Bridging the gap between science and policy: an international survey of scientists and policy makers in China and Canada

Abstract

BackgroundBridging the gap between science and policy is an important task in evidence-informed policy making. The objective of this study is to prioritize ways to bridge the gap.MethodsThe study was based on an online survey of high-ranking scientists and policy makers who have a senior position in universities and governments in the health sector in China and Canada. The sampling frame comprised of universities with schools of public health and medicine and various levels of government in health and public health. Participants included university presidents and professors, and government deputy ministers, directors general and directors working in the health field. Fourteen strategies were presented to the participants for ranking as current ways and ideal ways in the future to bridge the gap between science and policy.ResultsOver a 3-month survey period, there were 121 participants in China and 86 in Canada with response rates of 30.0 and 15.9 %, respectively. The top strategies selected by respondents included focus on policy (conducting research that focuses on policy questions), science-policy forums, and policy briefs, both as current ways and ideal ways to bridge the gap between science and policy. Conferences were considered a priority strategy as a current way, but not an ideal way in the future. Canadian participants were more in favor of using information technology (web-based portals and email updates) than their Chinese counterparts. Among Canadian participants, two strategies that were ranked low as current ways (collaboration in study design and collaboration in analysis) became a priority as ideal ways. This could signal a change in thinking in shifting the focus from the “back end” or “downstream” (knowledge dissemination) of the knowledge transfer process to the “front end” or “upstream” (knowledge generation).ConclusionsOur international study has confirmed a number of previously reported priority strategies to bridge the gap between science and policy. More importantly, our study has contributed to the future work on evidence-based policy making by comparing the responses from China and Canada and the current and ideal way for the future. Our study shows that the concept and strategies of bridging the gap between science and policy are not static but varying in space and evolving over time.

Processo decisório em sistemas de saúde: uma revisão da literatura

“…Um ator que contribui ativamente no processo de tomada de decisão em sistemas de saúde é o meio acadêmico, através de suas pesquisas. Choi et al (2016) buscam entender como esse ator pode influenciar na tomada de decisão e focam sua pesquisa em dois países: Canadá e China. Os autores observaram que os formuladores de políticas em ambos países concordam que as melhores formas para que haja uma efetiva interação entre esses dois mundos são (1) o desenho das pesquisas acadêmicas com base nas necessidades de políticas públicas e (2) a existências de fóruns que permitam o debate entre pesquisadores acadêmicos e formuladores de políticas públicas em saúde.…”

“…Quanto ao primeiro ponto -desenho das pesquisas baseado nas necessidades políticas -, os autores (Choi et al, 2016) ressaltam que o padrão seguido até então é de concepção e realização de pesquisas, sem a necessária interação com os formuladores de políticas públicas. Posteriormente, os resultados da pesquisa são disseminados através de artigos e publicações científicas.…”

Research priorities of international sporting federations and the IOC research centres

“…It is known from public health that different parts of the health system (including policymakers, practitioners and researchers) approach issue prioritisation differently and rely on different types of evidence. [1][2][3][4] There is also a recognised disconnect between the available research evidence relating to sports injuries and that which is required to inform What are the new findings?…”

Framing research for state policymakers who place a priority on cancer

“…And they can be on the receiving end of sometimes disconnected, random, and chaotic information [28,29]. While state policymakers generally report being receptive to shaping policy based on research evidence [30], it is likely that the ability to develop evidence-based cancer policy involves several characteristics including how the message being delivered is perceived (unbiased, credible), how to deliver the message (appropriately packaged, understandable), and timing (available when needed) [31,23,32,33]. …”