Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Health Research Policy and Systems
Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research

Do policy-makers find commissioned rapid reviews useful?

Authors: Gabriel Moore, Sally Redman, Sian Rudge, Abby Haynes

Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Rapid reviews are increasingly used by policy agencies to access relevant research in short timeframes. Despite the growing number of programmes, little is known about how rapid reviews are used by health policy agencies. This study examined whether and how rapid reviews commissioned using a knowledge brokering programme were used by Australian policy-makers.

Methods

This study used interview data to examine the use of 139 rapid reviews by health policy agencies that were commissioned between 2006 and 2015. Transcripts were coded to identify how rapid reviews were used, the type of policy processes in which they were used, what evidence of use was provided and what reasons were given when rapid reviews were not used. Fisher’s exact test was used to assess variation between types of agencies.

Results

Overall, 89% of commissioned rapid reviews were used by the commissioning agencies and 338 separate instances of use were identified, namely, on average, three uses per review. Policy-makers used reviews primarily to determine the details of a policy or programme, identify priorities for future action or investment, negotiate interjurisdictional decisions, evaluate alternative solutions for a policy problem, and communicate information to stakeholders. Some variation in use was observed across agencies. Reasons for non-use were related to changes in organisational structures, resources or key personnel in the commissioning agencies, or changes in the broader political environment.

Conclusions

This study found that almost all rapid reviews had been used by the agencies who commissioned them, primarily in policy and programme development, agenda-setting, and to communicate information to stakeholders. Reviews were used mostly in instrumental and conceptual ways and there was little evidence of symbolic use. Variations in use were identified across agencies. The findings suggest that commissioned rapid reviews are an effective means of providing timely relevant research for use in policy processes and that review findings may be applied in a variety of ways.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
3.
Wilson MG, Lavis JN, Gauvin F-P. Developing a rapid-response program for health system decision-makers in Canada: findings from an issue brief and stakeholder dialogue. Syst Rev. 2015;4:25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Moore GM, Redman S, Turner T, Haines M. Rapid reviews in health policy: a study of intended use in the New South Wales’ Evidence Check programme. Evid Policy. 2016;12(4):505–19.CrossRef
5.
Featherstone RM, Dryden DM, Foisy M, Guise JM, Mitchell MD, Paynter RA, Robinson KA, Umscheid CA, Hartling L. Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews: an analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews. Syst Rev. 2015;4:50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
7.
Polisena J, Garritty C, Kamel C, Stevens A, Abou-Setta AM. Rapid review programs to support health care and policy decision making: a descriptive analysis of processes and methods. Syst Rev. 2015;4:26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Pelz D. Some expanded perspectives on use of social science in public policy. In: Yinger MJ, Cutler S, editors. Major Social Issues: A Multidisciplinary View. New York: Free Press; 1978. p. 346–57.
16.
Amara N, Ouimet M, Landry R. New evidence on instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic utilization of university research in government agencies. Sci Commun. 2004;26(1):75–106.CrossRef
17.
Davies P. The state of evidence-based policy evaluation and its role in policy formation. Natl Inst Econ Rev. 2012;219(1):R41–52.CrossRef
18.
de Goede J, van Bon-Martens MJH, Putters K, van Oers HAM. Looking for interaction: quantitative measurement of research utilization by Dutch local health officials. Health Res Policy Syst. 2012;10:9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Weiss CH. The many meanings of research utilization. Public Adm Rev. 1979;39(5):426–31.CrossRef
20.
Lomas J, Brown AD. Research and advice giving: a functional view of evidence-informed policy advice in a Canadian Ministry of Health. Milbank Q. 2009;87(4):903–26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
22.
Weiss C. The four “I’s” of school reform: How interests, ideology, information, and institution affect teachers and principals. Harv Educ Rev. 1995;65(4):571–93.CrossRef
23.
Head BW. Three lenses of evidence-based policy. AJPA. 2008;67(1):1–11.
24.
Ward V, Smith S, House A, Hamer S. Exploring knowledge exchange: a useful framework for practice and policy. Soc Sci Med. 2012;74(3):297–304.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Flitcroft K, Gillespie J, Carter S, Salkeld G, Trevena L. Incorporating evidence and politics in health policy: can institutionalising evidence review make a difference? Evid Policy. 2014;10(3):439–55.CrossRef
26.
Wye L, Brangan E, Cameron A, Gabbay J, Klein JH, Pope C. Evidence based policy making and the ‘art’ of commissioning–how English healthcare commissioners access and use information and academic research in ‘real life’ decision-making: an empirical qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:430.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Campbell D, Donald B, Moore G, Frew D. Evidence check: knowledge brokering to commission research reviews for policy. Evid Policy. 2011;7(1):97–107.CrossRef
28.
29.
Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Ettelt S, Mays N. Health services research in Europe and its use for informing policy. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2011;16(Suppl 2):48–60.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Campbell DM, Redman S, Jorm L, Cooke M, Zwi AB, Rychetnik L. Increasing the use of evidence in health policy: practice and views of policy makers and researchers. ANZHP. 2009;6:21.
32.
Heaton J, Day J, Britten N. Collaborative research and the co-production of knowledge for practice: an illustrative case study. Implement Sci. 2016;11:1.
33.
Oliver S, Dickson K. Policy-relevant systematic reviews to strengthen health systems: models and mechanisms to support their production. Evid Policy. 2016;12(2):235–59.CrossRef
34.
Jewell CJ, Bero LA. “Developing good taste in evidence”: facilitators of and hindrances to evidence-informed health policymaking in state government. Milbank Q. 2008;86(2):177–208.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Brownson RC, Royer C, Ewing R, McBride TD. Researchers and policymakers: travelers in parallel universes. Am J Prev Med. 2006;30(2):164–72.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Golden-Biddle K, Reay T, Petz S, Witt C, Casebeer A, Pablo A, Hinings C. Toward a communicative perspective of collaborating in research: the case of the researcher-decision-maker partnership. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003;8(2 suppl):20–5.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Ross S, Lavis J, Rodriguez C, Woodside J, Denis J-L. Partnership experiences: involving decision-makers in the research process. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003;8(2 suppl):26–34.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Antil T, Desrochers M, Joubert P, Bouchard C. Implementation of an innovative grant programme to build partnerships between researchers, decision-makers and practitioners: the experience of the Quebec Social Research Council. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003;8(2 suppl):35–43.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Moat KA, Lavis JN, Abelson J. How contexts and issues influence the use of policy-relevant research syntheses: a critical interpretive synthesis. Milbank Q. 2013;91(3):604–48.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Do policy-makers find commissioned rapid reviews useful?
Authors
Gabriel Moore
Sally Redman
Sian Rudge
Abby Haynes
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1478-4505
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0293-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Health Research Policy and Systems 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research

Assessing the applicability of public health intervention evaluations from one setting to another: a methodological study of the usability and usefulness of assessment tools and frameworks

Research

An evaluation of South Africa’s public–private partnership for the localisation of vaccine research, manufacture and distribution

Opinion

The discordance between evidence and health policy in the United States: the science of translational research and the critical role of diverse stakeholders

Research

The contribution of Cyprus to non-communicable diseases and biomedical research from 2002 to 2013: implications for evidence-based health policy

Research

Assessing policy-makers’, academics’ and experts’ satisfaction with the performance of the Palestinian health research system: a qualitative study

Research

Building capacity in primary care rehabilitation clinical practice guidelines: a South African initiative