Policy-relevant systematic reviews to strengthen health systems: models and mechanisms to support their production

Abstract

Support for producing systematic reviews about health systems is less well developed than for those about clinical practice. From interviewing policy makers and systematic reviewers we identified institutional mechanisms which bring systematic reviews and policy priorities closer by harnessing organisational and individual motivations, emphasising engagement between policy and research, embedding efforts in conducive structures and supporting them with formalised procedures. Four models combine mechanisms appropriately to suit the initial degree of clarity and consensus of key issues underpinning the policy problem or research question, and whether the review is for a specific decision or widespread use. key words systematic reviews • policy-relevant • health systems

Producing policy relevant systematic reviews: navigating the policy-research interface

“…Our earlier constant comparative analysis identified institutional mechanisms grouped within higher level themes (demand and supply of systematic reviews, and mutual understanding between the producers and users of reviews) which were then framed in terms of two overlapping social worlds which shared dimensions of motivations for activities, engagement with each other, supportive structures, procedures and impact (Oliver and Dickson 2016). The new interview data collected for this paper were analysed using the same framework (figure 2).…”

“…When reporting our initial investigations of systematic reviews at the research policy interface (Oliver and Dickson 2016) we acknowledged our direct experience of working in and with policy and research organisations, and systematic reviewing. In this subsequent phase of our research, in addressing detailed processes of making systematic reviews policy relevant, we now recognise our investigations as 'insider research', where the researcher has a direct involvement or connection with the research setting (Robson 2002), even over many years, as in 'deep insider' research (Edwards 2002).…”

“…We sought a diversity of systematic reviews/ review programmes that were initiated either side of the policy-research interface, and that between them included all four models of policy-relevant reviews identified by our earlier study (Oliver and Dickson 2016). Although the aim was to inform policy for health systems, reviews were also eligible from international development and environmental science when they also addressed health.…”

“…Policy-relevant systematic reviews 'present findings clearly for policy audiences to: illuminate policy problems; challenge or develop policy assumptions; or offer evidence about the impact or implementation of policy options; and take into account diversity of people and contexts (Oliver and Dickson 2016). Evidence informed policy making depends on the capacity of policy makers to use such reviews and the capacity of researchers to produce them.…”

“…These capacities need to be matched by timeliness and relevance of evidence to inform policy dilemmas (Oliver K et al 2014;Whitty 2015). Our earlier study of institutional mechanisms to produce policy relevant systematic reviews identified consensus development methods or knowledge brokers (skilled communicators bringing extensive experience of the worlds of policy and research) as potential solutions for navigating the policy-research interface as they both help with clarifying key concepts that are pertinent to policy problems in order for them to be addressed by systematic reviews (Oliver and Dickson 2016). The current study investigates in more detail exchanges across the research-policy interface to understand the practice of producing policyrelevant systematic reviews.…”