Cross-sector learning among researchers and policy-makers: the search for new strategies to enable use of research results

Pittman, Patricia; Almeida, C.M.V.B.

doi:10.1590/s0102-311x2006001300019

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…synthesizing research results to show new knowledge production and promoting the use of evidence in decision-making. Decision makers at various levels should also be trained on for evidence-based decision-making [20].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Health Research Capacity Strengthening in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: The Case of WHO/TDR Programmes

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMeasuring the impact of capacity strengthening support is a priority for the international development community. Several frameworks exist for monitoring and evaluating funding results and modalities. Based on its long history of support, we report on the impact of individual and institutional capacity strengthening programmes conducted by the UNICEF/UNDP/World Bank/WHO Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) and on the factors that influenced the outcome of its Research Capacity Strengthening (RCS) activities.Methodology and Principal FindingsA mix of qualitative and quantitative methods (questionnaires and in-depth interviews) was applied to a selected group of 128 individual and 20 institutional capacity development grant recipients that completed their training/projects between 2000 and 2008. A semi-structured interview was also conducted on site with scientists from four institutions. Most of the grantees, both individual and institutional, reported beneficial results from the grant. However, glaring inequities stemming from gender imbalances and a language bias towards English were identified. The study showed that skills improvement through training contributed to better formulation of research proposals, but not necessarily to improved project implementation or communication of results. Appreciation of the institutional grants' impact varied among recipient countries. The least developed countries saw the programmes as essential for supporting basic infrastructure and activities. Advanced developing countries perceived the research grants as complementary to available resources, and particularly suitable for junior researchers who were not yet able to compete for major international grants.ConclusionThe study highlights the need for a more equitable process to improve the effectiveness of health research capacity strengthening activities. Support should be tailored to the existing research capacity in disease endemic countries and should focus on strengthening national health research systems, particularly in the least developing countries. The engagement of stakeholders at country level would facilitate the design of more specific and comprehensive strategies based on local needs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Health Research Capacity Strengthening in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: The Case of WHO/TDR Programmes

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, initiatives informed by concepts such as linkage and exchange 342,343 do not necessarily make an impact if, for example, there is a high turnover among the government officials. 344 Iteration at an organisational level may be required for interactions to be successful. Impact assessment requires attention to scale and context.…”

Section: Updated Systematic Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Models and applications for measuring the impact of health research: update of a systematic review for the Health Technology Assessment programme

Raftery

Hanney

Greenhalgh

et al. 2016

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThis report reviews approaches and tools for measuring the impact of research programmes, building on, and extending, a 2007 review.Objectives(1) To identify the range of theoretical models and empirical approaches for measuring the impact of health research programmes; (2) to develop a taxonomy of models and approaches; (3) to summarise the evidence on the application and use of these models; and (4) to evaluate the different options for the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme.Data sourcesWe searched databases including Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and The Cochrane Library from January 2005 to August 2014.Review methodsThis narrative systematic literature review comprised an update, extension and analysis/discussion. We systematically searched eight databases, supplemented by personal knowledge, in August 2014 through to March 2015.ResultsThe literature on impact assessment has much expanded. The Payback Framework, with adaptations, remains the most widely used approach. It draws on different philosophical traditions, enhancing an underlying logic model with an interpretative case study element and attention to context. Besides the logic model, other ideal type approaches included constructionist, realist, critical and performative. Most models in practice drew pragmatically on elements of several ideal types. Monetisation of impact, an increasingly popular approach, shows a high return from research but relies heavily on assumptions about the extent to which health gains depend on research. Despite usually requiring systematic reviews before funding trials, the HTA programme does not routinely examine the impact of those trials on subsequent systematic reviews. The York/Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation toolkits provide ways of assessing such impact, but need to be evaluated. The literature, as reviewed here, provides very few instances of a randomised trial playing a major role in stopping the use of a new technology. The few trials funded by the HTA programme that may have played such a role were outliers.DiscussionThe findings of this review support the continued use of the Payback Framework by the HTA programme. Changes in the structure of the NHS, the development of NHS England and changes in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s remit pose new challenges for identifying and meeting current and future research needs. Future assessments of the impact of the HTA programme will have to take account of wider changes, especially as the Research Excellence Framework (REF), which assesses the quality of universities’ research, seems likely to continue to rely on case studies to measure impact. The HTA programme should consider how the format and selection of case studies might be improved to aid more systematic assessment. The selection of case studies, such as in the REF, but also more generally, tends to be biased towards high-impact rather than low-impact stories. Experience for other industries indicate that much can be learnt from the latter. The adoption of researchfish®(researchfish Ltd, Cambridge, UK) by most major UK research funders has implications for future assessments of impact. Although the routine capture of indexed research publications has merit, the degree to which researchfish will succeed in collecting other, non-indexed outputs and activities remains to be established.LimitationsThere were limitations in how far we could address challenges that faced us as we extended the focus beyond that of the 2007 review, and well beyond a narrow focus just on the HTA programme.ConclusionsResearch funders can benefit from continuing to monitor and evaluate the impacts of the studies they fund. They should also review the contribution of case studies and expand work on linking trials to meta-analyses and to guidelines.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research HTA programme.

show abstract

“…Os gestores são peças fundamentais na decisão sobre em que grau os resultados de pesquisa científicas ou tecnológicas serão incorporados à política de saúde (CHOIet al, 2005). A interação direta entre cientistas e gestores tem sido apontada em diversos estudos como o facilitador mais influente para a garantia da aplicação(HAINES; KURUVILLA; BORCHET, 2004;PITTMAN;ALMEIDA, 2006;CONTRANDIOPOULOS, 2004).…”

Section: Missão E Metas Do Sistema De Pesquisa Em Saúdeunclassified

What researchers think about the health research system in Brazil: a pilot study

Noronha

Silva

Szklo

et al. 2012

Reciis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ResumoEste artigo apresenta a percepção de pesquisadores, formuladores de política científica e usuários de resultados de pesquisa sobre o funcionamento do sistema de pesquisa em saúde no Brasil. Foi realizado inquérito utilizando amostra probabilística de pesquisadores e intencional de formuladores da política científica e usuários de conhecimentos científicos. Apenas 17% dos entrevistados consideram bom o funcionamento do sistema de pesquisa em saúde no país apontando como componentes mais relevantes: a visão, agenda de prioridades e garantia dos recursos financeiros para a pesquisa. Os componentes menos valorizados foram: avaliação do próprio sistema, incorporação dos resultados às políticas públicas e difusão dos resultados para a opinião pública. As principais metas do sistema devem ser: melhoria da saúde da população, avanço do conhecimento e promoção da equidade. Os entrevistados aportariam maior proporção de recursos nas modalidades de indução para a pesquisa básica, epidemiológica e clínica. Eles valorizam os problemas de saúde atuais, os persistentes e a previsão de problemas futuros, o atendimento a grupos vulneráveis e a estratégias de prevenção e cura das doenças como critérios de definição de prioridades. Todas as opiniões sofreram alguma modificação segundo os grupos etários, a posição do entrevistado(pesquisador, gestor, usuário) e a área de atuação.Palavras-chave : sistema de pesquisa em saúde; percepção dos pesquisadores; pesquisa em saúde; política científica; componentes do sistema de pesquisa em saúde

show abstract

Cross-sector learning among researchers and policy-makers: the search for new strategies to enable use of research results

Cited by 6 publications

References 15 publications

Impact of Health Research Capacity Strengthening in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: The Case of WHO/TDR Programmes

Impact of Health Research Capacity Strengthening in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: The Case of WHO/TDR Programmes

Models and applications for measuring the impact of health research: update of a systematic review for the Health Technology Assessment programme

What researchers think about the health research system in Brazil: a pilot study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About