Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1332/174426421X16142714946996
A. Meltzer, H. Dickinson, Eleanor Malbon, Gemma Carey
Background: Many countries use market forces to drive reform across disability supports and services. Over the last few decades, many countries have individualised budgets and devolved these to people with disability, so that they can purchase their own choice of supports from an available market of services.Key points for discussion: Such individualised, market-based schemes aim to extend choice and control to people with disability, but this is only achievable if the market operates effectively. Market stewardship has therefore become an important function of government in guiding markets and ensuring they operate effectively.The type of evidence that governments tend to draw on in market stewardship is typically limited to inputs and outputs and has less insight into the outcomes services do or do not achieve. While this is a typical approach to market stewardship, we argue it is problematic and that a greater focus on outcomes is necessary.Conclusions and implications: To include a focus on outcomes, we argue that market stewards need to take account of the lived experience of people with disability. We present a framework for doing this, drawing on precedents where people with disability have contributed lived experience evidence within other policy, research, knowledge production and advocacy contexts.With the lived experience evidence of people with disability included, market stewardship will be better able to take account of outcomes as they play out in the lives of those using the market and, ultimately, achieve greater choice and control for people with disability.
{"title":"Why is lived experience important for market stewardship? A proposed framework for why and how lived experience should be included in stewarding disability markets","authors":"A. Meltzer, H. Dickinson, Eleanor Malbon, Gemma Carey","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16142714946996","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16142714946996","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Many countries use market forces to drive reform across disability supports and services. Over the last few decades, many countries have individualised budgets and devolved these to people with disability, so that they can purchase their own choice of supports from an available market of services.Key points for discussion: Such individualised, market-based schemes aim to extend choice and control to people with disability, but this is only achievable if the market operates effectively. Market stewardship has therefore become an important function of government in guiding markets and ensuring they operate effectively.The type of evidence that governments tend to draw on in market stewardship is typically limited to inputs and outputs and has less insight into the outcomes services do or do not achieve. While this is a typical approach to market stewardship, we argue it is problematic and that a greater focus on outcomes is necessary.Conclusions and implications: To include a focus on outcomes, we argue that market stewards need to take account of the lived experience of people with disability. We present a framework for doing this, drawing on precedents where people with disability have contributed lived experience evidence within other policy, research, knowledge production and advocacy contexts.With the lived experience evidence of people with disability included, market stewardship will be better able to take account of outcomes as they play out in the lives of those using the market and, ultimately, achieve greater choice and control for people with disability.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66285920","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1332/174426421X16165177707227
Vicky Ward, T. Tooman, Benet Reid, H. Davies, Breid O’ Brien, Liz Mear, M. Marshall
Background: Embedded research involves co-locating researchers within non-academic organisations to better link research and practice. Embedded research initiatives are often complex and emergent with a range of underlying intents, structures and processes. This can create tensions within initiatives and contributes to ongoing uncertainty about the most suitable designs and the effectiveness of different approaches.Aims and objectives: We aimed to devise a practical framework to support those designing and cultivating embedded research by operationalising findings from an extensive study of existing initiatives.Key conclusions: The underpinning research on embedded initiatives – a literature review and scoping exercise of initiatives in health settings across the UK – showed that such initiatives share ten common sets of concerns in relation to their intent, structure and processes. We used these insights during a co-production workshop with embedded researchers and their managers that made use of a range of creative activities.The workshop resulted in a practical framework (and associated web-based tools) that draw on the metaphor of a garden to represent the growing, emergent nature of embedded research initiatives and the active work which individuals and organisations need to put into planning and maintaining such initiatives. Each of the aspects is represented as a separate area within the garden using relevant visual metaphors. Building on this, we also present a series of reflective questions designed to facilitate discussion and debate about design features, and we link these to the wider literature, thereby helping those involved to articulate and discuss their preferences and expectations.Key messagesEmbedded research initiatives are becoming increasingly popular across public sector organisations;There are many choices to be made when designing an embedded research initiative, and fresh challenges and tensions emerge as initiatives unfold;We present a structured, multilayered framework to support those designing, analysing and managing embedded research initiatives;The framework can support transparency, dialogue, agreement of expectations and ongoing learning within and between initiatives.
{"title":"A framework to support the design and cultivation of embedded research initiatives","authors":"Vicky Ward, T. Tooman, Benet Reid, H. Davies, Breid O’ Brien, Liz Mear, M. Marshall","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16165177707227","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16165177707227","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Embedded research involves co-locating researchers within non-academic organisations to better link research and practice. Embedded research initiatives are often complex and emergent with a range of underlying intents, structures and processes. This can create tensions within initiatives and contributes to ongoing uncertainty about the most suitable designs and the effectiveness of different approaches.Aims and objectives: We aimed to devise a practical framework to support those designing and cultivating embedded research by operationalising findings from an extensive study of existing initiatives.Key conclusions: The underpinning research on embedded initiatives – a literature review and scoping exercise of initiatives in health settings across the UK – showed that such initiatives share ten common sets of concerns in relation to their intent, structure and processes. We used these insights during a co-production workshop with embedded researchers and their managers that made use of a range of creative activities.The workshop resulted in a practical framework (and associated web-based tools) that draw on the metaphor of a garden to represent the growing, emergent nature of embedded research initiatives and the active work which individuals and organisations need to put into planning and maintaining such initiatives. Each of the aspects is represented as a separate area within the garden using relevant visual metaphors. Building on this, we also present a series of reflective questions designed to facilitate discussion and debate about design features, and we link these to the wider literature, thereby helping those involved to articulate and discuss their preferences and expectations.Key messagesEmbedded research initiatives are becoming increasingly popular across public sector organisations;There are many choices to be made when designing an embedded research initiative, and fresh challenges and tensions emerge as initiatives unfold;We present a structured, multilayered framework to support those designing, analysing and managing embedded research initiatives;The framework can support transparency, dialogue, agreement of expectations and ongoing learning within and between initiatives.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66286411","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1332/174426421X16106634806152
Jacqui Cameron, C. Humphreys, A. Kothari, K. Hegarty
Background: There is limited research on how knowledge translation of a domestic violence (DV) research network is shared. This lack of research is problematic because of the complexity of establishing a research network, encompassing diverse disciplines, methods, and focus of study potentially impacting how knowledge translation functions.Aims and objectives: To address the limited research, we completed a deliberative dialogue with the following questions: Is there a consensus regarding a coherent knowledge translation framework for a domestic violence research network? What are the key actions that a domestic violence research network could take to enhance knowledge translation?Methods: Deliberative dialogue is a group process that blends research and practice to identify potential actions. In total, 16 participants attended three deliberative dialogue meetings. We applied a qualitative analysis to the data to identify the key actions.Findings: The deliberative dialogue facilitated mutual agreement regarding four key actions: (1) agreement on a knowledge translation approach; (2) active promotion of dedicated leadership within an authorising environment; (3) development of sustainable partnerships through capacity building and collaboration, particularly with DV survivors; and (4) employment of multiple strategies applying different kinds of evidence for diverse purposes and emerging populations.Discussion and conclusions: The use of the deliberative dialogue has uncovered specific factors required for the successful knowledge translation of domestic violence research. These factors have been added to the Integrated Knowledge Translation (IKT) capacity framework to enhance its application for domestic violence research. Future research could explore these organisational, professional and individual factors further by evaluating them in practice.
{"title":"Creating an action plan to advance knowledge translation in a domestic violence research network: a deliberative dialogue","authors":"Jacqui Cameron, C. Humphreys, A. Kothari, K. Hegarty","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16106634806152","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16106634806152","url":null,"abstract":"Background: There is limited research on how knowledge translation of a domestic violence (DV) research network is shared. This lack of research is problematic because of the complexity of establishing a research network, encompassing diverse disciplines, methods, and focus of study potentially impacting how knowledge translation functions.Aims and objectives: To address the limited research, we completed a deliberative dialogue with the following questions: Is there a consensus regarding a coherent knowledge translation framework for a domestic violence research network? What are the key actions that a domestic violence research network could take to enhance knowledge translation?Methods: Deliberative dialogue is a group process that blends research and practice to identify potential actions. In total, 16 participants attended three deliberative dialogue meetings. We applied a qualitative analysis to the data to identify the key actions.Findings: The deliberative dialogue facilitated mutual agreement regarding four key actions: (1) agreement on a knowledge translation approach; (2) active promotion of dedicated leadership within an authorising environment; (3) development of sustainable partnerships through capacity building and collaboration, particularly with DV survivors; and (4) employment of multiple strategies applying different kinds of evidence for diverse purposes and emerging populations.Discussion and conclusions: The use of the deliberative dialogue has uncovered specific factors required for the successful knowledge translation of domestic violence research. These factors have been added to the Integrated Knowledge Translation (IKT) capacity framework to enhance its application for domestic violence research. Future research could explore these organisational, professional and individual factors further by evaluating them in practice.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66285208","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1332/174426421X16123709152129
S. M. Sabahi, Michael G. Wilson, J. Lavis, F. El-Jardali, Kaelan A. Moat
Background: Oman has prioritised enhanced efforts for supporting evidence-informed policymaking (EIPM), including establishing a knowledge translation department in the Omani Ministry of Health (MOH).Aim and objective: Our aim was to gather insights to guide the process of activating this department.Methods: We conducted a document review and in-depth, semi-structured interviews with policymakers, researchers, and stakeholders who are familiar with the Omani system.Findings: We conducted 17 interviews, which highlighted that policymakers in Oman use multiple sources of data and evidence to inform policymaking about health systems. However, several challenges to using evidence were identified, including low quality and limited availability of local evidence, system fragmentation, low interest in research, and lack of skills, capacity and time for finding, synthesising and using research evidence. Five possible activities for the department were refined with participants: building capacity, finding evidence, sparking action, embedding supports, and evaluating innovations. Participants viewed each of these activities as equally important and they should be pursued simultaneously. However, when asked to rank the most important option, participants identified capacity building as the most important to enable cultural changes needed within the MOH.Discussion and conclusions: This study provides insights for activating the knowledge translation department in the Omani MOH. Fully operationalising the department will require convening a codesign process to reach consensus on the scope of the activities undertaken by the department. Implementation will also require capitalising on the relevant experience of highly qualified staff and existing infrastructure as well as continuing to foster a supportive climate for EIPM.Key messagesA systematic and transparent approach is important for Oman to support evidence-informed policymaking;Enhancing the quality and quantity of local evidence is essential to support evidence-informed policymaking;Building capacity and ensuring sustainability are a priority when establishing a policy support organisation.
{"title":"Insights from system leaders about operationalising a knowledge translation department in the Oman Ministry of Health","authors":"S. M. Sabahi, Michael G. Wilson, J. Lavis, F. El-Jardali, Kaelan A. Moat","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16123709152129","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16123709152129","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Oman has prioritised enhanced efforts for supporting evidence-informed policymaking (EIPM), including establishing a knowledge translation department in the Omani Ministry of Health (MOH).Aim and objective: Our aim was to gather insights to guide the process of activating this department.Methods: We conducted a document review and in-depth, semi-structured interviews with policymakers, researchers, and stakeholders who are familiar with the Omani system.Findings: We conducted 17 interviews, which highlighted that policymakers in Oman use multiple sources of data and evidence to inform policymaking about health systems. However, several challenges to using evidence were identified, including low quality and limited availability of local evidence, system fragmentation, low interest in research, and lack of skills, capacity and time for finding, synthesising and using research evidence. Five possible activities for the department were refined with participants: building capacity, finding evidence, sparking action, embedding supports, and evaluating innovations. Participants viewed each of these activities as equally important and they should be pursued simultaneously. However, when asked to rank the most important option, participants identified capacity building as the most important to enable cultural changes needed within the MOH.Discussion and conclusions: This study provides insights for activating the knowledge translation department in the Omani MOH. Fully operationalising the department will require convening a codesign process to reach consensus on the scope of the activities undertaken by the department. Implementation will also require capitalising on the relevant experience of highly qualified staff and existing infrastructure as well as continuing to foster a supportive climate for EIPM.Key messagesA systematic and transparent approach is important for Oman to support evidence-informed policymaking;Enhancing the quality and quantity of local evidence is essential to support evidence-informed policymaking;Building capacity and ensuring sustainability are a priority when establishing a policy support organisation.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66285282","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1332/174426421x16340308463939
S. Bartys, Rachel Martin, C. Parker, Amanda J Edmondson, K. Burton
Background: In 2019, Public Health England commissioned the authors of this paper to conduct research examining healthcare professionals’ conversations about work with their patients to inform policy aimed at reducing work loss due to ill health.Aims and objectives: The purpose of this paper is to show how the commission provided a unique opportunity for the authors to collaborate with the funders to address obstacles to policy progress.Methods: A steering group was established to revise the original remit of research. In outlining that process here, qualitative data collected from a wide range of healthcare professionals as part of the commission are presented for the first time. We are able to further illuminate and expand on the previously published report findings and policy recommendations, revealing novel insights on researcher-policy engagement.Findings: Robust implementation of ‘work-focused healthcare’ policy has been limited, resulting in an overwhelming lack of empirical data and misguided directives. However, the existing evidence did provide important information about obstacles to policy progress and how to overcome them. The qualitative data were instrumental in this respect, with healthcare professionals revealing various interpretations of, and discourse on the policy.Discussion and conclusions: This paper adds to the expanding literature which suggests that long term, mutualistic, collaborative working is central to addressing barriers to improving evidence use and mobilising health policy into practice. It was shown that tacit, generous, open, empathic and ongoing knowledge exchange, advocacy, and alliances are needed.Key messagesThis paper builds on the literature which reports relationship- and skills-building with policymakers to be the most important factors in influencing the use of evidence and mobilising health policy into practice.A unique opportunity to participate in a continuous, informal, and timely exchange of information with decision makers to address obstacles to policy progress is described.Novel insights are revealed into the alliances needed between academic, policy, and healthcare professionals to implement ‘work-focused healthcare’.
{"title":"Empathy is key: addressing obstacles to policy progress of ‘work-focused healthcare’","authors":"S. Bartys, Rachel Martin, C. Parker, Amanda J Edmondson, K. Burton","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16340308463939","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16340308463939","url":null,"abstract":"Background: In 2019, Public Health England commissioned the authors of this paper to conduct research examining healthcare professionals’ conversations about work with their patients to inform policy aimed at reducing work loss due to ill health.Aims and objectives: The purpose of this paper is to show how the commission provided a unique opportunity for the authors to collaborate with the funders to address obstacles to policy progress.Methods: A steering group was established to revise the original remit of research. In outlining that process here, qualitative data collected from a wide range of healthcare professionals as part of the commission are presented for the first time. We are able to further illuminate and expand on the previously published report findings and policy recommendations, revealing novel insights on researcher-policy engagement.Findings: Robust implementation of ‘work-focused healthcare’ policy has been limited, resulting in an overwhelming lack of empirical data and misguided directives. However, the existing evidence did provide important information about obstacles to policy progress and how to overcome them. The qualitative data were instrumental in this respect, with healthcare professionals revealing various interpretations of, and discourse on the policy.Discussion and conclusions: This paper adds to the expanding literature which suggests that long term, mutualistic, collaborative working is central to addressing barriers to improving evidence use and mobilising health policy into practice. It was shown that tacit, generous, open, empathic and ongoing knowledge exchange, advocacy, and alliances are needed.Key messagesThis paper builds on the literature which reports relationship- and skills-building with policymakers to be the most important factors in influencing the use of evidence and mobilising health policy into practice.A unique opportunity to participate in a continuous, informal, and timely exchange of information with decision makers to address obstacles to policy progress is described.Novel insights are revealed into the alliances needed between academic, policy, and healthcare professionals to implement ‘work-focused healthcare’.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66286928","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1332/174426421X16141001670976
M. Priestley, S. Grammenos
Background: The measurement of equality is often difficult for groups who are weakly defined or poorly represented in official datasets. Social statistics are an essential component in rights recognition and advocacy because they make protected groups of persons visible and reveal the extent of their inequalities in comparison with population norms.Aims and objectives: This paper examines how disabled persons have been included, or not, in EU statistics used for evidenced-based policy ‐ for example in the European Semester process concerning Member States’ employment and social policies, or in monitoring compliance with international human rights standards under the UN CRPD.Methods: Over a period of a decade we mapped and disaggregated disability data from the main European social surveys, examining the availability and limitations of different sources to answer various policy questions.Findings: The analysis produced indicators revealing stark inequalities between disabled and non-disabled persons but raised challenging questions about data quality, reliability and comparability. This revealed tensions in engaging the trust of policymakers in less familiar, or less reliable, data concerning minority groups.Discussion and conclusions: Despite limitations of precision, imperfect statistics often retain a strong expressive function in human rights promotion. Greater investment is needed from governments and statistical authorities to strengthen disability equality data and indicators concerning marginalised rights holders.
{"title":"How useful are equality indicators? The expressive function of ‘stat imperfecta’ in disability rights advocacy","authors":"M. Priestley, S. Grammenos","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16141001670976","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16141001670976","url":null,"abstract":"Background: The measurement of equality is often difficult for groups who are weakly defined or poorly represented in official datasets. Social statistics are an essential component in rights recognition and advocacy because they make protected groups of persons visible and reveal the extent of their inequalities in comparison with population norms.Aims and objectives: This paper examines how disabled persons have been included, or not, in EU statistics used for evidenced-based policy ‐ for example in the European Semester process concerning Member States’ employment and social policies, or in monitoring compliance with international human rights standards under the UN CRPD.Methods: Over a period of a decade we mapped and disaggregated disability data from the main European social surveys, examining the availability and limitations of different sources to answer various policy questions.Findings: The analysis produced indicators revealing stark inequalities between disabled and non-disabled persons but raised challenging questions about data quality, reliability and comparability. This revealed tensions in engaging the trust of policymakers in less familiar, or less reliable, data concerning minority groups.Discussion and conclusions: Despite limitations of precision, imperfect statistics often retain a strong expressive function in human rights promotion. Greater investment is needed from governments and statistical authorities to strengthen disability equality data and indicators concerning marginalised rights holders.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66285544","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1332/174426421x16190024737973
Janet Harris, J. Springett, Debbie Mathews, Guy Weston, Alexis Foster
Background: Devolution and integration of health and social care have placed increasing pressure on local statutory services, with a corresponding shift of health and social care to community organisations. The voluntary and charitable sector (VCS) is expected to make the case for increased funding by providing evidence of value and impact.Aims and objectives: This paper explores the challenges of compiling evidence on health outcomes which do not reflect the holistic nature of VCS support. We document how knowledge brokering can be used to enable the VCS to generate evidence.Key conclusions: Knowledge brokering (KB) may be an effective approach for developing community-generated evidence. Brokering is also needed to change perspectives on what counts as good evidenceKey messagesHealth outcome measures are not seen to be appropriate by the voluntary sector for social prescribing services.A new evidence base is needed that reflects the social determinants of health.Knowledge brokering may be an effective approach for developing community-generated evidence.Brokering is also needed to change perspectives on what counts as good evidence.
{"title":"Using knowledge brokering to produce community-generated evidence","authors":"Janet Harris, J. Springett, Debbie Mathews, Guy Weston, Alexis Foster","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16190024737973","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16190024737973","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Devolution and integration of health and social care have placed increasing pressure on local statutory services, with a corresponding shift of health and social care to community organisations. The voluntary and charitable sector (VCS) is expected to make the case for increased funding by providing evidence of value and impact.Aims and objectives: This paper explores the challenges of compiling evidence on health outcomes which do not reflect the holistic nature of VCS support. We document how knowledge brokering can be used to enable the VCS to generate evidence.Key conclusions: Knowledge brokering (KB) may be an effective approach for developing community-generated evidence. Brokering is also needed to change perspectives on what counts as good evidenceKey messagesHealth outcome measures are not seen to be appropriate by the voluntary sector for social prescribing services.A new evidence base is needed that reflects the social determinants of health.Knowledge brokering may be an effective approach for developing community-generated evidence.Brokering is also needed to change perspectives on what counts as good evidence.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66286073","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1332/174426421x16210115966623
Amy P. Page, Oluwatoyin Olubiyi, Y. L. Wong, Christina D Kang-Yi
Background: Although public-academic partnerships (PAPs) to improve the health and well-being of vulnerable populations have proliferated in public care for youth, existing literature lacks information about whether PAPs lead to public care agency leaders’ use of research evidence and promote youth mental health and well-being.Aims and objectives: The document analysis was conducted to understand PAP contexts and mechanisms leading to public care agency leaders’ use of research evidence. This paper introduces US public mental health and child welfare systems, shares strategies of identifying PAPs, obtaining and conducting systematic document review of PAPs, and documents analysis findings.Methods: This project conducted document analysis of US PAPs aiming to improve mental health and promote well-being of youth aged 12–25 years.Findings: The 23 PAPs analysed had diverse partnership goals including implementation and dissemination of research/evaluation evidence, information sharing, and prioritising and streamlining research priorities. PAPs sustained longer than 10 years had more focused goals of programme and policy evaluations and professional training, while PAPs 10 years or newer were engaged in more diverse goals. The majority of PAPs used journal articles, presentations, and multimedia as dissemination strategies of findings. Fewer than half of the PAPs reported on use of PAP-generated evidence in subsequent decision making by public care agency leaders.Discussion and conclusions: Further research should examine which mechanisms link partnership contexts, PAP leaders’ research evidence use, and youth outcomes improvement. Future research should also examine PAPs by detailed stages of development and ask PAP leaders directly about their evidence use.Key messagesThis project conducted document analysis of PAPs focused on mental health and well-being of youth;The project aimed to reveal contexts and mechanisms that are present when PAP leaders use evidence;This paper shares strategies used and findings from conducting systematic document analysis.
{"title":"Public-academic partnerships to foster use of research evidence in improving youth outcomes: findings from document analysis","authors":"Amy P. Page, Oluwatoyin Olubiyi, Y. L. Wong, Christina D Kang-Yi","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16210115966623","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16210115966623","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Although public-academic partnerships (PAPs) to improve the health and well-being of vulnerable populations have proliferated in public care for youth, existing literature lacks information about whether PAPs lead to public care agency leaders’ use of research evidence and promote youth mental health and well-being.Aims and objectives: The document analysis was conducted to understand PAP contexts and mechanisms leading to public care agency leaders’ use of research evidence. This paper introduces US public mental health and child welfare systems, shares strategies of identifying PAPs, obtaining and conducting systematic document review of PAPs, and documents analysis findings.Methods: This project conducted document analysis of US PAPs aiming to improve mental health and promote well-being of youth aged 12–25 years.Findings: The 23 PAPs analysed had diverse partnership goals including implementation and dissemination of research/evaluation evidence, information sharing, and prioritising and streamlining research priorities. PAPs sustained longer than 10 years had more focused goals of programme and policy evaluations and professional training, while PAPs 10 years or newer were engaged in more diverse goals. The majority of PAPs used journal articles, presentations, and multimedia as dissemination strategies of findings. Fewer than half of the PAPs reported on use of PAP-generated evidence in subsequent decision making by public care agency leaders.Discussion and conclusions: Further research should examine which mechanisms link partnership contexts, PAP leaders’ research evidence use, and youth outcomes improvement. Future research should also examine PAPs by detailed stages of development and ask PAP leaders directly about their evidence use.Key messagesThis project conducted document analysis of PAPs focused on mental health and well-being of youth;The project aimed to reveal contexts and mechanisms that are present when PAP leaders use evidence;This paper shares strategies used and findings from conducting systematic document analysis.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"110 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66286179","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1332/174426421x16225315303512
Kirsty Jones, S. Bice
Background: The gap between research and practical implementation remains a major challenge for policymakers. Research co-creation, involving researchers co-designing and co-producing research with industry, government and civil society, can support improved end user uptake and better research implementation.Aims and objectives: This Practice Paper introduces a process of research co-creation based in implementation science and integrated knowledge translation theories. It details the development of the Infrastructure Engagement Excellence Standards (IEE), a framework of 10 Standards defining the qualities of community engagement for optimal infrastructure planning and delivery. The paper details a research co-creation process applicable across a variety of industries and policy settings.Key conclusions: The Practice Paper introduces a theory-based method for research co-production and discusses strengths and weaknesses of the co-creation approach used to develop the IEE Standards. Implementation science and integrated knowledge translation theory offer important insights to support more successful research co-design and co-production. Research that incorporates these theories is better positioned to achieve implementation. The creation of the IEE Standards offers one helpful example of how researchers, policymakers and practitioners can begin to close the research-implementation gap.Key messagesResearch co-creation, using implementation science and integrated knowledge translation, supports uptake of research outcomes;Co-design creates ownership and understanding of research findings among participants;Ownership of research findings improves research use, to inform policy and practice;Involving end users in all research stages makes results more applicable and meets practice needs.
{"title":"Improving research impact: lessons from the infrastructure engagement excellence standards","authors":"Kirsty Jones, S. Bice","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16225315303512","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16225315303512","url":null,"abstract":"Background: The gap between research and practical implementation remains a major challenge for policymakers. Research co-creation, involving researchers co-designing and co-producing research with industry, government and civil society, can support improved end user uptake and better research implementation.Aims and objectives: This Practice Paper introduces a process of research co-creation based in implementation science and integrated knowledge translation theories. It details the development of the Infrastructure Engagement Excellence Standards (IEE), a framework of 10 Standards defining the qualities of community engagement for optimal infrastructure planning and delivery. The paper details a research co-creation process applicable across a variety of industries and policy settings.Key conclusions: The Practice Paper introduces a theory-based method for research co-production and discusses strengths and weaknesses of the co-creation approach used to develop the IEE Standards. Implementation science and integrated knowledge translation theory offer important insights to support more successful research co-design and co-production. Research that incorporates these theories is better positioned to achieve implementation. The creation of the IEE Standards offers one helpful example of how researchers, policymakers and practitioners can begin to close the research-implementation gap.Key messagesResearch co-creation, using implementation science and integrated knowledge translation, supports uptake of research outcomes;Co-design creates ownership and understanding of research findings among participants;Ownership of research findings improves research use, to inform policy and practice;Involving end users in all research stages makes results more applicable and meets practice needs.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66286279","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1332/174426421x16250726996691
S. Ziam, Pierre Gignac, Élodie Courant, Esther Mc Sween-Cadieux
Background: Decisions related to the development and implementation of public health programmes or policies can benefit from more effective use of the best available knowledge. However, decision makers do not always feel sufficiently equipped or may lack the capacity to use evidence. This can lead them to overlook or set aside research results that could be relevant to their practice area.Aims and objectives: The objective of this systematic review was to synthesise the essential skills that facilitate the use of research evidence by public health decision makers.Methods: Thirty-nine articles that met our inclusion criteria were included. An inductive approach was used to extract data on evidence-informed decision-making-related skills and data were synthesised as a narrative review.Findings: The analysis revealed three categories of skills that are essential for evidence-informed decision-making process: interpersonal, cognitive, and leadership and influencing skills. Such cross-sectoral skills are essential for identifying, obtaining, synthesising, and integrating sound research results into the decision-making process.Discussion and conclusions: The results of this systematic review will help direct capacity-building efforts towards enhancing research evidence use by public health decision makers, such as developing different types of training that would be relevant to their needs. Also, when considering the evidence-informed decision-making skills development, there are several useful and complementary approaches to link research most effectively to action. On one hand, it is important not only to support decision makers at the individual level through skills development, but also to provide them with a day-to-day environment that is conducive to evidence use.Key messagesPublic health programmes or policies can benefit from more effective use of the best available knowledge;This review identified 39 studies on skills related to evidence-informed decision making;Three categories of skills are proposed: cognitive, interpersonal and leadership and influencing skills;It will help direct capacity-building efforts towards enhancing evidence use by decision makers.
{"title":"Essential skills for using research evidence in public health policy: a systematic review","authors":"S. Ziam, Pierre Gignac, Élodie Courant, Esther Mc Sween-Cadieux","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16250726996691","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16250726996691","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Decisions related to the development and implementation of public health programmes or policies can benefit from more effective use of the best available knowledge. However, decision makers do not always feel sufficiently equipped or may lack the capacity to use evidence. This can lead them to overlook or set aside research results that could be relevant to their practice area.Aims and objectives: The objective of this systematic review was to synthesise the essential skills that facilitate the use of research evidence by public health decision makers.Methods: Thirty-nine articles that met our inclusion criteria were included. An inductive approach was used to extract data on evidence-informed decision-making-related skills and data were synthesised as a narrative review.Findings: The analysis revealed three categories of skills that are essential for evidence-informed decision-making process: interpersonal, cognitive, and leadership and influencing skills. Such cross-sectoral skills are essential for identifying, obtaining, synthesising, and integrating sound research results into the decision-making process.Discussion and conclusions: The results of this systematic review will help direct capacity-building efforts towards enhancing research evidence use by public health decision makers, such as developing different types of training that would be relevant to their needs. Also, when considering the evidence-informed decision-making skills development, there are several useful and complementary approaches to link research most effectively to action. On one hand, it is important not only to support decision makers at the individual level through skills development, but also to provide them with a day-to-day environment that is conducive to evidence use.Key messagesPublic health programmes or policies can benefit from more effective use of the best available knowledge;This review identified 39 studies on skills related to evidence-informed decision making;Three categories of skills are proposed: cognitive, interpersonal and leadership and influencing skills;It will help direct capacity-building efforts towards enhancing evidence use by decision makers.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66286597","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：