How are evidence generation partnerships between researchers and policy-makers enacted in practice? A qualitative interview study.


Journal

Health research policy and systems
ISSN: 1478-4505
Titre abrégé: Health Res Policy Syst
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101170481

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
15 Apr 2019
Historique:
received: 04 11 2018
accepted: 19 03 2019
entrez: 17 4 2019
pubmed: 17 4 2019
medline: 18 12 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Evidence generation partnerships between researchers and policy-makers are a potential method for producing more relevant research with greater potential to impact on policy and practice. Little is known about how such partnerships are enacted in practice, however, or how to increase their effectiveness. We aimed to determine why researchers and policy-makers choose to work together, how they work together, which partnership models are most common, and what the key (1) relationship-based and (2) practical components of successful research partnerships are. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 18 key informants largely based in New South Wales, Australia, who were (1) researchers experienced in working in partnership with policy in health or health-related areas or (2) policy and programme developers and health system decision-makers experienced in working in partnership with researchers. Data was analysed thematically by two researchers. Researcher-initiated and policy agency-initiated evidence generation partnerships were common. While policy-initiated partnerships were thought to be the most likely to result in impact, researcher-initiated projects were considered important in advancing the science and were favoured by researchers due to greater perceived opportunities to achieve key academic career metrics. Participants acknowledged that levels of collaboration varied widely in research/policy partnerships from minimal to co-production. Co-production was considered a worthy goal by all, conferring a range of benefits, but one that was difficult to achieve in practice. Some participants asserted that the increased time and resources required for effective co-production meant it was best suited to evaluation and implementation projects where the tacit, experiential knowledge of policy-makers provided critical nuance to underpin study design, implementation and analysis. Partnerships that were mutually considered to have produced the desired outcomes were seen to be underpinned by a range of both relationship-based (such as shared aims and goals and trust) and practical factors (such as sound governance and processes). Our findings highlight the important role of policy-makers in New South Wales in ensuring the relevance of research. There is still much to understand about how to initiate and sustain successful research/policy partnerships, particularly at the highly collaborative end.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Evidence generation partnerships between researchers and policy-makers are a potential method for producing more relevant research with greater potential to impact on policy and practice. Little is known about how such partnerships are enacted in practice, however, or how to increase their effectiveness. We aimed to determine why researchers and policy-makers choose to work together, how they work together, which partnership models are most common, and what the key (1) relationship-based and (2) practical components of successful research partnerships are.
METHODS METHODS
Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 18 key informants largely based in New South Wales, Australia, who were (1) researchers experienced in working in partnership with policy in health or health-related areas or (2) policy and programme developers and health system decision-makers experienced in working in partnership with researchers. Data was analysed thematically by two researchers.
RESULTS RESULTS
Researcher-initiated and policy agency-initiated evidence generation partnerships were common. While policy-initiated partnerships were thought to be the most likely to result in impact, researcher-initiated projects were considered important in advancing the science and were favoured by researchers due to greater perceived opportunities to achieve key academic career metrics. Participants acknowledged that levels of collaboration varied widely in research/policy partnerships from minimal to co-production. Co-production was considered a worthy goal by all, conferring a range of benefits, but one that was difficult to achieve in practice. Some participants asserted that the increased time and resources required for effective co-production meant it was best suited to evaluation and implementation projects where the tacit, experiential knowledge of policy-makers provided critical nuance to underpin study design, implementation and analysis. Partnerships that were mutually considered to have produced the desired outcomes were seen to be underpinned by a range of both relationship-based (such as shared aims and goals and trust) and practical factors (such as sound governance and processes).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Our findings highlight the important role of policy-makers in New South Wales in ensuring the relevance of research. There is still much to understand about how to initiate and sustain successful research/policy partnerships, particularly at the highly collaborative end.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30987644
doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0441-2
pii: 10.1186/s12961-019-0441-2
pmc: PMC6466802
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

41

Subventions

Organisme : NSW Ministry of Health
ID : N/A

Références

J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002 Oct;7(4):239-44
pubmed: 12425783
Milbank Q. 2003;81(2):221-48, 171-2
pubmed: 12841049
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003 Oct;8 Suppl 2:20-5
pubmed: 14596744
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003 Oct;8 Suppl 2:26-34
pubmed: 14596745
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005 Aug;59(8):632-7
pubmed: 16020638
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005 Jul;10 Suppl 1:35-48
pubmed: 16053582
Am J Prev Med. 2006 Feb;30(2):164-72
pubmed: 16459216
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006 Winter;26(1):13-24
pubmed: 16557505
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006 Oct;60(10):854-7
pubmed: 16973531
Acad Emerg Med. 2007 Nov;14(11):936-41
pubmed: 17967955
Implement Sci. 2008 Feb 15;3:8
pubmed: 18279503
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2008 Spring;28(2):67-72
pubmed: 18521874
Aust New Zealand Health Policy. 2009 Aug 24;6:21
pubmed: 19698186
Implement Sci. 2009 Sep 23;4:61
pubmed: 19775439
Health Res Policy Syst. 2009 Dec 16;7 Suppl 1:S2
pubmed: 20018109
Med Care. 2010 Jul;48(7):576-82
pubmed: 20508531
Implement Sci. 2011 May 27;6:51
pubmed: 21619621
Fam Pract. 2012 Apr;29 Suppl 1:i157-i162
pubmed: 22399547
BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 Aug 28;12:280
pubmed: 22928979
Health Res Policy Syst. 2012 Sep 14;10:30
pubmed: 22978604
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013 Jan;94(1 Suppl):S3-8
pubmed: 23141502
Lancet. 2014 Jan 11;383(9912):101-4
pubmed: 24411643
J Health Polit Policy Law. 2014 Jun;39(3):667-77
pubmed: 24603085
BMJ Open. 2014 Jul 01;4(7):e005293
pubmed: 24989620
Health Serv Res. 2015 Feb;50(1):1-11
pubmed: 25039652
Implement Sci. 2014 Nov 28;9:176
pubmed: 25430813
BMJ Open. 2015 Jul 21;5(7):e008153
pubmed: 26198428
BMC Public Health. 2015 Jul 30;15:725
pubmed: 26223523
BMC Med. 2015 Sep 21;13:232
pubmed: 26391108
Implement Sci. 2016 Feb 20;11:20
pubmed: 26897169
Implement Sci. 2016 Mar 17;11:38
pubmed: 26988000
Health Promot Int. 2017 Dec 1;32(6):964-976
pubmed: 27153916
Health Res Policy Syst. 2016 May 17;14(1):36
pubmed: 27188305
Milbank Q. 2016 Jun;94(2):392-429
pubmed: 27265562
Health Promot Int. 2018 Feb 1;33(1):4-26
pubmed: 27506627
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2017 Feb;71(2):105-106
pubmed: 27647137
Implement Sci. 2016 Sep 30;11(1):133
pubmed: 27716245
Community Ment Health J. 2017 Aug;53(6):647-660
pubmed: 27900495
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016 Jun 13;6(1):27-42
pubmed: 28005540
Public Health Res Pract. 2017 Feb 15;27(1):null
pubmed: 28243668
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2017 Jun;71(6):619-623
pubmed: 28298415
Health Res Policy Syst. 2017 Mar 28;15(1):26
pubmed: 28351391
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Jan 2;18(1):1
pubmed: 29291745
Implement Sci. 2018 Feb 02;13(1):22
pubmed: 29394932
Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 May 24;16(1):44
pubmed: 29793541
Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 May 30;16(1):46
pubmed: 29843735

Auteurs

Anna Williamson (A)

The Sax Institute, PO Box K617, Haymarket, NSW, 1240, Australia. anna.williamson@saxinstitute.org.au.
University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. anna.williamson@saxinstitute.org.au.
University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. anna.williamson@saxinstitute.org.au.

Hannah Tait (H)

The Sax Institute, PO Box K617, Haymarket, NSW, 1240, Australia.

Fadi El Jardali (F)

American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.

Luke Wolfenden (L)

University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.
Hunter New England Population Health, New Lambton, Australia.

Sarah Thackway (S)

New South Wales Health, North Sydney, Australia.

Jessica Stewart (J)

Department of Family and Community Services (FACS) Insights, Analysis and Research (FACSIAR), Ashfield, Australia.

Lyndal O'Leary (L)

Western NSW & Far West Local Health Districts, Dubbo, Australia.

Julie Dixon (J)

South Eastern Sydney Local Health District (SESLHD), Carringbah, Australia.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH