首页> 外文期刊>Implementation Science >How was research engaged with and used in the development of 131 policy documents? Findings and measurement implications from a mixed methods study
【24h】

How was research engaged with and used in the development of 131 policy documents? Findings and measurement implications from a mixed methods study

机译:如何在131份政策文件的发展中与之参与并用于开发?来自混合方法研究的调查结果和测量意义

获取原文
           

摘要

Much has been written about the use of evidence in policy; however, there is still little known about whether and how research is engaged with and used in policy development or the impact of reported barriers and facilitators. This paper aims to (1) describe the characteristics of 131 policy documents, (2) describe the ways in which research was engaged with (e.g. was searched for, appraised or generated) and used (e.g. to clarify understanding, persuade others or inform a policy) in the development of these policy documents, and (3) identify the most commonly reported barriers and facilitators and describe their association with research engagement and use. Six health policy and program development agencies based in Sydney, Australia, contributed four recently finalised policy documents for consideration over six measurement periods. Structured, qualitative interviews were conducted with the policymakers most heavily involved in developing each of the 131 policy documents. Interviews covered whether and how research was engaged with and used in the development of the policy product and any barriers or facilitators related to this. Interviews were scored using the empirically validated SAGE tool and thematically analysed. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all key variables and comparisons made between agencies. Multiple regression analyses were used to estimate the impact of specific barriers and facilitators on research engagement and use. Our data shows large variations between policy agencies in the types of policy documents produced and the characteristics of these documents. Nevertheless, research engagement and use was generally moderate across agencies. A number of barriers and facilitators to research use were identified. No barriers were significantly associated with any aspects of research engagement or use. Access to consultants and relationships with researchers were both associated with increased research engagement but not use. Thus, access to consultants and relationships with researchers may increase the extent and quality of the evidence considered in policy development. Our findings suggest that those wishing to develop interventions and programs designed to improve the use of evidence in policy agencies might usefully target increasing access to consultants and relationships with researchers in order to increase the extent and quality of the research considered, but that a greater consideration of context might be required to develop strategies to increase evidence use.
机译:关于在政策中使用证据的撰写了很多;但是,关于是否以及如何在政策制定或报告的障碍和促进者的影响方面仍然有所了解。本文旨在(1)描述131个政策文件的特征,(2)描述了研究从事研究的方式(例如被检测,评估或生成)(例如,澄清理解,说服他人或通知A政策)在制定这些政策文件中,(3)确定最常见的障碍和促进者,并描述其与研究参与和使用的协会。六个卫生政策和方案开发机构,澳大利亚悉尼,贡献了四个最近最终确定的政策文件,以考虑六个计量期。结构化的定性访谈是通过最严重参与开发131个政策文件中的每一个的政策制定者。采访包括如何以及如何在制定政策产品和与此相关的任何障碍或协调人的发展中使用和使用。使用经验验证的Sage工具和主题分析进行了采访。为所有关键变量和机构之间的比较计算了描述性统计数据。多元回归分析用于估计特定障碍和促进者对研究参与和使用的影响。我们的数据显示了策略机构在所产生的政策文件类型和这些文件的特征之间的巨大变化。尽管如此,研究参与和使用普遍适中。确定了一些研究使用的障碍和促进者。没有任何障碍与研究参与或使用的任何方面都显着相关。访问与研究人员的顾问和关系都与增加的研究参与,但不使用。因此,获取与研究人员的顾问和关系可能会增加政策制定中所考虑的证据的程度和质量。我们的研究结果表明,希望制定旨在改善政策机构中证据的干预措施和方案的人可能有利于增加对与研究人员的顾问和关系的增加,以便增加所考虑的研究的程度和质量,但更加考虑可能需要上下文来制定增加证据使用的策略。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号