Does research influence public policy and decision-making and, if so, how? This book is the most recent to address this question, investigating the effects of research in the field of international development. It starts from a sophisticated understanding about how research influences public policy and decision-making. It shows how research can contribute to better governance in at least three ways: by encouraging open inquiry and debate, by empowering people with the knowledge to hold governments accountable, and by enlarging the array of policy options and solutions available to the policy process. Knowledge to Policy examines the consequences of 23 research projects funded by Canada’s International Development Research Centre. Key findings and case studies from Asia, Africa, and Latin America are presented in a reader-friendly, journalistic style, giving the reader a deeper grasp and understanding of approaches, contexts, relationships and events.
Monitoring equity and research policy
This project explored the feasibility of using the Buxton and Hanney Payback Framework to determine the impact of a stratified random sample of competitively funded, primary health care research projects. The project conducted telephone interviews based on the Payback Framework with leaders of the research teams and nominated users of their research, used bibliometric methods for assessing impact through publication outputs and obtained documentary evidence of impact where possible. The framework provided rich information about the pathways to impact, better understanding of which may enhance impact. It is feasible to use the Buxton and Hanney Payback framework and logic model to determine the proximal impacts of primary health care research.
Three years ago, the Society of General Internal Medicine's Evidence-based Medicine Task Force began an inquiry to integrate evidence-based medicine (EBM) and the learning organization (LO), an approach to training from a systems-based perspective, into one model to address the knowing-doing gap problem. The authors of this study searched several databases for relevant LO frameworks and their related concepts by using a broad search strategy. They found seven LO frameworks particularly relevant to evidence-based practice innovations in organisations. These were integrated to form the new Evidence in the Learning Organization (ELO) model, which can be used by health organisations to identify their capacities to learn and share knowledge about evidence-based practice innovations.
A disparate series of contemporary lists of health service providers were used to update a public health facility database in Kenya, last compiled in 2003. These new lists were derived primarily through the national distribution of antimalarial and antiretroviral commodities since 2006. A combination of methods were used to map service providers and analyse disparity in geographic access to public health care. The update shows that, with concerted effort, a relatively complete inventory of mapped health services is possible, with enormous potential for improving planning. Expansion in public health care in Kenya has resulted in significant increases in geographic access, although several areas of the country need further improvements. This information will be key to future planning for Kenya’s public health sector.
Current systematic reviews have a utilitarian bias – they tend to be concerned more with the effects on populations and average effects than with distributional effects and impacts in disadvantaged sub¬groups. the author poses that systematic reviews should routinely consider the effects of interventions on health inequities. The Cochrane Health Equity Field was set up explicitly to further this agenda, to encourage systematic review authors to explicitly assess the effects of interventions not only on the whole population, but on the disadvantaged. Evidence on interventions to improve public health is in short supply, partic¬ularly evidence on social determinants. Public health systematic reviewers need to continue to develop new methods and better frameworks to inform decision-making.
The World Health Organization is soliciting new ideas for funding sources to stimulate research and development on diseases predominantly afflicting developing countries, with some in developed countries. The web-based public hearing, being held online from 7 March to 15 April 2009, will contribute to an intergovernmental mandate to come up with ways to address the shortage of research in this area. The expert group hopes to solicit additional ideas from member states and other stakeholders for its consideration. The final report will be presented at the May 2010 Health Assembly. The web-based public hearing is open to individuals, civil society groups, government institutions, academic and research institutions, the private sector and other interested parties. The link to the online public hearing is: http://www.who.int/phi/public_hearings/third/en/index.html
The potential for research to influence policy, and for researchers to influence policy actors, is significant. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the experiences of health services researchers engaging in (or not able to engage in) policy-relevant research. Semistructured telephone interviews were completed with 23 experienced researchers. The results paint a complex and dynamic picture of the policy environment and the relationship between government officials and academic researchers. Elements of this complexity included diverse understandings of the nature of policy and how research relates to policy; dealing with multiple stakeholders in the policy-making process; and identifying strategies to manage the different cultures of government and academia.
Promoting the use of research-based knowledge in public health becomes more complex when public health includes interventions on health determinants. This article examines strategies for knowledge synthesis, translation and exchange (KSTE) in the context of public health in Canada, making reference to the work of the recently established National Collaborating Centres for Public Health (NCCs). NCCs simultaneously pursue KSTE and study how KSTE strategies meet different needs. Because NCCs are focused on interventions and policies, they must address the relationship between knowledge and policy, and how amenable it is to change. KSTE can seek to respond to and inform an existing policy agenda, but it can also seek to shape, frame and change that agenda. The two paths might call for different approaches, and for expanding the boundaries of KSTE in health.
This short-term review of the International Health Partnership (IHP+) was commissioned by the IHP+ Scaling-up Reference Group to assess whether programme partners are adhering to their commitments and to review what progress has been made in implementing an IHP+ interagency common work-plan. The review was undertaken between May and August 2008 and is based on the opinions of 100 key informants who represent a cross-section of partner agencies, civil society and national ministries of health in the initial IHP+ countries and at the international level. It found that the relevance of IHP+ is not widely understood, transparency is essential for ensuring accountability (which also depends on the availability of reliable information). If well designed, the planned annual external monitoring and evaluation review of the IHP+ could potentially function as the key global accountability mechanism and it is still too early to assess what impacts or external effects that can be attributed to the IHP+.
The Mexico City Ministerial Summit in 2004 made the problem of poor knowledge translation (KT) a priority, and a solution imperative. Summiteers called for the increased involvement of the demand side in the research process, emphasising knowledge brokering and other mechanisms for ‘involving the potential users of research in setting research priorities’. Though the declaration was made with enthusiasm – and echoed in many follow-up meetings and papers – there was little guidance on how to actually bring together research and research-users. This guide addresses that gap. It discusses three core KT principles: knowledge, which depends on a robust, accessible and contextualised knowledge base, regular dialogue between all stakeholders and strengthened capacity, where researchers, decision-makers and other research users require a strengthened skill-base to create and respond to KT opportunities.