The California Health Policy Research Program — supporting Policy Making Through Evidence and Responsive Research

Abstract

This article explores the creation, design, and execution of a university-based collaboration to provide responsive research and evidence to a group of diverse health care, labor, and consumer stakeholders through convening a funded series of deliberative meetings, research briefs, peer-reviewed journal articles, ad hoc data analyses, and policy analyses. Funded by the California Endowment, the California Health Policy Research Program was created by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education, and the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. The collaboration not only allowed new research and analyses to be used by stakeholders and policy makers in decision making but also allowed university researchers to receive input on the important health policy issues of the day. The guidance of stakeholders in the research and policy analysis process was vital in driving meaningful results during an important time in health policy making in California. The manuscript discusses lessons learned in building relationships with stakeholders; meeting research and analytic needs; engaging stakeholders and policy makers; building capacity for quick-turnaround data collection and analysis, dissemination and publication; and maintaining the collaboration.

What can we learn from interventions that aim to increase policy-makers’ capacity to use research? A realist scoping review

“…As mentioned, opportunistic evaluations of initiatives that were planned outside the auspices of a research study were included, but studies were excluded if they described achievements or ‘lessons learnt’ but did not explain how such information was captured as part of an evaluation strategy (e.g. [ 32 , 84 , 92 – 94 ]). Publication.…”

Examining and Contextualizing Approaches to Establish Policy Support Organizations – A Critical Interpretive Synthesis

“…• Collaboration across research and policy-maker communities improves the contact between them. 26,39,40,42,51,52,[59][60][61][64][65][66][67] Evaluating the situation • Conducting situation analyses is an important process to convene various stakeholders in order to increase their awareness about the need to further engage and invest in EIPM. 26,38,40,41,43,49 Abbreviations: EPIM, evidence-informed policy-making; PSO, policy support organization; KT, knowledge translation.…”

“…40,41 In contrast, a proof of concept can be helpful in providing direct evidence about or experience with how a PSO can play a critical role in achieving these priorities. 40,49 Once the organization understands the situation, the next step is to identify its attributes, which (as we outline in Table 2) include defining: (i) strong leadership 26,40,46,48,54,[58][59][60]63,[68][69][70] ; (ii) clearly defined organizational structure 26,40,43,46,48,51,52,59,63,64,67,71 ; (iii) sustainable financial arrangements 39,47,52,59,64,71 ; (iv) capable human resources 19,21,26,51,52,56,58,62,64,66,72,73 ; (v) sufficient infrastructure 21,…”

“…26,38,40,41,43,49 The fragmentation might then be addressed through the PSO's governance approach that involves policy-makers and researchers, 26,40,46,51,59,63 and by building collaboration with other organizations to run different activities and programs. 26,39,40,42,51,52,[59][60][61][64][65][66][67] Second, the programs and services offered by a PSO can subsequently enhance the climate for the use of evidence in policy-making (ie, it can create a positive feedback loop). 38,42,44,52,58 The development stage is also connected to the assessment stage where some of the organization's attributes might be adjusted after assessing the organization's performance.…”

“…Description of the development stage and contextual factors relevant for establishing a PSO Technology: A PSO needs technology to function adequately, which includes; personal computers, a functional internet connection, and access to databases (eg, for identifying research evidence) 21,39,41,42,55,56,58,[66][67][68]74,75. 6.…”