scholarly journals Health research knowledge translation into policy in Zambia: policy-maker and researcher perspectives

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Annie Malama ◽  
Joseph Mumba Zulu ◽  
Selestine Nzala ◽  
Maureen Mupeta Kombe ◽  
Adam Silumbwe
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Knowledge Translation ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Public Health Research ◽  
Policy Formulation ◽  
Local Health ◽  
Research Knowledge ◽  
Document Review

Abstract Background The translation of public health research evidence into policy is critical to strengthening the capacity of local health systems to respond to major health challenges. However, a limited amount of public health research evidence generated in developing countries is actually translated into policy because of various factors. This study sought to explore the process of health research knowledge translation into policy and to identify factors that facilitate or hinder the process in Zambia. Methods This work was an exploratory qualitative study comprising two phases. Firstly, a document review of health policies and strategic frameworks governing research was undertaken to understand the macro-environment for knowledge translation in Zambia. Secondly, key informant interviews were conducted with those responsible for health research and policy formulation. The study interviewed 15 key informants and a thematic analysis approach was used. Results The document review showed that there are policy efforts to promote knowledge translation through improvement of the research macro-environment. However, the interviews showed that coordination and linkage of the knowledge creation, translation and policy-making processes remains a challenge owing to lack of research knowledge translation capacity, limited resources and lack of knowledge hubs. Emerging local research leadership and the availability of existing stock of underutilized local health research data provide an opportunity to enhance knowledge translation to feed into policy processes in Zambia. Conclusions Public health research knowledge translation into policy remains a challenge in Zambia. To enhance the uptake of research evidence in policy-making, this study suggests the need for improved coordination, financing and capacity-building in knowledge translation processes for both health researchers and policy-makers.

scholarly journals Bridging the academic and practice/policy gap in public health: perspectives from Scotland and Canada

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 632-637 ◽  
Author(s):  
J McAteer ◽  
E Di Ruggiero ◽  
A Fraser ◽  
J W Frank
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Knowledge Translation ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Public Health Research ◽  
Organizational Models ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Critical Commentary ◽  
Personal Experiences ◽  
Knowledge Translation And Exchange ◽  
Research And Policy

Abstract This article presents a critical commentary of specific organizational models and practices for bridging ‘the gap’ between public health research and policy and practice. The authors draw on personal experiences of such models in addition to the wider knowledge translation and exchange literature to reflect on their strengths and weaknesses as implemented in Scotland and Canada since the early 1990s.

scholarly journals From deliberative dialogue to impact: envisioning kmowledge translation

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
O Hobden ◽  
R A J Borst ◽  
A Al-Metleq ◽  
M O Kok
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Participant Observation ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Public Health Research ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Research Knowledge ◽  
Deliberative Dialogue ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Scenario Approach

Abstract Background The previous decades of research have contributed tremendously to the improvement of health. Nonetheless, problems remain regarding the use and relevance of public health research. Knowledge translation methods, such as deliberative dialogues, are believed to increase the use and relevance of such research. However, little is known about how they increase the impact of public health research. This study sought to trace the impact of deliberative dialogues through an actor-scenario approach. Actor-scenario mapping asks key actors to describe how and by whom research findings may potentially be used. This allows for constructing more concrete action plans. Methods This study used a qualitative case-study design with semi-structured interviews, participant observation, and a survey. The study focused on a Jordanian deliberative dialogue organised in April 2019. Interviews were conducted with 15 key stakeholders before and after the dialogue. Observations and surveys were collected during the dialogue. An abductive approach to thematic analysis was used to arrive at key themes for the report. Results The results show that dialogue participants found it difficult to propose concrete scenarios for action. They described that the sensitive nature of some research topics impairs action. Additionally, participants proposed that research funding should be earmarked for concrete actions. Overall, their scenarios proposed that high-level decision makers maintain involved in the knowledge to action process. Some participants mentioned that the articulation of scenarios for action contributes to research impact, since researchers usually do not engage with potential users. Conclusions Actor-scenario mapping is an innovative way of understanding how deliberative dialogues increase the impact of public health research. This scenario approach can inform the organisation of deliberative dialogues by actors such as EVIPNet. Key messages Actor-scenario mapping can trace the impact of deliberative dialogues. The scenario approach can better align the dialogues with policy and practice.

Finding and appraising evidence

2020 ◽  
pp. 142-153
Author(s):  
Anne Brice ◽  
Amanda Burls ◽  
Alison Hill
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Local Knowledge ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Information Sources ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Public Health Research ◽  
Systematic Assessment ◽  
National Guidance

Making good public health decisions requires integrating relevant local knowledge about your population with national guidance and best research evidence. However, public health research evidence is more diverse than clinical research and needs to be sought in a much wider range of information sources. Furthermore, evidence comes from a range of different study types, which adds a further challenge when assessing the quality of the research. This chapter has two aims. The first is to help you find research evidence efficiently, so that you can access the best, most relevant research evidence for your research query. The second is to help you make sense of research through the technique of critical appraisal, which is the systematic assessment of research evidence. Finding and appraising evidence is an essential skill in the process of improving the health of the population.

Health researchers and policy makers involvement in knowledge translation activities in Malawi

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 380-395
Author(s):  
Patrick Mapulanga ◽  
Jaya Raju ◽  
Thomas Matingwina
Keyword(s):  
Health Policy ◽  
Knowledge Translation ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Policy Formulation ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Expert Committee ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Research Engagement

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore health researchers’ involvement of policy or decision makers in knowledge translation activities in Malawi. Design/methodology/approach The case study collected quantitative through questionnaire from health researchers from the University of Malawi. The study used inferential statistics for the analysis of the quantitative data. Pearson χ2 test was used to establish the relationship between categorical data and determine whether any observed difference between the data sets arose by chance. The Kruskal–Wallis H test was used to determine if there were statistically significant differences between independent variable and dependent variables. Data has been presented in a form of tables showing means, standard deviation and p-values. Findings Health researchers sometimes involve policy or decision makers in government-sponsored meetings (M=2.5, SD=1.17). They rarely involve policy or decision makers in expert committee or group meetings (M=2.4, SD=1.20). Researchers rarely involve policy or decision makers in conferences and workshops (M=2.4, SD=1.31). Rarely do researchers involve policy or decision makers in formal private or public networks (M=2.4, SD=1.17). In events organised by the colleges researchers rarely involve policy or decision makers (M=2.3, SD=1.11); and rarely share weblinks with policy or decision makers (M=2.0, SD=1,17). On average, health researchers occasionally conduct deliberate dialogues with key health policy makers and other stakeholders (M=2.5, SD=1.12). The researchers rarely established and maintained long-term partnerships policy or decision makers (M=2.2, SD=1.20). They rarely involve policy or decision makers in the overall direction of the health research conducted by themselves or the Colleges (M=2.1, SD=1.24). Research limitations/implications The study recommends that there should be deliberate efforts by health researchers and policy makers to formally engage each other. Individuals need technical skills, knowledge of the processes and structures for engaging with health research evidence to inform policy and decision making. At the institutional level, the use of research evidence should be embedded within support research engagement structures and linked persons. Practical implications Formal interactions in a form of expert meetings and technical working groups between researchers and policy makers can facilitate the use of health research evidence in policy formulation. Social implications In terms of framework there is need to put in place formal interaction frameworks between health researchers and policy makers within the knowledge translation and exchange. Originality/value There is dearth of literature on the levels of involvement and interaction between health researchers and health policy or decision makers in health policy, systems and services research in Malawi. This study seeks to bridge the gap with empirical evidence.

scholarly journals A case study on determining and responding to health managers' priorities for research to assist health service decision making

2006 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 435 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosemary Aldrich ◽  
Billie Bonevski ◽  
Amanda Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Service ◽  
Service Management ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Public Health Research ◽  
Local Health ◽  
Research Information ◽  
Health Decision ◽  
Health Managers

The Newcastle Institute of Public Health (NIPH) is a collaboration of health service and public health research groups in the Hunter Region of New South Wales, Australia which aims to promote the use of evidence in decision making. However, use of research evidence in decision making is a complex process, with many barriers and enablers described in the literature. Informed by strategies described in the literature around developing priority-driven research, NIPH researchers undertook to determine whether asking local health decision-makers about their needs for research information might lead to greater use of the resulting research evidence to inform health service management decisions. This paper describes a process used by NIPH to determine the research needs of 11 local senior health managers, our response to specific research questions, the communication of this research information, and the outcome.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document