy-makers. Assessments of the use of evidence were largely descriptive and qualitative, focusing on hypothetical scenarios or retrospective perceptions of the use of evidence in relation to specific cases. Perceived facilitators of, and barriers to, the use of evidence varied. The most commonly reported facilitators were personal contact (13/24), timely relevance (13/24), and the inclusion of summaries with policy recommendations (11/24). The most commonly reported barriers were absence of personal contact (11/24), lack of timeliness or relevance of research (9/24), mutual mistrust (8/24) and power and budget struggles (7/24). Conclusions: Interview studies with health policy-makers provide only limited support for commonly held beliefs about facilitators of, and barriers to, their use of evidence, and raise questions about commonsense proposals for improving the use of research for policy decisions. Two-way personal communication, the most common suggestion, may improve the appropriate use of research evidence, but it might also promote selective (inappropriate) use of research evidence.


Author(s):  
Sue White ◽  
Matthew Gibson ◽  
David Wastell ◽  
Patricia Walsh

This chapter explores how attachment theory is increasingly going ‘under the skin’, looking for fundamental biological mechanisms to explain behaviours and consequences. Attachment scholars and researchers have sought new alignments with developments in evolutionary biology and developmental neuroscience. All these domains — despite inconsistent findings, thorny issues relating to extrapolations from animal work, and problems with replication — are purported to provide further support for attachment theory's veracity. In addition, they dangle the tantalising prospects of better targeting of interventions and more efficacious clinical approaches to fixing the effects of disrupted attachments, including some normative and sensitive matters such as the onset of puberty, and what are somewhat euphemistically called ‘reproductive strategies’, often meaning girls having babies too early. This ‘new generation’ of biological reasoning looks to the molecular level to explain health inequalities, with the prevention of adverse childhood experiences on the ‘to do’ list for public health policy makers. This has profound potential implications for child welfare practices.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (7) ◽  
pp. e21704 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lois Orton ◽  
Ffion Lloyd-Williams ◽  
David Taylor-Robinson ◽  
Martin O'Flaherty ◽  
Simon Capewell

Health ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (04) ◽  
pp. 502-515
Author(s):  
Patricia Katowa-Mukwato ◽  
Lonia Mwape ◽  
Mwaba Chileshe Siwale ◽  
Emmanuel Mwila Musenge ◽  
Margaret Maimbolwa

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Brown ◽  
Courtney Barnes ◽  
Judith Byaruhanga ◽  
Matthew McLaughlin ◽  
Rebecca K Hodder ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND Knowledge translation (KT) aims to facilitate the use of research evidence in decision making. Changes in technology have provided considerable opportunities for KT strategies to improve access and use of evidence in decision making by public health policy makers and practitioners. Despite this opportunity, there have been no reviews that have assessed the effects of digital technology-enabled KT (TEKT) in the field of public health. OBJECTIVE This study aims to examine the effectiveness of digital TEKT strategies in (1) improving the capacity for evidence-based decision making by public health policy makers and practitioners, (2) changing public health policy or practice, and (3) changes in individual or population health outcomes. METHODS A search strategy was developed to identify randomized trials assessing the effectiveness of digital TEKT strategies in public health. Any primary research study with a randomized trial design was eligible. Searches for eligible studies were undertaken in multiple electronic bibliographic databases (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online [MEDLINE], Excerpta Medica dataBASE [EMBASE], PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature [CINAHL], and Scopus) and the reference lists of included studies. A hand search of 2 journals (Implementation Science and Journal of Medical Internet Research) and a gray literature search were also conducted. Pairs of independent review authors screened studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data from relevant studies. RESULTS Of the 6819 citations screened, 8 eligible randomized trials were included in the review. The studies examined the impact of digital TEKT strategies on health professionals, including nurses, child care health consultants, physiotherapists, primary health care workers, and public health practitioners. Overall, 5 of the interventions were web-training programs. The remaining 3 interventions included simulation games, access to digital resource materials and the use of tailored messaging, and a web-based registry. The findings suggest that digital TEKT interventions may be effective in improving the knowledge of public health professionals, relative to control, and may be as effective as a face-to-face KT approach. The effectiveness of digital TEKT strategies relative to a control or other digital KT interventions on measures of health professional self-efficacy to use evidence to enhance practice behavior or behavioral intention outcomes was mixed. The evidence regarding the effects on changes to health policy or practice following exposure to digital TEKT was mixed. No trials assessed the effects on individual or population-level health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS This review is the first to synthesize the effectiveness of digital TEKT interventions in a public health setting. Despite its potential, relatively few trials have been undertaken to investigate the impacts of digital TEKT interventions. The findings suggest that although a digital TEKT intervention may improve knowledge, the effects of such interventions on other outcomes are equivocal.


2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Underwood ◽  
S. Micucci ◽  
D. Ciliska ◽  
J. Vohra

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document