The SPIRIT Action Framework: A structured approach to selecting and testing strategies to increase the use of research in policy

Abstract

The recent proliferation of strategies designed to increase the use of research in health policy (knowledge exchange) demands better application of contemporary conceptual understandings of how research shapes policy. Predictive models, or action frameworks, are needed to organise existing knowledge and enable a more systematic approach to the selection and testing of intervention strategies. Useful action frameworks need to meet four criteria: have a clearly articulated purpose; be informed by existing knowledge; provide an organising structure to build new knowledge; and be capable of guiding the development and testing of interventions. This paper describes the development of the SPIRIT Action Framework. A literature search and interviews with policy makers identified modifiable factors likely to influence the use of research in policy. An iterative process was used to combine these factors into a pragmatic tool which meets the four criteria. The SPIRIT Action Framework can guide conceptually-informed practical decisions in the selection and testing of interventions to increase the use of research in policy. The SPIRIT Action Framework hypothesises that a catalyst is required for the use of research, the response to which is determined by the capacity of the organisation to engage with research. Where there is sufficient capacity, a series of research engagement actions might occur that facilitate research use. These hypotheses are being tested in ongoing empirical work.

Missing in action? The role of the knowledge mobilisation literature in developing knowledge mobilisation practices

“…It is well documented (e.g. Redman et al, 2015) that the existing frameworks are often hard to use in practice. The apparent low levels of use of specific models and frameworks do not of course mean that agencies were not drawing on the theoretical literature in more diffuse ways: free text comments in the survey and the interviews in another part of the study (Davies et al, 2015) suggest that at least some agencies drew on multiple frameworks, adapted existing frameworks or based their approaches broadly on the work of key authors.…”

“…Given the significant challenges identified by agencies in this survey and in the interview phase of the study (Davies et al, 2015), there is scope for a range of measures to enable agencies to undertake more comprehensive and robust evaluations and to share this research evidence more widely with other organisations.…”

“…The content of questions drew on 71 key reviews of knowledge mobilisation published in the period 2000-2013, data from reviewing the websites of the agencies in the study and data from semi-structured interviews conducted in another phase of the study (Davies et al, 2015;Davies et al, 2016).…”

“…A major section of the survey (spread over three questions to improve visual presentation on screen and to reduce respondent fatigue) gave a list compiled from the literature and from interviews (Davies et al, 2015) of 37 types of knowledge mobilisation activities and asked respondents to indicate with what frequency each activity was carried out by their agency. In summarising the results here, we group the 37 activities into six broad categories based on the long-standing 'push, pull, linkage and exchange' framework (Lavis et al, 2006;Lomas, 2000):…”

“…Their proliferation has attracted criticisms that there are now too many models, theories and frameworks, and too little guidance on how to select the most appropriate one (Nilsen, 2015). Moreover, many of the models and frameworks lack both empirical testing and detail on practical strategies for their application (Pentland et al, 2011;Redman et al, 2015;Ward et al, 2009). Nevertheless, there is growing support for relationship models (which emphasise engagement between researchers and potential research users) over more linear 'push' or 'pull' approaches (Tetroe et al, 2008).…”