研究-政策参与决策过程的经验。

IF 2.5 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Public Health Research & Practice Pub Date : 2024-04-04 DOI:10.17061/phrp33232308
Carmel Williams, Tahna Pettman, Ian Goodwin-Smith, Yonatal M Tefera, Somayya Hanifie, Katherine L Baldock
{"title":"研究-政策参与决策过程的经验。","authors":"Carmel Williams, Tahna Pettman, Ian Goodwin-Smith, Yonatal M Tefera, Somayya Hanifie, Katherine L Baldock","doi":"10.17061/phrp33232308","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Objectives and importance of study: For public policy to respond effectively to social, economic, and health challenges, there is an urgent need for research-policy collaboration to advance evidence-informed policy. Many organisations seek to promote these engagement activities, but little is known about how this is experienced by researchers and policy actors. This study aimed to understand how policy actors and researchers in Australia experience collaboration and the impediments and enablers they encounter. Study type and methods: An online survey was developed, and using convenience sampling, self-identified Australian policy actors and researchers were invited to participate. Results: In total, 170 responses were analysed, comprising 58% policy actors and 42% researchers. Respondents reported the primary purpose for collaboration was evidence-informed policy making. Policy actors reported that the most common barrier to collaboration with academics was 'budget constraints' while academics reported 'budget, 'political risk' and 'structural barriers'. Reported enablers were 'leadership' and 'connections'. Conclusions: Our findings build upon existing evidence that highlights the importance of collaboration for facilitating evidence-informed policy. Structural deficits in both policy agencies and research funding systems and environments continue to present challenges to policy-research partnerships. Future initiatives could use these findings to implement preferred collaboration methods, alongside rigorous evaluation, to explore 'what works' in promoting engagement for evidence-informed policy.</p>","PeriodicalId":45898,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Research & Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Experiences of research-policy engagement in policy-making processes.\",\"authors\":\"Carmel Williams, Tahna Pettman, Ian Goodwin-Smith, Yonatal M Tefera, Somayya Hanifie, Katherine L Baldock\",\"doi\":\"10.17061/phrp33232308\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Objectives and importance of study: For public policy to respond effectively to social, economic, and health challenges, there is an urgent need for research-policy collaboration to advance evidence-informed policy. Many organisations seek to promote these engagement activities, but little is known about how this is experienced by researchers and policy actors. This study aimed to understand how policy actors and researchers in Australia experience collaboration and the impediments and enablers they encounter. Study type and methods: An online survey was developed, and using convenience sampling, self-identified Australian policy actors and researchers were invited to participate. Results: In total, 170 responses were analysed, comprising 58% policy actors and 42% researchers. Respondents reported the primary purpose for collaboration was evidence-informed policy making. Policy actors reported that the most common barrier to collaboration with academics was 'budget constraints' while academics reported 'budget, 'political risk' and 'structural barriers'. Reported enablers were 'leadership' and 'connections'. Conclusions: Our findings build upon existing evidence that highlights the importance of collaboration for facilitating evidence-informed policy. Structural deficits in both policy agencies and research funding systems and environments continue to present challenges to policy-research partnerships. Future initiatives could use these findings to implement preferred collaboration methods, alongside rigorous evaluation, to explore 'what works' in promoting engagement for evidence-informed policy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45898,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Health Research & Practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Health Research & Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17061/phrp33232308\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Research & Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17061/phrp33232308","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究的目标和重要性:为了使公共政策有效应对社会、经济和健康方面的挑战,迫切需要开展研究与政策合作,以推进有实证依据的政策。许多组织都在努力促进这些参与活动,但研究人员和政策制定者对此却知之甚少。本研究旨在了解澳大利亚的政策参与者和研究人员是如何体验合作的,以及他们遇到的障碍和推动因素。研究类型和方法:本研究开发了一项在线调查,并采用方便抽样的方法,邀请自我认同的澳大利亚政策参与者和研究人员参与调查。结果:共分析了 170 份回复,其中 58% 为政策参与者,42% 为研究人员。受访者表示,合作的主要目的是制定有依据的政策。政策制定者报告称,与学术界合作最常见的障碍是 "预算限制",而学术界则报告了 "预算、政治风险 "和 "结构性障碍"。所报告的促进因素是 "领导力 "和 "联系"。结论:我们的研究结果以现有证据为基础,强调了合作对于促进循证政策的重要性。政策机构和研究资助体系及环境中的结构性缺陷继续给政策研究合作带来挑战。未来的倡议可以利用这些发现来实施首选的合作方法,同时进行严格的评估,以探索在促进循证政策参与方面 "什么是有效的"。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Experiences of research-policy engagement in policy-making processes.

Objectives and importance of study: For public policy to respond effectively to social, economic, and health challenges, there is an urgent need for research-policy collaboration to advance evidence-informed policy. Many organisations seek to promote these engagement activities, but little is known about how this is experienced by researchers and policy actors. This study aimed to understand how policy actors and researchers in Australia experience collaboration and the impediments and enablers they encounter. Study type and methods: An online survey was developed, and using convenience sampling, self-identified Australian policy actors and researchers were invited to participate. Results: In total, 170 responses were analysed, comprising 58% policy actors and 42% researchers. Respondents reported the primary purpose for collaboration was evidence-informed policy making. Policy actors reported that the most common barrier to collaboration with academics was 'budget constraints' while academics reported 'budget, 'political risk' and 'structural barriers'. Reported enablers were 'leadership' and 'connections'. Conclusions: Our findings build upon existing evidence that highlights the importance of collaboration for facilitating evidence-informed policy. Structural deficits in both policy agencies and research funding systems and environments continue to present challenges to policy-research partnerships. Future initiatives could use these findings to implement preferred collaboration methods, alongside rigorous evaluation, to explore 'what works' in promoting engagement for evidence-informed policy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Public Health Research & Practice
Public Health Research & Practice PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
51
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Public Health Research & Practice is an open-access, quarterly, online journal with a strong focus on the connection between research, policy and practice. It publishes innovative, high-quality papers that inform public health policy and practice, paying particular attention to innovations, data and perspectives from policy and practice. The journal is published by the Sax Institute, a national leader in promoting the use of research evidence in health policy. Formerly known as The NSW Public Health Bulletin, the journal has a long history. It was published by the NSW Ministry of Health for nearly a quarter of a century. Responsibility for its publication transferred to the Sax Institute in 2014, and the journal receives guidance from an expert editorial board.
期刊最新文献
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' Quitline use and the Tackling Indigenous Smoking program. Co-designing policy with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples: a protocol. Acceptability of an asymptomatic COVID-19 screening program for schools in Victoria, Australia: a qualitative study with caregivers from priority populations. UV arrows descend from above: lessons from a mass media campaign to improve sun protection behaviours among young adults. Are they the same? Disentangling the concepts of implementation science research and population scale-up.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1