Research in support of health systems transformation in South Africa: The experience of the Centre for Health Policy

Rispel, Laetitia C.; Doherty, Jane

doi:10.1057/jphp.2011.33

Cited by 11 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In line with previous research [5,6,19-24], we found that a range of contextual factors were critical in facilitating the use of the survey findings. In particular, the 2002 NSW Child Obesity Summit [18] provided a supportive policy context which facilitated the formation of partnerships between survey researchers and EUs, and provided mechanisms and structures (such as the NSW Government Action Plan for Child Obesity Prevention 2003–2007, [16] and a Senior Officers Group with responsibility for overseeing implementation of this plan) which facilitated application of survey findings.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Utilization of a population health survey in policy and practice: a case study

Laws

King

Hardy

et al. 2013

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThere is growing interest by funding bodies and researchers in assessing the impact of research on real world policy and practice. Population health monitoring surveys provide an important source of data on the prevalence and patterns of health problems, but few empirical studies have explored if and how such data is used to influence policy or practice decisions. Here we provide a case study analysis of how the findings from an Australian population monitoring survey series of children’s weight and weight-related behaviors (Schools Physical Activity and Nutrition Survey (SPANS)) have been used, and the key facilitators and barriers to their utilization.MethodsData collection included semi-structured interviews with the chief investigators (n = 3) and end-users (n = 9) of SPANS data to explore if, how and under what circumstances the survey findings had been used, bibliometric analysis and verification using documentary evidence. Data analysis involved thematic coding of interview data and triangulation with other data sources to produce case summaries of policy and practice impacts for each of the three survey years (1997, 2004, 2010). Case summaries were then reviewed and discussed by the authors to distil key themes on if, how and why the SPANS findings had been used to guide policy and practice.ResultsWe found that the survey findings were used for agenda setting (raising awareness of issues), identifying areas and target groups for interventions, informing new policies, and supporting and justifying existing policies and programs across a range of sectors. Reported factors influencing use of the findings were: i) the perceived credibility of survey findings; ii) dissemination strategies used; and, iii) a range of contextual factors.ConclusionsUsing a novel approach, our case study provides important new insights into how and under what circumstances population health monitoring data can be used to influence real world policy and practice. The findings highlight the importance of population monitoring programs being conducted by independent credible agencies, researchers engaging end-users from the inception of survey programs and utilizing existing policy networks and structures, and using a range of strategies to disseminate the findings that go beyond traditional peer review publications.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Utilization of a population health survey in policy and practice: a case study

Laws

King

Hardy

et al. 2013

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are several recognised difficulties in attributing a policy impact to a specific piece of research [ 5 , 69 , 70 ]. The original piece of research may be re-interpreted in the policy process in ways that are incorrect or not consistent with its intent, or it may be adapted to particular contexts and transformed in the process.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How do we define the policy impact of public health research? A systematic review

Alla

Hall

Whiteford

et al. 2017

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIn order to understand and measure the policy impact of research we need a definition of research impact that is suited to the task. This article systematically reviewed both peer-reviewed and grey literature for definitions of research impact to develop a definition of research impact that can be used to investigate how public health research influences policy.MethodKeyword searches of the electronic databases Web of Science, ProQuest, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Informit, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Google Scholar were conducted between August 2015 and April 2016. Keywords included ‘definition’ and ‘policy’ and ‘research impact’ or ‘research evidence’. The search terms ‘health’, public health’ or ‘mental health’ and ‘knowledge transfer’ or ‘research translation’ were used to focus the search on relevant health discipline approaches. Studies included in the review described processes, theories or frameworks associated with public health, health services or mental health policy.ResultsWe identified 108 definitions in 83 publications. The key findings were that literature on research impact is growing, but only 23% of peer-reviewed publications on the topic explicitly defined the term and that the majority (76%) of definitions were derived from research organisations and funding institutions. We identified four main types of definition, namely (1) definitions that conceptualise research impacts in terms of positive changes or effects that evidence can bring about when transferred into policies (example Research Excellence Framework definition), (2) definitions that interpret research impacts as measurable outcomes (Research Councils UK), and (3) bibliometric and (4) use-based definitions. We identified four constructs underpinning these definitions that related to concepts of contribution, change, avenues and levels of impact.ConclusionThe dominance of bureaucratic definitions, the tendency to discuss but not define the concept of research impact, and the heterogeneity of definitions confirm the need for conceptual clarity in this area. We propose a working definition of research impact that can be used in a range of health policy contexts.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-017-0247-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…The rising importance of HPSR+A reflects the need for adequate research and analytical capacity in a range of organizations including ministries of health, health policy analysis institutes, think tanks, academia and civil society ( Green and Bennett 2007 ; Mayhew et al 2008 ; Ranson and Bennett 2009 ; Greer 2010 ; Omaswa and Boufford 2010 ; Bennett et al 2012b ; Rispel and Doherty 2011 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of capacity for Health Policy and Systems Research and Analysis in seven African universities: results from the CHEPSAA project

Mirzoev

Lê

Green

et al. 2013

Health Policy and Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The importance of health policy and systems research and analysis (HPSR+A) is widely recognized. Universities are central to strengthening and sustaining the HPSR+A capacity as they teach the next generation of decision-makers and health professionals. However, little is known about the capacity of universities, specifically, to develop the field. In this article, we report results of capacity self- assessments by seven universities within five African countries, conducted through the Consortium for Health Policy and Systems Analysis in Africa (CHEPSAA). The capacity assessments focused on both capacity ‘assets’ and ‘needs’, and covered the wider context, as well as organizational and individual capacity levels. Six thematic areas of capacity were examined: leadership and governance, organizations’ resources, scope of HPSR+A teaching and research, communication, networking and getting research into policy and practice (GRIPP), demand for HPRS+A and resource environment. The self-assessments by each university used combinations of document reviews, semi-structured interviews and staff surveys, followed by comparative analysis. A framework approach, guided by the six thematic areas, was used to analyse data. We found that HPSR+A is an international priority, and an existing activity in Africa, though still neglected field with challenges including its reliance on unpredictable international funding. All universities have capacity assets, such as ongoing HPSR+A teaching and research. There are, however, varying levels of assets (such as differences in staff numbers, group sizes and amount of HPSR+A teaching and research), which, combined with different capacity needs at all three levels (such as individual training, improvement in systems for quality assurance and fostering demand for HPSR+A work), can shape a future agenda for HPSR+A capacity strengthening. Capacity assets and needs at different levels appear related. Possible integrated strategies for strengthening universities’ capacity include: refining HPSR+A vision, mainstreaming the subject into under- and post-graduate teaching, developing emerging leaders and aligning HPSR+A capacity strengthening within the wider organizational development.

show abstract

Research in support of health systems transformation in South Africa: The experience of the Centre for Health Policy

Cited by 11 publications

References 13 publications

Utilization of a population health survey in policy and practice: a case study

Utilization of a population health survey in policy and practice: a case study

How do we define the policy impact of public health research? A systematic review

Assessment of capacity for Health Policy and Systems Research and Analysis in seven African universities: results from the CHEPSAA project

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About