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
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

Type, frequency and purpose of information used to inform public health policy and program decision-making

Authors: Pauline Zardo, Alex Collie

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

There is a growing demand for researchers to document the impact of research to demonstrate how it contributes to community outcomes. In the area of public health it is expected that increases in the use of research to inform policy and program development will lead to improved public health outcomes. To determine whether research has an impact on public health outcomes, we first need to assess to what extent research has been used and how it has been used. However, there are relatively few studies to date that have quantitatively measured the extent and purpose of use of research in public health policy environments. This study sought to quantitatively measure the frequency and purpose of use of research evidence in comparison to use of other information types in a specific public health policy environment, workplace and transport injury prevention and rehabilitation compensation.

Methods

A survey was developed to measure the type, frequency and purpose of information used to inform policy and program decision-making.

Results

Research evidence was the type of information used least frequently and internal data and reports was the information type used most frequently. Findings also revealed differences in use of research between and within the two government public health agencies studied. In particular the main focus of participants’ day-to-day role was associated with the type of information used. Research was used mostly for conceptual purposes. Interestingly, research was used for instrumental purposes more often than it was used for symbolic purposes, which is contrary to findings of previous research.

Conclusions

These results have implications for the design and implementation of research translation interventions in the context within which the study was undertaken. In particular, they suggest that intervention will need to be targeted to the information needs of the different role groups within an organisation. The results can also be utilised as a baseline measure for intervention evaluations and assessments of research impact in this context.
Literature
1.
Lavis J, Ross S, McLeod C, Gildiner A. Measuring the impact of health research. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003;8(3):165–70.PubMed
2.
Donovan C. State of the art in assessing research impact: introduction to a special issue. Res Evaluation. 2011;20(3):175–9.
3.
Task Force. Scaling up research and learning for health systems: now is the time. In: Global Ministerial Forum on Research for Health 2008. Bamako: WHO Press; 2009.
4.
Brownson RC, Fielding JE, Maylahn CM. Evidence-Based Public Health: A Fundamental Concept for Public Health Practice. Annu Rev Public Health. 2009;30(1):175–201.PubMed
5.
Grimshaw J, Eccles M, Lavis J, Hill S, Squires J. Knowledge translation of research findings. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):50.PubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Moore G, Redman S, Haines M, Todd A. What works to increase the use of research in population health policy and programmes: a review. Evidence Policy J Res Debate Prac. 2011;7(3):277–305.
7.
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(7):e21704.PubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Straus SE, Tetroe J, Graham ID, Zwarenstein M, Bhattacharyya O, Shepperd S. Monitoring use of knowledge and evaluating outcomes. Can Med Assoc J. 2010;182(2):E94–8.
9.
Rymer L. Measuring The Impact Of Research – The Context For Metric Development. Canberra: The Group of Eight; 2011.
10.
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(1):2.PubMedPubMedCentral
11.
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.
12.
Ouimet M, Bédard PO, Turgeon J, Lavis JN, Gélineau F, Gagnon F, et al. Correlates of consulting research evidence among policy analysts in government ministries: A cross-sectional survey. Evidence Policy. 2010;6(4):433–60.
13.
Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Lewin S, Fretheim A. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 10: Taking equity into consideration when assessing the findings of a systematic review. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009;7 Suppl 1:S10.PubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Landry R, Lamari M, Amara N. The Extent and Determinants of the Utilization of University Research in Government Agencies. Public Adm Rev. 2003;63(2):192–205.
15.
Lavis JN, Ross SE, Hurley JE. Examining the Role of Health Services Research in Public Policymaking. Milbank Q. 2002;80(1):125–54.PubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Davies P. The State of Evidence-Based Policy Evaluation and its Role in Policy Formation. Natl Inst Econ Rev. 2012;219(1):R41–52.
17.
Jansen MW, van Oers HAM, Kok G, de Vries NK. Public health: disconnections between policy, practice and research. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2010;37(8).
18.
Ritter A. How do drug policy makers access research evidence? Int J Drug Policy. 2009;20(1):70–5.PubMed
19.
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.PubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Haynes AS, Derrick GE, Redman S, Hall WD, Gillespie JA, Chapman S, et al. Identifying Trustworthy Experts: How Do Policymakers Find and Assess Public Health Researchers Worth Consulting or Collaborating With? PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e32665.PubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Higgins JW, Strange K, Scarr J, Pennock M, Barr V, Yew A, et al. “It’s a feel. That’s what a lot of our evidence would consist of”: public health practitioners’ perspectives on evidence. Eval Health Prof. 2011;34(3).
22.
Dobbins M, Jack S, Thomas H, Kothari A. Public Health Decision-Makers’ Informational Needs and Preferences for Receiving Research Evidence. Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs. 2007;4(3):156–63.PubMed
23.
Gray M, Joy E, Plath D, Webb SA. Opinions about evidence: a study of social workers’ attitudes towards evidence-based practice. J Soc Work. 2013;0:1.
24.
Kothari A, Edward N, Hamel N, Judd M. Is research working for you? validating a tool to examine the capacity of health organizations to use research. Implement Sci. 2009;4(46).
25.
Chagnon F, Pouliot L, Malo C, Gervais M-J, Pigeon M-E. Comparison of determinants of research knowledge utilization by practitioners and administrators in the field of child and family social services. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):41.PubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian Demographic Statistics. Canberra: Commonwealth Government; 2012. 2013. Report No.
27.
Foundation PIE. Understanding Accident Compensation in Australia and New Zealand. Melbourne: PIEF; 2011.
28.
Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, Lawton R, Parker D, Walker A. Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. Quality Safety Health Care. 2005;14:26–33.
29.
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).
30.
Mitton C, Adair CE, McKenzie E, Patten SB, Waye PB. Knowledge transfer and exchange: review and synthesis of the literature. Milbank Q. 2007;85(4):729–68.PubMedPubMedCentral
31.
32.
Zardo P, Collie A, Livingstone C. Extenal factors affecting decision-making and use of research in an Australian public health policy environment. Soc Sci Med. 2014;108:120–7.PubMed
33.
Weiss CH. The many meanings of research utilization. Public Adm Rev. 1979;39(5):426–31.
34.
Beyer JM, Harrison MT. The Utilization Process: A Conceptual Framework and Synthesis of Empirical Findings. Adm Sci Q. 1982;27(4):591–622.
35.
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).
36.
Martin GP, Currie G, Lockett A. Prospects for knowledge exchange in health policy and management: institutional and epistemic boundaries. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2011;16(4):211–7.PubMed
37.
Lavis JN, Robertson D, Woodside JM, McLeod CB, Abelson J, Group TKTS. How Can Research Organizations More Effectively Transfer Research Knowledge to Decision Makers? Milbank Quarterly. 2003;81(2):221–48.PubMedPubMedCentral
38.
DeVellis RF. Scale Development Theory and Applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2012.
39.
Streiner D. Starting at the Beginning: An Introduction to Coefficient Alpha and Internal Consistency. J Pers Assess. 2003;80(1):99–103.PubMed
40.
Russell J, Greenhalgh T, Byrne E, McDonnell J. Recognizing rhetoric in health care policy analysis. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13(1):40–6.PubMed
41.
Institute for Safety Compensation and Recovery Research. Annual Report: Making a difference through research. Melbourne: Institute for Safety Compensation and Recovery Research; 2014.
42.
Zardo P, Collie A. Measuring use of research evidence in public health policy: a policy content analysis. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1):496.PubMedPubMedCentral
43.
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(4):444–83.PubMedPubMedCentral
44.
Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organisations: systematic review and recommendations. Millbank Q. 2004;82(4):581–629.
45.
Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist review - a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10:S21–34.
46.
Althaus C, Bridgman P, Davis G. The Australian policy handbook. 4th ed. Crows Nest, N.S.W: Allen & Unwin; 2007. p. xii, 268.
47.
Colebatch HK. Beyond the policy cycle : the policy process in Australia. Crows Nest, N.S.W: Allen & Unwin; 2006. p. vi, 329.
48.
Anderson M. Evaluation of the Executive Training for Research Application (EXTRA) Program: Design and Early Findings. Health Care Policy. 2008;4(2):e136–48.
49.
Lewis JM. Health Policy and Politics: networks, ideas and power. East Hawthorn: IP Communications; 2005.
50.
Smith KE, Katikireddi SV. A glossary of theories for understanding policymaking. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2013;67(2):198–202.PubMed
51.
Zardo P, Collie A, Livingstone C. Organisational factors affecting policy and programme decision making in a public health policy environment. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice. 2014;Online(26 November).
52.
Lindblom CE. The Science of “Muddling Through”. Public Adm Rev. 1959;19(2):79–88.
53.
Innvær 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(4):239–44.PubMed
54.
Zardo P, Collie A. Predicting research use in a public health policy environment: results of a logistic regression analysis. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):142.PubMedPubMedCentral
55.
Kingdon JW. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. 2nd ed. ed. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers; 1995.
56.
Weiss CH, Bucuvalas MJ. Truth Tests and Utility Tests: Decision-Makers’ Frames of Reference for Social Science Research. Am Sociol Rev. 1980;45(2):302–13.
Metadata
Title
Type, frequency and purpose of information used to inform public health policy and program decision-making
Authors
Pauline Zardo
Alex Collie
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1581-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Public Health 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research article

Sociodemographic and health-(care-)related characteristics of online health information seekers: a cross-sectional German study

Research article

Importance of proximity to resources, social support, transportation and neighborhood security for mobility and social participation in older adults: results from a scoping study

Research article

HIV knowledge among male labor migrants in China

Research article

Patterns and risk factors for deaths from external causes in rural Malawi over 10 years: a prospective population-based study

Research article

Are physical activity studies in Hispanics meeting reporting guidelines for continuous monitoring technology? A systematic review

Research article

Noncommunicable Disease Prevention and Control in Mongolia: A Policy Analysis