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

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Implementation Science
Published in: Implementation Science 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research

Usage of an online tool to help policymakers better engage with research: Web CIPHER

Authors: Steve R Makkar, Frances Gilham, Anna Williamson, Kellie Bisset

Published in: Implementation Science | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

There is a need to develop innovations that help policymakers better engage with research in order to increase its use in policymaking. As part of the Centre for Informing Policy in Health with Evidence from Research (CIPHER), we established Web CIPHER, an online tool with dynamic interactive elements such as hot topics, research summaries, blogs from trusted figures in health policy and research, a community bulletin board, multimedia section and research portal. The aim of this study was to examine policymakers’ use of the website, and determine which sections were key drivers of use.

Methods

Google Analytics (GA) was used to gather usage data during a 16-month period. Analysis was restricted to Web CIPHER members from policy agencies. We examined descriptive statistics including mean viewing times, number of page visits and bounce rates for each section and performed analyses of variance to compare usage between sections. Repeated measures analyses were undertaken to examine whether a weekly reminder email improved usage of Web CIPHER, particularly for research-related content.

Results

During the measurement period, 223 policymakers from more than 32 organisations joined Web CIPHER. Users viewed eight posts on average per visit and stayed on the site for approximately 4 min. The bounce rate was less than 6%. The Blogs and Community sections received more unique views than all other sections. Blogs relating to improving policymakers’ skills in applying research to policy were particularly popular. The email reminder had a positive effect on improving usage, particularly for research-related posts.

Conclusions

The data indicated a relatively small number of users. However, this sample may not be representative of policymakers since membership to the site and usage was completely voluntarily. Nonetheless, those who used the site appeared to engage well with it. The findings suggest that providing blog-type content written by trusted experts in health policy and research as well as regular email reminders may provide an effective means of disseminating the latest research to policymakers through an online web portal.
Literature
1.
Buse K, Mays N, Walt G. Making health policy. Glasgow: Open University Press; 2005.
2.
LaRocca R, Yost J, Dobbins M, Ciliska D, Butt M. The effectiveness of knowledge translation strategies used in public health: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:751.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
4.
Brownson RC, Fielding JE, Maylan CM. Evidence-based public health: a fundamental concept for public health practice. Annu Rev Public Health. 2009;30:175–201.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Hanney SR, Gonzalez-Block MA, Buxton MJ, Kogan M. The utilisation of health research in policy-making: concepts, examples and methods of assessment. Health Res Policy Syst. 2003;1:2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Buchan H. Gaps between best evidence and practice: causes for concern. MJA. 2004;180:S48–9.PubMed
7.
Bowen S, Erickson T, Martens PJ, Crockett S. More than “using research”: the real challenges in promoting evidence-informed decision-making. Health Policy. 2009;4:87–102.
8.
Fielding JE, Briss PA. Promoting evidence-based public health policy: can we have better evidence and more action? Health Aff. 2006;4:969–78.CrossRef
9.
Andre FE, Booy R, Bock HL, Clemens J, Datta SK, John TJ, et al. Vaccination greatly reduces disease, disability, death and inequity worldwide. Bull World Health Organ. 2008;86:140–6.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Hanna JN, Hills SL, Humphreys JL. Impact of hepatitis A vaccination of indigenous children on notifications of hepatitis A in north Queensland. Med J Aust. 2004;181:482–5.PubMed
11.
Morrato EH, Elias M, Gericke CA. Using population-based routine data for evidence-based health policy decisions: lessons from three examples of setting and evaluating national health policy in Australia, the UK and the USA. J Public Health. 2007;19:463–71.CrossRef
12.
Milat A, Laws R, King L, Newson R, Rychetnik L, Rissel C, et al. Policy and practice impacts of applied research: a case study analysis of the New South Wales health promotion demonstration research grants scheme 2000-2006. Health Res Policy Syst. 2013;11:5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
14.
Orton L, Lloyd-Williams F, Taylor-Robinson D, O'Flaherty M, Capewell S. The use of research evidence in public health decision making processes: systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e21704.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Weiss C. Knowledge creep and decision accretion. Sci Commun. 1980;1:381–404.CrossRef
16.
Elshaug AG, Hiller JE, Tunis SR, Moss JR. Challenged in Australian policy processes for disinvestment from existing, ineffective health care practices. Aust New Zealand Health Policy. 2007;4:23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Amara N, Ouimet M, Landry R. New evidence on instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic utilization of university research in government agencies. Sci Commun. 2004;26:75–106.CrossRef
18.
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. Aust New Zealand Health Policy. 2009;6:21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Chagnon F, Poullot L, Malo C, Gervais MJ, Pigeon ME. Comparison of determinants of research knowledge utilization by practitioners and administrators in the field of child and family social services. Implement Sci. 2010;5:41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
El-Jardali F, Lavis JN, Ataya N, Jamal D. Use of health systems and policy research evidence in the health policymaking in eastern Mediterranean countries: views and practices of researchers. Implement Sci. 2012;7:2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
22.
Trostle J, Bronfman M, Langer A. How do researchers influence decision makers? Case studies of Mexican policies. Health Policy Plan. 1999;14:103–14.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Runciman WB, Hunt TD, Hannaford NA, Hibbert PD, Westbrook JI, Coiera EW, et al. CareTrack: assessing the appropriateness of health care delivery in Australia. Med J Aust. 2012;197:100–5.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Contandriopoulos D, Lemire M, Denis JL, Tremblay E. Knowledge exchange processes in organizations and policy arenas: a narrative systematic review of the literature. Milbank Q. 2010;88:444–83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Hennink M, Stephenson R. Using research to inform health policy: barriers and strategies in developing countries. J Health Commun. 2006;10:163–80.CrossRef
26.
Petticrew M, Whitehead M, Macintyre SJ, Graham H, Egan M. Evidence for public health policy on inequalities: 1: the reality according to policymakers. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58:811–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Helmsey-Brown J. Facilitating research utilisation: a cross-sector review of research evidence. Int J Public Sect Manage. 2004;17:534–52.CrossRef
28.
Lavis J, Davies H, Oxman A, Denis JL, Golden-Biddle K, Ferlie E. Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(S1):35–48.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Ssengooba F, Atuyambe L, Kiwanuka SN, Puvanachandra P, Glass N, Hyder AA. Research translation to inform national health policies: learning from multiple perspectives in Uganda. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2011;11:S13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Innvaer S, Vist G, Trommald M, Oxman A. Health policy-makers’ perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002;7:239–44.CrossRefPubMed
31.
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
32.
de Goede J, Putters P, van ger Grinten T, van Oers HAM. Knowledge in process? Exploring barriers between epidemiological research and local health policy development. Health Res Policy Syst. 2010;8:26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Ellen ME, Lavis JN, Ouimet M, Grimshaw J, Bedard PO. Determining research knowledge infrastructure for healthcare systems: a qualitative study. Implement Sci. 2011;6:60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Purvis RL, Sambamurthy V, Zmud RW. The assimilation of knowledge platforms in organizations: an empirical investigation. Organ Sci. 2001;12:117–35.CrossRef
35.
Lazaric N, Longhi C, Thomas C. Gatekeepers of knowledge versus platforms of knowledge: from potential to realized absorptive capacity. Reg Stud. 2008;42:837–52.CrossRef
36.
Mitton C, Adair CE, McKenzie E, Patten SB, Waye PB. Knowledge transfer and exchange: review and synthesis of the literature. Milbank Q. 2007;85:729–68.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Alavi M, Leidner DE. Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Q. 2001;25:107–36.CrossRef
38.
O'Donnell S, Cranney A, Jacobson MJ, Graham ID, O'Connor AM, Tugwell P. Understanding and overcoming the barriers of implementing patient decision aids in clinical practice. J Eval Clin Pract. 2006;23:174–81.CrossRef
39.
Forsetlund L, Bradley P, Forsen L, Nordheim L, Jamtvedt G, Bjorndal A. Randomised controlled trial of a theoretically grounded tailored intervention to diffuse evidence-based public health practice [ISRCTN23257060]. BMC Med Educ. 2003;3:2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Di Noia J, Schwinn TM, Dastur ZA, Schinke SP. The relative efficacy of pamphlets, CD-ROM, and the Internet for disseminating adolescent drug abuse prevention programs: an exploratory study. Prev Med. 2003;37:646–53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Dobbins M, Cockerill R, Barnsley J. Factors affecting the utilization of systematic reviews: a study of public health decision makers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17:203–14.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Dobbins M, Rosenbaum P, Plews N, Law M, Fysh A. Information transfer: what do decision makers want and need from researchers? Implement Sci. 2007;2:20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
43.
Gold M. Pathways to the use of health services research in policy. Health Res Educ Trust. 2009;44:1111–36.
44.
Whitehead M, Petticrew M, Graham H, Macintyre S, Bambra C, Egan M. Evidence for public health policy on inequalities 2: assembling the evidence jigsaw. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58:817–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
45.
Dobbins M, DeCorby K, Twiddy RN. A knowledge transfer strategy for public health decision makers. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2004;1(2):120–8.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Denis JL, Lomas J, Stipich N. Creating receptor capacity for research in the health system: the Executive Training for Research Application (EXTRA) program in Canada. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13 Suppl 1:1–7.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Taylor RS, Reeves BC, Ewings PE, Taylor RJ. Critical appraisal skills training for health care professionals: a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN46272378]. BMC Med Educ. 2004;4:30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
48.
Ellen ME, Leon G, Bouchard G, Lavis JN, Ouimet M, Grimshaw JM. What supports do health system organizations have in place to facilitate evidence-informed decision-making? A qualitative study Implement Sci. 2013;8:84.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Hyder AA, Corluka A, Winch PJ, El-Shinnawy A, Ghassany H, Malekafzali H, et al. National policymakers speak out: are researchers giving them what they need? Health Policy Plan. 2011;26:73–82.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Cutroni J. Google Analytics. Sebastopol: O'Reilly Media; 2010.
51.
McCaughan D, Thompson C, Cullum N, Sheldon TA, Thompson DR. Acute care nurses’ perceptions of barriers to using research information in clinical decision-making. Issues Innov Nurs Pract. 2002;39:46–60.
52.
Braun MT. Obstacles to social networking website use among older adults. Comput Hum Behav. 2013;29:673–80.CrossRef
53.
Chen R. Member use of social networking sites - an empirical examination. Decis Support Syst. 2013;54:1219–27.CrossRef
54.
Li D, Browne GJ, Chau PYK. An empirical investigation of web site use using a commitment-based model. Decis Sci. 2006;37:427–44.CrossRef
55.
Mantymaki M, Merikivi J. Investigating the drivers of the continuous use of social virtual worlds. In: Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii international conference on system sciences: 5-8 June 2010 2010. Koloa Kauai, Hawaii: IEEE Computer Society; 2010. p. 1–10.CrossRef
56.
Sledgianowski D, Kuliviwat S. Using social network sites: the effects of playfulness, critical mass and trust in a hedonic context. J Comput Inf Syst. 2009;49:74–83.
57.
Ettelt S, Mays N. Health services research in Europe and its use for informing policy. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2011;16:48–60.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Chang PV. The validity of an extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) for predicting intranet/portal usage. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina; 2004.
59.
Shih HP. Extended technology acceptance model of Internet utilization behavior. Inf Manag. 2004;41:719–29.CrossRef
60.
van der Heijden H. Factors influencing the usage of websites: the case of a generic portal in the Netherlands. Inf Manage. 2003;40(6):541–9.CrossRef
61.
Patera N, Wild C. Linking public health research with policy and practice in three European countries. J Public Health. 2013;21:473–9.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Usage of an online tool to help policymakers better engage with research: Web CIPHER
Authors
Steve R Makkar
Frances Gilham
Anna Williamson
Kellie Bisset
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Implementation Science / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1748-5908
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0241-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Implementation Science 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research

Lessons learnt during the process of setup and implementation of the voucher scheme in Eastern Uganda: a mixed methods study

Study protocol

Implementing international osteoarthritis treatment guidelines in primary health care: study protocol for the SAMBA stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial

Systematic review

Implementation of improvement strategies in palliative care: an integrative review

Systematic review

What strategies are used to build practitioners’ capacity to implement community-based interventions and are they effective?: a systematic review

Research

Perceptions of national guidelines and their (non) implementation in mental healthcare: a deductive and inductive content analysis

Study protocol

Testing health information technology tools to facilitate health insurance support: a protocol for an effectiveness-implementation hybrid randomized trial