A research utilisation framework for informing global health and development policies and programmes

Abstract

A shift in the culture and practice of health and development research is required to maximise the real-world use of evidence by non-academic or non-research-oriented audiences. Many frameworks have been developed to guide and measure the research utilisation process, yet none have been widely applied. Some frameworks are simplified to an unrealistic linear representation while others are rendered overly complex and unusable in an attempt to capture all aspects of the research utilisation process. Additionally, many research utilisation frameworks have focused on the policy development process or within a clinical setting, with less application of the translation process at the programme level. In response to this gap – and drawing from over a decade of experience implementing research utilisation strategies – we developed a simple, four-phase framework to guide global health and development efforts that seek to apply evidence to policies and programmes. We present a detailed description of each phase in our framework, with examples of its relevance and application illustrated through our own case study experiences in global health. We believe the utility of this framework extends beyond the health sector and is relevant for maximising use of evidence to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

Engaging Stakeholders, from Inception and Throughout the Study, is Good Research Practice to Promote use of Findings

“…Prioritization of stakeholder engagement, especially the MOH is critical to successful uptake of study results. Engagement is dependent on the strength of relationships and, while it is supposed to occur in every study, it does not always happen especially at study inception [7]. Program and policy stakeholders often prioritize service delivery issues and other competing demands or may have little confidence or interest in research.…”

“…Key to this effort was the development of the RU guide and tools that detail a systematic process of active engagement of stakeholders while taking into consideration the context in which decision makers function. A systematic and funded process of RU has been highlighted as a factor that helps research translation by ensuring that researchers undertake research with the end in mind, and stakeholders are systematically engaged at various points of evidence production [7, 29]. To this end, SOAR designated a full time RU Advisor to support its researchers in implementing the RU process.…”

“…RU also occurs at the end of the study when stakeholders review the findings and develop recommendations to change policy or programs. To support its researchers in implementing the RU process, SOAR has embraced the principle of a knowledge broker [7, 8] by designating the position of RU Advisor on its management team. The RU Advisor provides technical support to study teams by disseminating the RU guide and tools to investigators and stakeholders; ensuring RU is integrated in the study protocol; and participating in the identification of key stakeholders and in the preparation and conduct of meetings with stakeholders.…”

Applying the Theoretical Domains Framework to understand knowledge broker decisions in selecting evidence for knowledge translation in low- and middle-income countries

“…Despite keen interest by the health research community and global commitment, no one standard for KT emerges as widely accepted among the many proposed theories and frameworks [4–8]. Among the array of KT explanations and predictions, many focus broadly on systems, infrastructure and activities supporting KT, whilst others focus more narrowly on individual decisions to adhere to a specific evidence-based clinical care guideline [4, 6]. A common element among the perspectives on KT (whether explicitly stated or not) is the individual health system actor who makes decisions after learning about evidence within a larger context.…”

A systematic review of frameworks for the interrelationships of mental health evidence and policy in low- and middle-income countries

“…Many different concepts are in use to describe the process of interrelations and interactions between research evidence and policy [ 12 – 14 ]. Depending on the school of thought, academic field, theoretical concept, and which aims, determinants and outcomes of the process are in focus, these interrelations have been described as ‘knowledge translation’ [ 15 ], ‘knowledge transfer’ [ 13 , 16 ], ‘knowledge transfer and exchange’ [ 17 ], ‘research uptake’ [ 18 ], ‘research utilisation’ [ 19 ], ‘evidence-based policy-making’ [ 20 ], ‘evidence-informed policy-making’ [ 21 ], or ‘translational research’ [ 22 , 23 ], and more. Additionally, an overlooked area of the research–policy dynamic has been termed as ‘researcher utilisation’ [ 24 ].…”