Research-policy engagement activities and research impact: nursing and health science researcher perspectives

Abstract

Background: Strategies to help researchers use the research evidence they (co)produce to inform policy should be tailored to the context. Yet there is little guidance on research-policy engagement activities in nursing and health sciences disciplines. Aims and objectives: We explored the experiences and perspectives of nursing and health sciences researchers at different career stages, regarding research-policy engagement activities and their impacts on policy. We also explored researchers’ understanding of terminology and theory regarding research-policy engagement. Methods: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 17 researchers, at various career stages, and conducted content and thematic analysis of the data. Findings: ‘Disseminating and communicating research’, and ‘building professional partnerships’ were the most common types of activity, with senior researchers favouring the latter. Early and mid-career researchers favoured the former, citing the need to build credibility and track record before engaging with policy actors. We identified individual and contextual factors that influence policy impact and researchers’ capacity to engage in such activities. Researchers’ conceptions and understanding regarding evidence-informed policymaking theory and process varied. Terminology also varied, with ‘knowledge translation’ the most common term. Discussion and conclusions: Despite evidence indicating the limited effectiveness of dissemination activities on policy, researchers pursue such efforts, to enable the formation of relationships with influential policy actors and policy impact in the longer term, and because of academia’s drive for research outputs. Researchers would benefit from supportive organisational contexts and greater knowledge of research-policy engagement theory, evidence and practice, through tailored workshops addressing relational and political considerations, as well as structured mentoring.

Factors that influence the implementation of innovation in aged care: a scoping review

“…Meaningful involvement of consumers, incorporating collaboration and shared leadership, will optimize the real-world applicability of research findings and care interventions. Stakeholders’ “ownership” of a “problem” and involvement in associated research is recognized as a key factor in ensuring that the research has meaningful impact 207 …”

“…Stakeholders’ “ownership” of a “problem” and involvement in associated research is recognized as a key factor in ensuring that the research has meaningful impact. 207 …”

“…Stakeholders' "ownership" of a "problem" and involvement in associated research is recognized as a key factor in ensuring that the research has meaningful impact. 207 Bodison et al 208 identified four key barriers to community participation in dissemination, implementation, and improvement science from the perspectives of researchers and service providers: (1) communities have historically had little influence over the "problems" to be investigated and setting the research agenda in the first place; (2) key stakeholders are often left out during the development of research projects; (3) people in communities who experience disadvantage and marginalization do not trust researchers and/or large institutions, or their scarce resources and time are put to personal priorities rather than research participation; and (4) research findings are seldom meaningfully communicated to the communities of study, partly because researchers prioritize academic outputs rather than community feedback. Bodison et al proposed various practical approaches to overcoming these barriers, such as ongoing forums, resources, training, specific funding mechanisms, networking opportunities, and online directories.…”