Search

Background: While there has been widespread global acceptance of the importance of evidence-informed policy, many opportunities to inform health policy with research are missed, often because of a mismatch between when and where reliable evidence is needed, and when and where it is available. 'Living evidence' is an approach where systematic evidence syntheses (e.g. living reviews, living guidelines, living policy briefs, etc.) are continually updated to incorporate new relevant evidence as it becomes available. Living evidence approaches have the potential to overcome a major barrier to evidence-informed policy, making up-to-date systematic summaries of policy-relevant research available at any time that policy-makers need them. These approaches are likely to be particularly beneficial given increasing calls for policy that is responsive, and rapidly adaptive to changes in the policy context. We describe the opportunities presented by living evidence for evidence-informed policy-making and highlight areas for further exploration. Discussion: There are several elements of living approaches to evidence synthesis that might support increased and improved use of evidence to inform policy. Reviews are explicitly prioritised to be 'living' by partnerships between policy-makers and researchers based on relevance to decision-making, as well as uncertainty of existing evidence, and likelihood that new evidence will arise. The ongoing nature of the work means evidence synthesis teams can be dynamic and engage with policy-makers in a variety of ways over time; and synthesis topics, questions and methods can be adapted as policy interests or contextual factors shift. Policy-makers can sign-up to be notified when relevant new evidence is found, and can be confident that living syntheses are up-to-date and contain all research whenever they access them. The always up-to-date nature of living evidence syntheses means producers can rapidly demonstrate availability of relevant, reliable evidence when it is needed, addressing a frequently cited barrier to evidence-informed policymaking. Conclusions: While there are challenges to be overcome, living evidence provides opportunities to enable policy-makers to access up-to-date evidence whenever they need it and also enable researchers to respond to the issues of the day with up-to-date research; and update policy-makers on changes in the evidence base as they arise. It also provides an opportunity to build flexible partnerships between researchers and policy-makers to ensure that evidence syntheses reflect the changing needs of policy-makers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The fields of implementation science and knowledge translation have evolved somewhat independently from the field of policy implementation research, despite calls for better integration. As a result, implementation theory and empirical work do not often reflect the implementation experience from a policy lens nor benefit from the scholarship in all three fields. This means policymakers, researchers, and practitioners may find it challenging to draw from theory that adequately reflects their implementation efforts.Methods: We developed an integrated theoretical framework of the implementation process from a policy perspective by combining findings from these fields using the critical interpretive synthesis method. We began with the compass question: How is policy currently described in implementation theory and processes and what aspects of policy are important for implementation success? We then searched 12 databases as well as gray literature and supplemented these documents with other sources to fill conceptual gaps. Using a grounded and interpretive approach to analysis, we built the framework constructs, drawing largely from the theoretical literature and then tested and refined the framework using empirical literature.Results: A total of 11,434 documents were retrieved and assessed for eligibility and 35 additional documents were identified through other sources. Eighty-six unique documents were ultimately included in the analysis. Our findings indicate that policy is described as (1) the context, (2) a focusing lens, (3) the innovation itself, (4) a lever of influence, (5) an enabler/facilitator or barrier, or (6) an outcome. Policy actors were also identified as important participants or leaders of implementation. Our analysis led to the development of a two-part conceptual framework, including process and determinant components.Conclusions: This framework begins to bridge the divide between disciplines and provides a new perspective about implementation processes at the systems level. It offers researchers, policymakers, and implementers a new way of thinking about implementation that better integrates policy considerations and can be used for planning or evaluating implementation efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Midwives' roles in sexual and reproductive health and rights continues to evolve. Understanding the profession's role and how midwives can be integrated into health systems is essential in creating evidence-informed policies. Our objective was to develop a theoretical framework of how political system factors and health systems arrangements influence the roles of midwives within the health system.Methods: A critical interpretive synthesis was used to develop the theoretical framework. A range of electronic bibliographic databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, Global Health database, HealthSTAR, Health Systems Evidence, MEDLINE and Web of Science) was searched through to 14 May 2020 as were policy and health systems-related and midwifery organisation websites. A coding structure was created to guide the data extraction.Results: A total of 4533 unique documents were retrieved through electronic searches, of which 4132 were excluded using explicit criteria, leaving 401 potentially relevant records, in addition to the 29 records that were purposively sampled through grey literature. A total of 100 documents were included in the critical interpretive synthesis. The resulting theoretical framework identified the range of political and health system components that can work together to facilitate the integration of midwifery into health systems or act as barriers that restrict the roles of the profession.Conclusions: Any changes to the roles of midwives in health systems need to take into account the political system where decisions about their integration will be made as well as the nature of the health system in which they are being integrated. The theoretical framework, which can be thought of as a heuristic, identifies the core contextual factors that governments can use to best leverage their position when working to improve sexual and reproductive health and rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite the significant variability in the role and integration of midwifery across provincial and territorial health systems, there has been limited scholarly inquiry into whether, how and under what conditions midwifery has been assigned roles and integrated into Canada's health systems.Methods: We use Yin's (2014) embedded single-case study design, which allows for an in-depth exploration to qualitatively assess how, since the regulation of midwives in 1994, the Ontario health system has assigned roles to and integrated midwives as a service delivery option. Kingdon's agenda setting and 3i + E theoretical frameworks are used to analyze two recent key policy directions (decision to fund freestanding midwifery-led birth centres and the Patients First primary care reform) that presented opportunities for the integration of midwives into the health system. Data were collected from key informant interviews and documents.Results: Nineteen key informant interviews were conducted, and 50 documents were reviewed in addition to field notes taken during the interviews. Our findings suggest that while midwifery was created as a self-regulated profession in 1994, health-system transformation initiatives have restricted the profession's integration into Ontario's health system. The policy legacies of how past decisions influence the decisions possible today have the most explanatory power to understand why midwives have had limited integration into interprofessional maternity care. The most important policy legacies to emerge from the analyses were related to payment mechanisms. In the medical model, payment mechanisms privilege physician-provided and hospital-based services, while payment mechanisms in the midwifery model have imposed unintended restrictions on the profession's ability to practice in interprofessional environments.Conclusions: This is the first study to explain why midwives have not been fully integrated into the Ontario health system, as well as the limitations placed on their roles and scope of practice. The study also builds a theoretical understanding of the integration process of healthcare professions within health systems and how policy legacies shape service delivery options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Decision-makers in crisis zones are faced with the challenge of having to make health-related decisions under limited time and resource constraints and in light of the many factors that can influence their decisions, of which research evidence is just one. To address a key gap in the research literature about how best to support the use of research evidence in such situations, we conducted a critical interpretive synthesis approach to develop a conceptual framework that outlines the strategies that leverage the facilitators and address the barriers to evidence use in crisis zones.Methods: We systematically reviewed both empirical and non-empirical literature and used an interpretive analytic approach to synthesise the results and develop the conceptual framework. We used a 'compass' question to create a detailed search strategy and conducted electronic searches in CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, SSCI and Web of Science. A second reviewer was assigned to a representative sample of articles. We purposively sampled additional papers to fill in conceptual gaps.Results: We identified 21 eligible papers to be analysed and purposively sampled an additional 6 to fill conceptual gaps. The synthesis resulted in a conceptual framework that focuses on evidence use in crisis zones examined through the lens of four systems - political, health, international humanitarian aid and health research. Within each of the four systems, the framework identifies the most actionable strategies that leverage the facilitators and address the barriers to evidence use.Conclusions: This study presents a new conceptual framework that outlines strategies that leverage the facilitators and address the barriers to evidence use in crisis zones within different systems. This study expands on the literature pertaining to evidence-informed decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Humanitarian action in crisis zones is fraught with many challenges, including lack of timely and accessible research evidence to inform decision-making about humanitarian interventions. Evidence websites have the potential to address this challenge. Evidence Aid is the only evidence website designed for crisis zones that focuses on providing research evidence in the form of systematic reviews. The objective of this study is to explore stakeholders' views of Evidence Aid, contributing further to our understanding of the use of research evidence in decision-making in crisis zones.Methods: We designed a qualitative user-testing study to collect interview data from stakeholders about their impressions of Evidence Aid. Eligible stakeholders included those with and without previous experience of Evidence Aid. All participants were either currently working or have worked within the last year in a crisis zone. Participants were asked to perform the same user experience-related tasks and answer questions about this experience and their knowledge needs. Data were analysed using a deductive framework analysis approach drawing on Morville's seven facets of the user experience - findability, usability, usefulness, desirability, accessibility, credibility and value.Results: A total of 31 interviews were completed with senior decision-makers (n = 8), advisors (n = 7), field managers (n = 7), analysts/researchers (n = 5) and healthcare providers (n = 4). Participant self-reported knowledge needs varied depending on their role. Overall, participants did not identify any 'major' problems (highest order) and identified only two 'big' problems (second highest order) with using the Evidence Aid website, namely the lack of a search engine on the home page and that some full-text articles linked to/from the site require a payment. Participants identified seven specific suggestions about how to improve Evidence Aid, many of which can also be applied to other evidence websites.Conclusions: Stakeholders in crisis zones found Evidence Aid to be useful, accessible and credible. However, they experienced some problems with the lack of a search engine on the home page and the requirement for payment for some full-text articles linked to/from the site. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors call for citizen engagement to improve provision of oral health services. They cite reasons for the slow progress in oral health systems including lack of clarity about essential oral care, disconnection of the oral health community from the broader health community, and provider influence within the oral health policy ecosystem. The advocate for citizen values to be used in policy-making and citizen involvement in the development of health system performance assessment frameworks.

Background: This paper is one of three linked studies that attempts to understand the process of institutionalisation of policy units within Burkina Faso's health system. It examines the relationships between the existence of an institutional framework, data production capacity and other resource availability in the institutionalisation of policy units in health systems. It therefore contributes to our understanding of the dynamics linking the key drivers and indicators of institutionalisation. Additionally, it examines how factors within the managerial setting, including workplace environment, and budgetary and human resource availability, may influence the institutionalisation process.Methods: The study used an explanatory qualitative case study approach, examining two policy units in Burkina Faso's Ministry of Health, the first of which had been institutionalised successfully and the other less so. Data were collected from key policymakers, including 13 connected with the first policy unit and 10 with the second, plus two funders. We also conducted a documentary analysis of the National Program for Health Development, two mid-term strategic plans, 230 action plans, eight Ministry of Health state budgets, eight Ministry of Health annual statistics reports, 16 policy unit budgets and published literature.Results: The framework within which the government gave the policy unit its mandate and policy focus had the strongest effect on the institutionalisation process. Institutionalisation depended on political will, in both the host government and any donors, and the priority given to the policy unit's focus. It was also affected by the leadership of the policy unit managers. These factors were influenced by human resource capacity, and our findings suggest that, for successful institutionalisation in Burkina Faso's health system, policy units need to be given sufficient human resources to achieve their objectives.Conclusion: Policy units' institutionalisation in Burkina Faso's health system depend on the leadership of the unit managers to implement relevant activities, mobilise funding, and recruit and maintain enough human resources, as well as the mandate given by the government. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Burkina Faso has made a number of health system policy decisions to improve performance on health indicators and strengthen responsiveness to health-related challenges. These included the creation of a General Directorate of Health Information and Statistics (DGISS) and a technical unit to coordinate performance-based financing (CT-FBR). We analysed the policymaking processes associated with the establishment of these units, and documented the factors that influenced this process.Method: We used a multiple-case study design based on Kingdon's agenda-setting model to investigate the DGISS and CT-FBR policymaking processes. Data were collected from interviews with key informants (n = 28), published literature, policy documents (including two strategic and 230 action plans), and 55 legal/regulatory texts. Interviews were analysed using thematic qualitative analysis. Data from the documentary analysis were triangulated with the qualitative interview data.Results: Key factors influencing the policymaking processes associated with the two units involved the 'problem' (problem identification), 'policy' (formation of policy proposals), and 'politics' (political climate/change) streams, which came together in a way that resulted in proposals being placed on the decision agenda. A number of problems with Burkina Faso's health information and financing systems were identified. Policy proposals for the DGISS and CT-FBR units were developed in response to these problems, emerging from several sources including development partners. Changes in political and public service administrations (specifically the 2008 appointment of a new Minister of Health and the establishment of a new budget allocation system), with corresponding changes in the actors and interests involved, appeared key in elevating the proposals to the decision agenda.Conclusions: Efforts to improve performance on health indicators and strengthen responsiveness to health-related challenges need focus on the need for a compelling problem, a viable policy, and conducive politics in order to make it to the decision agenda. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: All too often, health policy and management decisions are made without making use of or consulting with the best available research evidence, which can lead to ineffective and inefficient health systems. One of the main actors that can ensure the use of evidence to inform policymaking is researchers. The objective of this study is to explore Israeli health systems and policy researchers' views and perceptions regarding the role of health systems and policy research (HSPR) in health policymaking and the barriers and facilitators to the use of evidence in the policymaking process.Methods: A survey of researchers who have conducted HSPR in Israel was developed. The survey consisted of a demographics section and closed questions, which focused on support both within the researchers' organisations and the broader environment for KTE activities, perceptions on the policymaking process, and the potential influencing factors on the process. The survey was sent to all health systems and policy researchers in Israel from academic institutions, hospital settings, government agencies, the four health insurance funds, and research institutes (n = 107). All responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. For close-ended questions about level of agreement we combined together the two highest categories (agree or strongly agree) for analysis.Results: Thirty-seven respondents participated in the survey. While many respondents felt that the use of HSPR may help raise awareness on policy issues, the majority of respondents felt that the actual use of HSPR was hindered for many reasons. While facilitators do exist to support the use of research evidence in policymaking, numerous barriers hinder the process such as challenges in government/provider relations, policymakers lacking the expertise for acquiring, assessing, and applying HSPR and priorities in the health system drawing attention away from HSPR. Furthermore, it is perceived by a majority of respondents that the health insurance funds and the physician organisations exert a strong influence in the policymaking process.Conclusions: Health system and policy researchers in Israel need to be introduced to the benefits and potential advantages of evidence-informed policy in an organised and systematic way. Future research should examine the perceptions of policymakers in Israel and thus we can gain a broader perspective on where the actual issues lie. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses father of evidence-based medicine David Sackett's impacts on health policy. Topics discussed include his contributions to the evidence-based medicine (EBM) movement, promotion of the validity of research evidence by David, his use of research evidence in decision making, and his initiated policies for clinical care, public health, and health systems.

Background: The news media is located at the nexus of the public and policy agendas and provides a window into issues concerning the public. Therefore, it could be a powerful tool for advocating for citizens' health and could help promote evidence-based primary health systems responsive to the needs of citizens. However, research on the coverage of primary healthcare and related research evidence in the South African print media is virtually non-existent.Methods: We examined 2,077 news stories that covered primary healthcare from 25 South African newspapers retrieved from the Lexis-Nexis online archive over a 16-year period (1997-2012). We analysed basic characteristics and conducted a content analysis of the news stories.Results: Of the 2,077 news stories that mentioned primary healthcare, this was the main focus in 8.3% (n = 173). Of these, 45.7% discussed issues relating to clinics, whereas issues relating to community health workers and nurses were covered by 42.8% and 34.1% of news stories, respectively. The number of news stories discussing infectious diseases (55.5%) was more than twice the number discussing non-communicable diseases (21.4%). HIV/AIDS/TB illness- and service-related issues were covered by 54.3% of news stories and social determinants of health by 22%. Issues relating to how healthcare is organised to deliver services to the people received substantial coverage in the print media, with 72.8% discussing delivery arrangements, 72.3% governance arrangements, and 55% financial arrangements. A small fraction of news stories (7.5%) discussed research studies but none discussed a systematic review.Conclusion: Our study underscores the potential role of media analyses in illuminating patterns in print media coverage of health issues. It also shows that an understanding of coverage of health research evidence could help spur efforts to support the climate for evidence-informed health policymaking. Researchers in low- and middle-income countries need to be more proactive in making use of media analyses to help illuminate health related issues that require the attention of health policymakers, stakeholders and reporters, and to identify potential areas of research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Policymakers, stakeholders and researchers have not been able to find research evidence about health systems using an easily understood taxonomy of topics, know when they have conducted a comprehensive search of the many types of research evidence relevant to them, or rapidly identify decision-relevant information in their search results. Methods: To address these gaps, we developed an approach to building a 'one-stop shop' for research evidence about health systems. We developed a taxonomy of health system topics and iteratively refined it by drawing on existing categorization schemes and by using it to categorize progressively larger bundles of research evidence. We identified systematic reviews, systematic review protocols, and review-derived products through searches of Medline, hand searches of several databases indexing systematic reviews, hand searches of journals, and continuous scanning of listservs and websites. We developed an approach to providing 'added value' to existing content (e.g., coding systematic reviews according to the countries in which included studies were conducted) and to expanding the types of evidence eligible for inclusion (e.g., economic evaluations and health system descriptions). Lastly, we developed an approach to continuously updating the online one-stop shop in seven supported languages. Results: The taxonomy is organized by governance, financial, and delivery arrangements and by implementation strategies. The 'one-stop shop', called Health Systems Evidence, contains a comprehensive inventory of evidence briefs, overviews of systematic reviews, systematic reviews, systematic review protocols, registered systematic review titles, economic evaluations and costing studies, health reform descriptions and health system descriptions, and many types of added-value coding. It is continuously updated and new content is regularly translated into Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. Conclusions: Policymakers and stakeholders can now easily access and use a wide variety of types of research evidence about health systems to inform decision-making and advocacy. Researchers and research funding agencies can use Health Systems Evidence to identify gaps in the current stock of research evidence and domains that could benefit from primary research, systematic reviews, and review overviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background There is a scarcity of empirical data on African country climates for evidence-informed health system policymaking (EIHSP) to backup the longstanding reputation that research evidence is not valued enough by health policymakers as an information input. Herein, we assess whether and how changes have occurred in the climate for EIHSP before and after the establishment of two Knowledge Translation Platforms housed in government institutions in Cameroon and Uganda since 2006. Methods We merged content analysis techniques and policy sciences analytical frameworks to guide this structured review of governmental policy documents geared at achieving health Millennium Development Goals. We combined i) a quantitative exploration of the usage statistics of research-related words and constructs, citations of types of evidence, and budgets allocated to research-related activities; and (ii) an interpretive exploration using a deductive thematic analysis approach to uncover changes in the institutions, interests, ideas, and external factors displaying the country climate for EIHSP. Descriptive statistics compared quantitative data across countries during the periods 2001–2006 and 2007–2012. Results We reviewed 54 documents, including 33 grants approved by global health initiatives. The usage statistics of research-related words and constructs showed an increase over time across countries. Varied forms of data, information, or research were instrumentally used to describe the burden and determinants of poverty and health conditions. The use of evidence syntheses to frame poverty and health problems, select strategies, or forecast the expected outcomes has remained sparse over time and across countries. The budgets for research increased over time from 28.496 to 95.467 million Euros (335%) in Cameroon and 38.064 to 58.884 million US dollars (155%) in Uganda, with most resources allocated to health sector performance monitoring and evaluation. The consistent naming of elements pertaining to the climate for EIHSP features the greater influence of external donors through policy transfer. Conclusions This structured review of governmental policy documents illustrates the nascent conducive climate for EIHSP in Cameroon and Uganda and the persistent undervalue of evidence syntheses. Global and national health stakeholders should raise the profile of evidence syntheses (e.g., systematic reviews) as an information input when shaping policies and programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ensuring the use of research evidence in health system management and policy decisions is an important challenge in this century. Knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) has emerged as a paradigm to address the challenges and start closing the 'know-do' gap. This area of work is gaining momentum in most developed countries, yet, to date, no work has been performed in Israel within this area. The purpose of this study was to identify which KTE activities health systems and policy researchers in Israel have undertaken. Methods: A cross-sectional web-based survey of researchers who have conducted health systems and policy research in Israel was developed. The survey consisted of a demographics section, quantitative scales, and open-ended questions. The survey was sent to all health systems and policy researchers in Israel (n = 125). Results: The study response rate (28%) was relatively low as compared to other studies in the same field (range of 42% to 88%). Our survey found that more than a third of the health systems and policy researchers in Israel reported that they were frequently or always involved in the following KTE activities: interactions with target audience through the research process (i.e., during developing a research question or executing the research; 35% to 42%) or through formal or informal meetings during conferences, workshops, or conversations (40%). Less than half of the health systems and policy researchers in Israel are engaged in bridging activities aimed to facilitate target audiences to use research. Conclusions: This is a fairly new area in Israel and therefore the level of engagement of researchers in KTE activities is not very high. The low response rates could be because KTE is a new field in Israel and minimal KTE initiatives have been undertaken. It is preferable to have higher response rates, yet, after several initiatives, this was the outcome. While the findings are relevant, they may not reflect the total population of health system and policy researchers in Israel. Health system and policy researchers in Israel need to be introduced to the benefits and potential advantages of KTE in an organized and systematic way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Deliberative dialogues have recently captured attention in the public health policy arena because they have the potential to address several key factors that influence the use of research evidence in policymaking. We conducted an evaluation of three deliberative dialogues convened in Canada by the National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy in order to learn more about deliberative dialogues focussed on healthy public policy.Methods: The evaluation included a formative assessment of participants' views about and experiences with ten key design features of the dialogues, and a summative assessment of participants' intention to use research evidence of the type that was discussed at the dialogue. We surveyed participants immediately after each dialogue was completed and again six months later. We analyzed the ratings using descriptive statistics and the written comments by conducting a thematic analysis.Results: A total of 31 individuals participated in the three deliberative dialogues that we evaluated. The response rate was 94% (N = 29; policymakers (n = 9), stakeholders (n = 18), researchers (n = 2)) for the initial survey and 56% (n = 14) for the follow-up. All 10 of the design features that we examined as part of the formative evaluation were rated favourably by all participant groups. The findings of the summative evaluation demonstrated a mean behavioural intention score of 5.8 on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).Conclusion: Our findings reinforce the promise of deliberative dialogues as a strategy for supporting evidence-informed public health policies. Additional work is needed to understand more about which design elements work in which situations and for different issues, and whether intention to use research evidence is a suitable substitute for measuring actual behaviour change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background There is a scarcity of empirical data on institutions devoted to knowledge brokerage and their influence in Africa. Our objective was to describe two pioneering Knowledge Translation Platforms (KTPs) supporting evidence informed health system policymaking (EIHSP) in Cameroon and Uganda since 2006. Methods This comparative historical case study of Evidence Informed Policy Network (EVIPNet) Cameroon and Regional East African Community Health Policy Initiative (REACH-PI) Uganda using multiple methods comprised (i) a descriptive documentary analysis for a narrative historical account, (ii) an interpretive documentary analysis of the context, profiles, activities and outputs inventories and (iii) an evaluative survey of stakeholders exposed to evidence briefs produced and policy dialogues organized by the KTPs. Results Both initiatives benefited from the technical and scientific support from the global EVIPNet resource group. EVIPNet Cameroon secretariat operates with a multidisciplinary group of part-time researchers in a teaching hospital closely linked to the ministry of health. REACHPI Uganda secretariat operates with a smaller team of full time staff in a public university. Financial resources were mobilized from external donors to scale up capacity building, knowledge management, and linkage and exchange activities. Between 2008 and 2012, twelve evidence briefs were produced in Cameroon and three in Uganda. In 2012, six rapid evidence syntheses in response to stakeholders’ urgent needs were produced in Cameroon against 73 in Uganda between 2010 and 2012. Ten policy dialogues (seven in Cameroon and three in Uganda) informed by pre-circulated evidence briefs were well received. Both KTPs contributed to developing and testing new resources and tools for EIHSP. A network of local and global experts has created new spaces for evidence informed deliberations on priority health policy issues related to MDGs. Conclusion This descriptive historical account of two KTPs housed in government institutions in Africa illustrates how the convergence of local and global factors and agents has enabled in-country efforts to support evidence-informed deliberations on priority health policy issues and lays the ground for further work to assess their influence on the climate for EIHSP and specific health policy processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This protocol builds on the development of a) a framework that identified the various supports (i.e. positions, activities, interventions) that a healthcare organisation or health system can implement for evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) and b) a qualitative study that showed the current mix of supports that some Canadian healthcare organisations have in place and the ones that are perceived to facilitate the use of research evidence in decision-making. Based on these findings, we developed a web survey to collect crosssectional data about the specific supports that regional health authorities and hospitals in two Canadian provinces (Ontario and Quebec) have in place to facilitate EIDM. Methods/design This paper describes the methods for a cross-sectional web survey among 32 regional health authorities and 253 hospitals in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario (Canada) to collect data on the current mix of organisational supports that these organisations have in place to facilitate evidence-informed decision-making. The data will be obtained through a two-step survey design: a 10-min survey among CEOs to identify key units and individuals in regard to our objectives (step 1) and a 20-min survey among managers of the key units identified in step 1 to collect information about the activities performed by their unit regarding the acquisition, assessment, adaptation and/or dissemination of research evidence in decisionmaking (step 2). The study will target three types of informants: CEOs, library/documentation centre managers and all other key managers whose unit is involved in the acquisition, assessment, adaptation/packaging and/or dissemination of research evidence in decision-making. We developed an innovative data collection system to increase the likelihood that only the best-informed respondent available answers each survey question. The reporting of the results will be done using descriptive statistics of supports by organisation type and by province. Discussion This study will be the first to collect and report large-scale cross-sectional data on the current mix of supports health system organisations in the two most populous Canadian provinces have in place for evidence-informed decision-making. The study will also provide useful information to researchers on how to collect organisation-level data with reduced risk of selfreporting bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Meetings and conferences are often used as a tool to disseminate information, network with colleagues, and/or set direction for a field of study, but there is little evidence to support whether such events achieve their objectives. This study evaluates the International Forum on Evidence Informed Health Policymaking (EIHP), a three-day meeting held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, in 2012, to determine the success of the meeting based on pre-determined objectives. Methods The evaluation strategy was developed based on a previously published conference evaluation framework and operationalized as an end-of-conference participant survey that incorporated both process (programme/organization) and outcome measures (potential changes in behaviour). Results Sixty seven of approximately 121 attendees filled out a questionnaire (a 55% response rate) and, overall, participants rated the programme components and plenary sessions very highly. The top three benefits reported by participants were: i) sharing experiences and lessons learned (75%); ii) new opportunities for future collaboration (69%); and iii) new knowledge (67%). Conversely, only 25% or less of meeting participants reported an intent to utilize any of the potential benefits highlighted in the questionnaire, with the notable exception of pursuing new opportunities for future collaboration. Conclusions The evaluation findings suggest that the International Forum achieved its objectives of sharing experiences with EIHP and providing opportunities for networking among EIHP initiatives, although there are limited prospects for direct improvements to efforts to support EIHP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To develop and implement a method for the evaluation of "evidence briefs" and "deliberative dialogues" that could be applied to comparative studies of similar strategies used in the support of evidence-informed policy-making. Methods Participants who read evidence briefs and attended deliberative dialogues in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Uganda and Zambia were surveyed before the start of the dialogues -- to collect their views on pre-circulated evidence briefs -- and at the end of the dialogues -- to collect their views on the dialogues. The respondents' assessments of the briefs and dialogues and the respondents' intentions to act on what they had learned were then investigated in descriptive statistical analyses and regression models. Findings Of the 530 individuals who read the evidence briefs and attended dialogues, 304 (57%) and 303 (57%) completed questionnaires about the briefs and dialogues, respectively. Respondents viewed the evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues -- as well as each of their key features -- very favourably, regardless of the country, issue or group involved. Overall, "not concluding with recommendations" and "not aiming for a consensus" were identified as the least helpful features of the briefs and dialogues, respectively. Respondents generally reported strong intentions to act on what they had learnt. Conclusion Although some aspects of their design may need to be improved or, at least, explained and justified to policy-makers and stakeholders, evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues appear to be highly regarded and to lead to intentions to act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context Evidence briefs have emerged as a promising approach to synthesizing the best available research evidence for health system policymakers and stakeholders. An evidence brief may draw on systematic reviews and many other types of policy-relevant information, including local data and studies, to describe a problem, options for addressing it, and key implementation considerations. We conducted a systematic review to examine the ways in which context- and issue-related factors influence the perceived usefulness of evidence briefs among their intended users. Methods We used a critical interpretive synthesis approach to review both empirical and nonempirical literature and to develop a model that explains how context and issues influence policymakers' and stakeholders' views of the utility of evidence briefs prepared for priority policy issues. We used a 'compass' question to create a detailed search strategy and conducted electronic searches in CINAHL, EMBASE, HealthSTAR, IPSA, MEDLINE, OAIster (gray literature), ProQuest A&I Theses, ProQuest (Sociological Abstracts, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Worldwide Political Science Abstracts, International Bibliography of Social Sciences, PAIS, Political Science), PsychInfo, Web of Science, and WilsonWeb (Social Science Abstracts). Finally, we used a grounded and interpretive analytic approach to synthesize the results. Findings Of the 4,461 papers retrieved, 3,908 were excluded and 553 were assessed for 'relevance,' with 137 included in the initial sample of papers to be analyzed and an additional 23 purposively sampled to fill conceptual gaps. Several themes emerged: (1) many established types of 'evidence' are viewed as useful content in an evidence brief, along with several promising formatting features; (2) contextual factors, particularly the institutions, interests, and values of a given context, can influence views of evidence briefs; (3) whether an issue is polarizing and whether it is salient (or not) and familiar (or not) to actors in the policy arena can influence views of evidence briefs prepared for that issue; (4) influential factors can emerge in several ways (as context driven, issue driven, or a result of issue-context resonance); (5) these factors work through two primary pathways, affecting either the users or the producers of briefs; and (6) these factors influence views of evidence briefs through a variety of mechanisms. Conclusions Those persons funding and preparing evidence briefs need to consider a variety of context- and issue-related factors when deciding how to make them most useful in policymaking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systematic reviews are increasingly being viewed as important sources of information for policymakers who need to make decisions on different aspects of the health system, often under tight time constraints and with many factors competing for their attention. Unfortunately, a number of misconceptions, or 'myths', stand in the way of promoting their use. The belief that systematic review topics are not relevant to health systems policymaking, that they cannot be found quickly, and that they are not available in formats that are useful for policymakers are but three examples of such myths. This paper uses evidence drawn mainly from Health Systems Evidence, a continuously updated repository of syntheses of health systems research, to counter these and nine other common myths, with the aim of changing the constraining beliefs associated with them, while improving the prospects for the use of systematic reviews in health system policymaking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Models that describe the key features and intended effects of specific knowledge translation and exchange (KTE) interventions are much less prominent than models that provide a more general understanding of KTE. Our aim was to develop a model in order to describe the key features and intended effects of deliberative dialogues used as a KTE strategy and to understand how deliberative dialogues can support evidence-informed policymaking. By using critical interpretive synthesis, we identified 17 papers representing four fields of enquiry and integrated our findings into a model. The key features described in the model are: 1) an appropriate (i.e., conducive to the particular dialogue) meeting environment; 2) an appropriate mix of participants; and, 3) an appropriate use of research evidence. These features combine to create three types of intended effects: 1) short-term individual-level; 3) medium-term community/organizational-level; and, 3) long-term system-level. The concept of capacity building helps to explain the relationship between features and effects. The model is a useful contribution to the KTE field because it is a practical tool that could be used to guide the development and evaluation of deliberative dialogues in order to understand more about achieving particular outcomes in relation to specific issues or contexts. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objectives. We examined the relationship between unemployment and mortality in Germany, a coordinated market economy, and the United States, a liberal market economy. Methods. We followed 2 working-age cohorts from the German Socioeconomic Panel and the US Panel Study of Income Dynamics from 1984 to 2005. We defined unemployment as unemployed at the time of survey. We used discrete-time survival analysis, adjusting for potential confounders. Results. There was an unemployment-mortality association among Americans (relative risk [RR] = 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.7, 3.4), but not among Germans (RR = 1.4; 95% CI = 1.0, 2.0). In education-stratified models, there was an association among minimum-skilled (RR = 2.6; 95% CI = 1.4, 4.7) and medium-skilled (RR = 2.4; 95% CI = 1.5, 3.8) Americans, but not among minimum- and medium-skilled Germans. There was no association among high-skilled Americans, but an association among high-skilled Germans (RR = 3.0; 95% CI = 1.3, 7.0), although this was limited to those educated in East Germany. Minimum- and medium-skilled unemployed Americans had the highest absolute risks of dying. Conclusions. The higher risk of dying for minimum- and medium-skilled unemployed Americans, not found among Germans, suggests that the unemployment- mortality relationship may be mediated by the institutional and economic environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores how evidence should be translated to guidance to inform policies on health systems and to improve delivery of clinical as well as public health interventions. It assesses as to what extent the need for health systems guidance should be part of national policies and how guidance is formulated by analyzing strategic health sector documents. It describes methodological challenges when outlining the approaches in producing health systems guidance and suggest ways to address it.

The article considers the issues raised udring the World Health Organization's (WHO) Task Force on Developing Health Systems Guidance. It explores the links between health systems guidance and policy development at national and global levels. It examines the factors that may influence the development of policy.

Background: Limited research exists on researchers' knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) in the eastern Mediterranean region (EMR). This multi-country study explores researchers' views and experiences regarding the role of health systems and policy research evidence in health policymaking in the EMR, including the factors that influence health policymaking, barriers and facilitators to the use of evidence, and the factors that increase researchers' engagement in KTE. Methods: Researchers who published health systems and policy relevant research in 12 countries in the EMR (Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen) were surveyed. Descriptive analysis and Linear Mixed Regression Models were performed for quantitative sections and the simple thematic analysis approach was used for open-ended questions. Results: A total of 238 researchers were asked to complete the survey (response rate 56%). Researchers indicated transferring results to other researchers (67.2%) and policymakers in the government (40.5%). Less than one-quarter stated that they produced policy briefs (14.5%), disseminated messages that specified possible actions (24.4%), interacted with policymakers and stakeholders in priority-setting (16%), and involved them in their research (19.8%). Insufficient policy dialogue opportunities and collaboration between researchers and policymakers and stakeholders (67.9%), practical constraints to implementation (66%), non-receptive policy environment (61.3%), and politically sensitive findings (57.7%) hindered the use of evidence. Factors that increase researchers' engagement in KTE activities in the region were associated with involving policymakers and stakeholders at various stages such as priority-setting exercises and provision of technical assistance. Conclusions: Researchers in the EMR recognize the importance of using health systems evidence in health policymaking. Potential strategies to improve the use of research evidence emphasize two-way communication between researchers and policymakers. Findings are critical for the upcoming World Health Report 2012, which will emphasize the significance of conducting and translating health research to inform health policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Community-based organizations are important health system stakeholders as they provide numerous, often highly valued programs and services to the members of their community. However, community-based organizations are described using diverse terminology and concepts from across a range of disciplines. To better understand the literature related to community-based organizations in the health sector (i.e., those working in health systems or more broadly to address population or public health issues), we conducted a scoping review by using an iterative process to identify existing literature, conceptually map it, and identify gaps and areas for future inquiry. We searched 18 databases and conducted citation searches using 15 articles to identify relevant literature. All search results were reviewed in duplicate and were included if they addressed the key characteristics of community-based organizations or networks of community-based organizations. We then coded all included articles based on the country focus, type of literature, source of literature, academic discipline, disease sector, terminology used to describe organizations and topics discussed. We identified 186 articles addressing topics related to the key characteristics of community-based organizations and/or networks of community-based organizations. The literature is largely focused on high-income countries and on mental health and addictions, HIV/AIDS or general/unspecified populations. A large number of different terms have been used in the literature to describe community-based organizations and the literature addresses a range of topics about them (mandate, structure, revenue sources and type and skills or skill mix of staff), the involvement of community members in organizations, how organizations contribute to community organizing and development and how they function in networks with each other and with government (e.g., in policy networks). Given the range of terms used to describe community-based organizations, this scoping review can be used to further map their meanings/definitions to develop a more comprehensive typology and understanding of community-based organizations. This information can be used in further investigations about the ways in which community-based organizations can be engaged in health system decision-making and the mechanisms available for facilitating or supporting their engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Large multi-day conferences have often been criticized as ineffective ways to improve social outcomes and to influence policy or practice. Unfortunately, many conference evaluations have also been inadequate in determining the impact of a conference on its associated social sector, with little evidence gathered or analyzed to substantiate or refute these criticisms. The aim of this scoping review is to investigate and report stakeholders' objectives for planning or participating in large multi-day conferences and how these objectives are being evaluated. We conducted a scoping review supplemented by a small number of key informant interviews. Eight bibliographic databases were systematically searched to identify papers describing conference objectives and/or evaluations. We developed a conference evaluation framework based on theoretical models and empirical findings, which structured the descriptive synthesis of the data. We identified 3,073 potential papers for review, of which 44 were included in this study. Our evaluation framework connects five key elements in planning a conference and its evaluation (number in brackets refers to number of themes identified): conference objectives (8), purpose of evaluation (7), evaluation methods (5), indicators of success (9) and theories/models (8). Further analysis of indicators of success identified three categories of indicators with differing scopes (i.e. immediate, prospective or follow-up) as well as empirical links between the purpose of evaluations and these indicators. Conference objectives and evaluations were largely correlated with the type of conference (i.e. academic, political/ governmental or business) but diverse overall. While much can be done to improve the quality and usefulness of conference evaluations, there are innovative assessments that are currently being utilized by some conferences and warrant further investigation. This review provides conference evaluators and organizers a simple resource to improve their own assessments by highlighting and categorizing potential objectives and evaluation strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health systems evidence can enhance policymaking and strengthen national health systems. In the Middle East, limited research exists on the use of evidence in the policymaking process. This multi-country study explored policymakers' views and practices regarding the use of health systems evidence in health policymaking in 10 eastern Mediterranean countries, including factors that influence health policymaking and barriers and facilitators to the use of evidence. Methods: This study utilized a survey adapted and customized from a similar tool developed in Canada. Health policymakers from 10 countries (Algeria, Bahrain, Jordan, Lebanon Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Sudan, Tunisia, and Yemen) were surveyed. Descriptive and bi-variate analyses were performed for quantitative questions and thematic analysis was done for qualitative questions. Results: A total of 237 policymakers completed the survey (56.3% response rate). Governing parties, limited funding for the health sector and donor organizations exerted a strong influence on policymaking processes. Most (88.5%) policymakers reported requesting evidence and 43.1% reported collaborating with researchers. Overall, 40.1% reported that research evidence is not delivered at the right time. Lack of an explicit budget for evidence-informed health policymaking (55.3%), lack of an administrative structure for supporting evidence-informed health policymaking processes (52.6%), and limited value given to research (35.9%) all limited the use of research evidence. Barriers to the use of evidence included lack of research targeting health policy, lack of funding and investments, and political forces. Facilitators included availability of health research and research institutions, qualified researchers, research funding, and easy access to information. Conclusions: Health policymakers in several countries recognize the importance of using health systems evidence. Study findings are important in light of changes unfolding in some Arab countries and can help undertake an analysis of underlying transformations and their respective health policy implications including the way evidence will be used in policy decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study examines research knowledge infrastructures (RKIs) found in health systems. An RKI is defined as any instrument (i.e., programs, interventions, tools) implemented in order to facilitate access, dissemination, exchange, and/or use of evidence in healthcare organisations. Based on an environmental scan (17 key informant interviews) and scoping review (26 studies), we found support for a framework that we developed that outlines components that a health system can have in its RKI. The broad domains are climate for research use, research production, activities used to link research to action, and evaluation. The objective of the current study is to profile the RKI of three types of health system organisations-regional health authorities, primary care practices, and hospitals-in two Canadian provinces to determine the current mix of components these organisations have in their RKI, their experience with these components, and their views about future RKI initiatives. Methods: This study will include semistructured telephone interviews with a purposive sample region of a senior management team member, library/resource centre manager, and a 'knowledge broker' in three regional health authorities, five or six purposively sampled hospitals, and five or six primary care practices in Ontario and Quebec, for a maximum of 71 interviewees. The interviews will explore (a) which RKI components have proven helpful, (b) barriers and facilitators in implementing RKI components, and (c) views about next steps in further development of RKIs. Discussion: This is the first qualitative examination of potential RKI efforts that can increase the use of research evidence in health system decision making. We anticipate being able to identify broadly applicable insights about important next steps in building effective RKIs. Some of the identified RKI components may increase the use of research evidence by decision makers, which may then lead to more informed decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To support the use of research evidence by community-based organizations (CBOs) we have developed 'Synthesized HIV/AIDS Research Evidence' (SHARE), which is an evidence service for those working in the HIV sector. SHARE consists of several components: an online searchable database of HIV-relevant systematic reviews (retrievable based on a taxonomy of topics related to HIV/AIDS and open text search); periodic email updates; access to user-friendly summaries; and peer relevance assessments. Our objective is to evaluate whether this 'full serve' evidence service increases the use of research evidence by CBOs as compared to a 'self-serve' evidence service. Methods/design: We will conduct a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT), along with a follow-up qualitative process study to explore the findings in greater depth. All CBOs affiliated with Canadian AIDS Society (n = 120) will be invited to participate and will be randomized to receive either the 'full-serve' version of SHARE or the 'self-serve' version (a listing of relevant systematic reviews with links to records on PubMed and worksheets that help CBOs find and use research evidence) using a simple randomized design. All management and staff from each organization will be provided access to the version of SHARE that their organization is allocated to. The trial duration will be 10 months (two-month baseline period, six-month intervention period, and two month crossover period), the primary outcome measure will be the mean number of logins/month/organization (averaged across the number of users from each organization) between baseline and the end of the intervention period. The secondary outcome will be intention to use research evidence as measured by a survey administered to one key decision maker from each organization. For the qualitative study, one key organizational decision maker from 15 organizations in each trial arm (n = 30) will be purposively sampled. One-on-one semi-structured interviews will be conducted by telephone on their views about and their experiences with the evidence service they received, how helpful it was in their work, why it was helpful (or not helpful), what aspects were most and least helpful and why, and recommendations for next steps. Discussion: To our knowledge, this will be the first RCT to evaluate the effects of an evidence service specifically designed to support CBOs in finding and using research evidence. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01257724 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health-system policy makers need timely access to synthesised research evidence to inform the policymaking process. No efforts to address this need have been evaluated using an experimental quantitative design. We developed an evidence service that draws inputs from Health Systems Evidence, which is a database of policy-relevant systematic reviews. The reviews have been (a) categorised by topic and type of review; (b) coded by the last year searches for studies were conducted and by the countries in which included studies were conducted; (c) rated for quality; and (d) linked to available user-friendly summaries, scientific abstracts, and full-text reports. Our goal is to evaluate whether a "full-serve" evidence service increases the use of synthesized research evidence by policy analysts and advisors in the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) as compared to a "self-serve" evidence service. Methods/design: We will conduct a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT), along with a follow-up qualitative process study in order to explore the findings in greater depth. For the RCT, all policy analysts and policy advisors (n = 168) in a single division of the MOHLTC will be invited to participate. Using a stratified randomized design, participants will be randomized to receive either the "full-serve" evidence service (database access, monthly e-mail alerts, and full-text article availability) or the "self-serve" evidence service (database access only). The trial duration will be ten months (two-month baseline period, six-month intervention period, and two month cross-over period). The primary outcome will be the mean number of site visits/month/user between baseline and the end of the intervention period. The secondary outcome will be participants' intention to use research evidence. For the qualitative study, 15 participants from each trial arm (n = 30) will be purposively sampled. One-on-one semi-structured interviews will be conducted by telephone on their views about and their experiences with the evidence service they received, how helpful it was in their work, why it was helpful (or not helpful), what aspects were most and least helpful and why, and recommendations for next steps. Discussion: To our knowledge, this will be the first RCT to evaluate the effects of an evidence service specifically designed to support health-system policy makers in finding and using research evidence. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01307228 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many international statements have urged researchers, policy-makers and health care providers to collaborate in efforts to bridge the gaps between research, policy and practice in low- and middle-income countries. We surveyed researchers in 10 countries about their involvement in such efforts. Methods: We surveyed 308 researchers who conducted research on one of four clinical areas relevant to the Millennium Development Goals (prevention of malaria, care of women seeking contraception, care of children with diarrhea and care of patients with tuberculosis) in each of 10 low- and middle-income countries (China, Ghana, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Laos, Mexico, Pakistan, Senegal and Tanzania). We focused on their engagement in three promising bridging activities and examined system-level, organizational and individual correlates of these activities. Results: Less than half of the researchers surveyed re ported that they engaged in one or more of the three promising bridging activities: 27% provided systematic reviews of the research literature to their target audiences, 40% provided access to a searchable database of research products on their topic, and 43% established or maintained long-term partnerships related to their topic with representatives of the target audience. Three factors emerged as statistically significant predictors of respondents' engagement in these activities: the existence of structures and processes to link researchers and their target audiences predicted both the provision of access to a database (odds ratio [OR] 2.62, 95% CI 1.30-5.27) and the establishment or maintenance of partnerships (OR 2.65, 95% CI 1.25-5.64); stability in their contacts predicted the provision of systematic reviews (OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.35-6.13); and having managers and public (government) policy-makers among their target audiences predicted the provision of both systematic reviews (OR 4.57, 95% CI 1.78-11.72) and access to a database (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.20-5.43). Interpretation: Our findings suggest potential areas for improvement in light of the bridging strategies targeted at health care providers that have been found to be effective in some contexts and the factors that appear to increase the prospects for using research in policy-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Gaps continue to exist between research-based evidence and clinical practice. We surveyed health care providers in 10 low- and middle-income countries about their use of research-based evidence and examined factors that may facilitate or impede such use. Methods: We surveyed 1499 health care providers practising in one of four areas relevant to the Millennium Development Goals (prevention of malaria, care of women seeking contraception, care of children with diarrhea and care of patients with tuberculosis) in each of China, Ghana, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Laos, Mexico, Pakistan, Senegal and Tanzania. Results: The proportion of respondents who re ported that research was likely to change their clinical practice if performed and published in their own country (84.6% and 86.0% respectively) was higher than the proportion who reported the same about research and publications from their region (66.4% and 63.1%) or from high-income countries (55.8% and 55.5%). Respondents who were most likely to report that the use of research-based evidence led to changes in their practice included those who reported using clinical practice guidelines in paper format (odds ratio [OR] 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-2.28), using scientific journals from their own country in paper format (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.26-2.28), viewing the quality of research performed in their country as above average or excellent (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.16-3.22); trusting systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.08-2.35); and having easy access to the Internet (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.19-3.02). Interpretation: Locally conducted or published research has played an important role in changing the professional practice of health care providers surveyed in low- and middle-income countries. Increased investments in local research, or at least in locally adapted publications of research-based evidence from other settings, are therefore needed. Although access to the Internet was viewed as a significant factor in whether research-based evidence led to concrete changes in practice, few respondents reported having easy access to the Internet. Therefore, efforts to improve Internet access in clinical settings need to be accelerated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Community-based organizations (CBOs) are important stakeholders in health systems and are increasingly called upon to use research evidence to inform their advocacy, program planning, and service delivery efforts. CBOs increasingly turn to community-based research (CBR) given its participatory focus and emphasis on linking research to action. In order to further facilitate the use of research evidence by CBOs, we have developed a strategy for community-based knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) that helps CBOs more effectively link research evidence to action. We developed the strategy by: outlining the primary characteristics of CBOs and why they are important stakeholders in health systems; describing the concepts and methods for CBR and for KTE; comparing the efforts of CBR to link research evidence to action to those discussed in the KTE literature; and using the comparison to develop a framework for community-based KTE that builds on both the strengths of CBR and existing KTE frameworks.Discussion: We find that CBR is particularly effective at fostering a climate for using research evidence and producing research evidence relevant to CBOs through community participation. However, CBOs are not always as engaged in activities to link research evidence to action on a larger scale or to evaluate these efforts. Therefore, our strategy for community-based KTE focuses on: an expanded model of 'linkage and exchange' (i.e., producers and users of researchers engaging in a process of asking and answering questions together); a greater emphasis on both producing and disseminating systematic reviews that address topics of interest to CBOs; developing a large-scale evidence service consisting of both 'push' efforts and efforts to facilitate 'pull' that highlight actionable messages from community relevant systematic reviews in a user-friendly way; and rigorous evaluations of efforts for linking research evidence to action.Summary: Through this type of strategy, use of research evidence for CBO advocacy, program planning, and service delivery efforts can be better facilitated and continually refined through ongoing evaluations of its impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A questionnaire could assist researchers, policymakers, and healthcare providers to describe and monitor changes in efforts to bridge the gaps among research, policy and practice. No questionnaire focused on researchers' engagement in bridging activities related to high-priority topics (or the potential correlates of their engagement) has been developed and tested in a range of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).Methods: Country teams from ten LMICs (China, Ghana, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Laos, Mexico, Pakistan, Senegal, and Tanzania) participated in the development and testing of a questionnaire. To assess reliability we calculated the internal consistency of items within each of the ten conceptual domains related to bridging activities (specifically Cronbach's alpha). To assess face and content validity we convened several teleconferences and a workshop. To assess construct validity we calculated the correlation between scales and counts (i.e., criterion measures) for the three countries that employed both and we calculated the correlation between different but theoretically related (i.e., convergent) measures for all countries.Results: Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) for sets of related items was very high, ranging from 0.89 (0.86-0.91) to 0.96 (0.95-0.97), suggesting some item redundancy. Both face and content validity were determined to be high. Assessments of construct validity using criterion-related measures showed statistically significant associations for related measures (with gammas ranging from 0.36 to 0.73). Assessments using convergent measures also showed significant associations (with gammas ranging from 0.30 to 0.50).Conclusions: While no direct comparison can be made to a comparable questionnaire, our findings do suggest a number of strengths of the questionnaire but also the need to reduce item redundancy and to test its capacity to monitor changes over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The reliability and validity of instruments used to survey health-care providers' views about and experiences with research evidence have seldom been examined.Methods: Country teams from ten low- and middle-income countries (China, Ghana, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Laos, Mexico, Pakistan, Senegal and Tanzania) participated in the development, translation, pilot-testing and administration of a questionnaire designed to measure health-care providers' views and activities related to improving their clinical practice and their awareness of, access to and use of research evidence, as well as changes in their clinical practice that they attribute to particular sources of research evidence that they have used. We use internal consistency as a measure of the questionnaire's reliability and, whenever possible, we use explanatory factor analyses to assess the degree to which questions that pertain to a single domain actually address common themes. We assess the questionnaire's face validity and content validity and, to a lesser extent, we also explore its criterion validity.Results: The questionnaire has high internal consistency, with Cronbach's alphas between 0.7 and 0.9 for 16 of 20 domains and sub-domains (identified by factor analyses). Cronbach's alphas are greater than 0.9 for two domains, suggesting some item redundancy. Pre- and post-field work assessments indicate the questionnaire has good face validity and content validity. Our limited assessment of criterion validity shows weak but statistically significant associations between the general influence of research evidence among providers and more specific measures of providers' change in approach to preventing or treating a clinical condition.Conclusion: Our analysis points to a number of strengths of the questionnaire--high internal consistency (reliability) and good face and content validity--but also to areas where it can be shortened without losing important conceptual domains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports on the utilization of systematic reviews by the policy makers in policymaking process. It states that the use of research evidence by the policymakers and stakeholders have shifted to finding systematic reviews that can address their inquiries in relation to policymaking process. It cites that policymakers and stakeholders need different types of reviews to inform them of any given policymaking process. Several future challenges in policymaking process are also mentioned.

Differences between health systems may often result in a policy or programme option that is used in one setting not being feasible or acceptable in another. Or these differences may result in an option not working in the same way in another setting, or even achieving different impacts in another setting. A key challenge that policymakers and those supporting them must face is therefore the need to understand whether research evidence about an option can be applied to their setting. Systematic reviews make this task easier by summarising the evidence from studies conducted in a variety of different settings. Many systematic reviews, however, do not provide adequate descriptions of the features of the actual settings in which the original studies were conducted. In this article, we suggest questions to guide those assessing the applicability of the findings of a systematic review to a specific setting. These are: 1. Were the studies included in a systematic review conducted in the same setting or were the findings consistent across settings or time periods? 2. Are there important differences in on-the-ground realities and constraints that might substantially alter the feasibility and acceptability of an option? 3. Are there important differences in health system arrangements that may mean an option could not work in the same way? 4. Are there important differences in the baseline conditions that might yield different absolute effects even if the relative effectiveness was the same? 5. What insights can be drawn about options, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation? Even if there are reasonable grounds for concluding that the impacts of an option might differ in a specific setting, insights can almost always be drawn from a systematic review about possible options, as well as approaches to the implementation of options and to monitoring and evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we discuss the following three questions: What is evidence? What is the role of research evidence in informing health policy decisions? What is evidence-informed policymaking? Evidence-informed health policymaking is an approach to policy decisions that aims to ensure that decision making is well-informed by the best available research evidence. It is characterised by the systematic and transparent access to, and appraisal of, evidence as an input into the policymaking process. The overall process of policymaking is not assumed to be systematic and transparent. However, within the overall process of policymaking, systematic processes are used to ensure that relevant research is identified, appraised and used appropriately. These processes are transparent in order to ensure that others can examine what research evidence was used to inform policy decisions, as well as the judgements made about the evidence and its implications. Evidence-informed policymaking helps policymakers gain an understanding of these processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy briefs are a relatively new approach to packaging research evidence for policymakers. The first step in a policy brief is to prioritise a policy issue. Once an issue is prioritised, the focus then turns to mobilising the full range of research evidence relevant to the various features of the issue. Drawing on available systematic reviews makes the process of mobilising evidence feasible in a way that would not otherwise be possible if individual relevant studies had to be identified and synthesised for every feature of the issue under consideration. In this article, we suggest questions that can be used to guide those preparing and using policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking. These are: 1. Does the policy brief address a high-priority issue and describe the relevant context of the issue being addressed? 2. Does the policy brief describe the problem, costs and consequences of options to address the problem, and the key implementation considerations? 3. Does the policy brief employ systematic and transparent methods to identify, select, and assess synthesised research evidence? 4. Does the policy brief take quality, local applicability, and equity considerations into account when discussing the synthesised research evidence? 5. Does the policy brief employ a graded-entry format? 6. Was the policy brief reviewed for both scientific quality and system relevance? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policymakers and those supporting them often find themselves in situations that spur them on to work out how best to define a problem. These situations may range from being asked an awkward or challenging question in the legislature, through to finding a problem highlighted on the front page of a newspaper. The motivations for policymakers wanting to clarify a problem are diverse. These may range from deciding whether to pay serious attention to a particular problem that others claim is important, through to wondering how to convince others to agree that a problem is important. Debates and struggles over how to define a problem are a critically important part of the policymaking process. The outcome of these debates and struggles will influence whether and, in part, how policymakers take action to address a problem. Efforts at problem clarification that are informed by an appreciation of concurrent developments are more likely to generate actions. These concurrent developments can relate to policy and programme options (e.g. the publication of a report demonstrating the effectiveness of a particular option) or to political events (e.g. the appointment of a new Minister of Health with a personal interest in a particular issue). In this article, we suggest questions that can be used to guide those involved in identifying a problem and characterising its features. These are: 1. What is the problem? 2. How did the problem come to attention and has this process influenced the prospect of it being addressed? 3. What indicators can be used, or collected, to establish the magnitude of the problem and to measure progress in addressing it? 4. What comparisons can be made to establish the magnitude of the problem and to measure progress in addressing it? 5. How can the problem be framed (or described) in a way that will motivate different groups? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systematic reviews are increasingly seen as a key source of information in policymaking, particularly in terms of assisting with descriptions of the impacts of options. Relative to single studies they offer a number of advantages related to understanding impacts and are also seen as a key source of information for clarifying problems and providing complementary perspectives on options. Systematic reviews can be undertaken to place problems in comparative perspective and to describe the likely harms of an option. They also assist with understanding the meanings that individuals or groups attach to a problem, how and why options work, and stakeholder views and experiences related to particular options. A number of constraints have hindered the wider use of systematic reviews in policymaking. These include a lack of awareness of their value and a mismatch between the terms employed by policymakers, when attempting to retrieve systematic reviews, and the terms used by the original authors of those reviews. Mismatches between the types of information that policymakers are seeking, and the way in which authors fail to highlight (or make obvious) such information within systematic reviews have also proved problematic. In this article, we suggest three questions that can be used to guide those searching for systematic reviews, particularly reviews about the impacts of options being considered. These are: 1. Is a systematic review really what is needed? 2. What databases and search strategies can be used to find relevant systematic reviews? 3. What alternatives are available when no relevant review can be found? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policymakers and those supporting them may find themselves in one or more of the following three situations that will require them to characterise the costs and consequences of options to address a problem. These are: 1. A decision has already been taken and their role is to maximise the benefits of an option, minimise its harms, optimise the impacts achieved for the money spent, and (if there is substantial uncertainty about the likely costs and consequences of the option) to design a monitoring and evaluation plan, 2. A policymaking process is already underway and their role is to assess the options presented to them, or 3. A policymaking process has not yet begun and their role is therefore to identify options, characterise the costs and consequences of these options, and look for windows of opportunity in which to act. In situations like these, research evidence, particularly about benefits, harms, and costs, can help to inform whether an option can be considered viable. In this article, we suggest six questions that can be used to guide those involved in identifying policy and programme options to address a high-priority problem, and to characterise the costs and consequences of these options. These are: 1. Has an appropriate set of options been identified to address a problem? 2. What benefits are important to those who will be affected and which benefits are likely to be achieved with each option? 3. What harms are important to those who will be affected and which harms are likely to arise with each option? 4. What are the local costs of each option and is there local evidence about their cost-effectiveness? 5. What adaptations might be made to any given option and could they alter its benefits, harms and costs? 6. Which stakeholder views and experiences might influence an option's acceptability and its benefits, harms, and costs? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policymakers have limited resources for developing -- or supporting the development of -- evidence-informed policies and programmes. These required resources include staff time, staff infrastructural needs (such as access to a librarian or journal article purchasing), and ongoing professional development. They may therefore prefer instead to contract out such work to independent units with more suitably skilled staff and appropriate infrastructure. However, policymakers may only have limited financial resources to do so. Regardless of whether the support for evidence-informed policymaking is provided in-house or contracted out, or whether it is centralised or decentralised, resources always need to be used wisely in order to maximise their impact. Examples of undesirable practices in a priority-setting approach include timelines to support evidence-informed policymaking being negotiated on a case-by-case basis (instead of having clear norms about the level of support that can be provided for each timeline), implicit (rather than explicit) criteria for setting priorities, ad hoc (rather than systematic and explicit) priority-setting process, and the absence of both a communications plan and a monitoring and evaluation plan. In this article, we suggest questions that can guide those setting priorities for finding and using research evidence to support evidence-informed policymaking. These are: 1. Does the approach to prioritisation make clear the timelines that have been set for addressing high-priority issues in different ways? 2. Does the approach incorporate explicit criteria for determining priorities? 3. Does the approach incorporate an explicit process for determining priorities? 4. Does the approach incorporate a communications strategy and a monitoring and evaluation plan? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we address the use of evidence to inform judgements about the balance between the pros and cons of policy and programme options. We suggest five questions that can be considered when making these judgements. These are: 1. What are the options that are being compared? 2. What are the most important potential outcomes of the options being compared? 3. What is the best estimate of the impact of the options being compared for each important outcome? 4. How confident can policymakers and others be in the estimated impacts? 5. Is a formal economic model likely to facilitate decision making? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we address the issue of decision making in situations in which there is insufficient evidence at hand. Policymakers often have insufficient evidence to know with certainty what the impacts of a health policy or programme option will be, but they must still make decisions. We suggest four questions that can be considered when there may be insufficient evidence to be confident about the impacts of implementing an option. These are: 1. Is there a systematic review of the impacts of the option? 2. Has inconclusive evidence been misinterpreted as evidence of no effect? 3. Is it possible to be confident about a decision despite a lack of evidence? 4. Is the option potentially harmful, ineffective or not worth the cost? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy dialogues allow research evidence to be considered together with the views, experiences and tacit knowledge of those who will be involved in, or affected by, future decisions about a high-priority issue. Increasing interest in the use of policy dialogues has been fuelled by a number of factors: 1. The recognition of the need for locally contextualised 'decision support' for policymakers and other stakeholders 2. The recognition that research evidence is only one input into the decision-making processes of policymakers and other stakeholders 3. The recognition that many stakeholders can add significant value to these processes, and 4. The recognition that many stakeholders can take action to address high-priority issues, and not just policymakers. In this article, we suggest questions to guide those organising and using policy dialogues to support evidence-informed policymaking. These are: 1. Does the dialogue address a high-priority issue? 2. Does the dialogue provide opportunities to discuss the problem, options to address the problem, and key implementation considerations? 3. Is the dialogue informed by a pre-circulated policy brief and by a discussion about the full range of factors that can influence the policymaking process? 4. Does the dialogue ensure fair representation among those who will be involved in, or affected by, future decisions related to the issue? 5. Does the dialogue engage a facilitator, follow a rule about not attributing comments to individuals, and not aim for consensus? 6. Are outputs produced and follow-up activities undertaken to support action? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]