|
A useful approach to undertaking a Rapid Response is to develop an interactive dialogue between researchers and policymakers, based on a shared understanding of the purpose and scope of the research. While most researchers like to think that their research should determine or influence policy decisions, decision-making in the policy process rarely follows a linear course and is usually subject to a variety of factors and influences other than the research evidence alone. These include: consistency with related policy,
personal experience, local information, practicality and ability to implement, cost, and whether the broader health and social environment is conducive to policy change (public acceptability). The process of developing a Rapid Response provides an opportunity for knowledge exchange between researchers and policymakers at a point where policymakers have a need for evidence.
SCOPE & FOCUS
The scope of a Rapid Response will vary in the degree of detail, coverage, explanatory text and synthesis according to the need and the available timeframe for completion. Very short timeframes (hours to days) limit responses to a simple list of resources and where they can be located (annotated bibliography); longer timeframes (months) allow a more comprehensive search, an indication of the quality and reliability of available evidence and effective strategies for change; a synthesis of evidence; and a user-friendly summary of findings.
The focus of a Rapid Response may also vary, depending on the policy issue and research question:
- Jurisdictional review: provides a descriptive overview of what has been done about a particular policy issue in other places around the world.
- Evidence review: provides an overview of the evidence of effectiveness, cost-effectiveness or evaluation of a service, program, intervention, strategy or policy.
METHODOLOGY
A number of tools have been developed to support evidence-informed policymaking. Useful examples are the SUPPORT tools and the Rapid Evidence Assessment Toolkit (REA).
The key aims of the tools are to:
- Use systematic processes to support evidence-informed policymaking
- Identify needs for research evidence
- Find and assess evidence to address the needs
- Use the best research evidence to inform decisions about health policy.
Strategies to consider
- Preliminary scope. Conduct initial scope of the literature to identify key documents.
- Engage experts. While it is better for researchers to be fully conversant with the topic area, it may be more feasible to engage expertise at different stages of the review process (early scoping; interim progress; draft report). An expert review at the draft stage ensures rigour and accuracy.
- Engage policy-makers. Clarify the policy problem, definitions, key issues, broad scope and policy context.
- Create boundaries. Determine what NOT to include as well as highest priorities for policymakers.
- Negotiate scope and timeframes. Establish what can be achieved in the given timeframe.
- Open dialogue. Set regular meetings with policymakers to maintain transparency, focus and relevance.
|
RESEARCH-POLICY INTERFACE
Interactive dialogue between researchers and policymakers entails changes in the attitudes, knowledge and understanding of both parties:
- Researchers need a broad understanding of the policy process, the need and purpose of the research, and the contributions of non-research 'evidence' as well as context.
- Policymakers need to articulate clearly their priorities, their understanding of the broad scope, and how they intend to use the evidence; and to recognise the strengths and limitations of research evidence.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE HIERARCHY
A research evidence hierarchy may be useful for policymakers to gauge the reliability and generalisability of a large body of evidence to inform policy decisions. Different types of research and policy questions are informed by different levels of research evidence for Rapid Responses. For example:
- Systematic reviews & meta-analyses. Synthesised evidence from multiple sources, settings and populations that is relevant to a policy question is ideal, but rarely available.
- Expert Rapid Response/evidence reviews. Synthesised evidence that addresses specific issues for policymaking is valued.
- Experimental controlled studies. Evidence from well-designed, rigorous controlled studies may influence policy decisions, but relevant examples are rare.
- Observational studies. Evidence from studies that identify a single-risk problem and propose a simple, straightforward intervention will generally have an easier path to influencing policy; whereas research addressing health inequalities that arise from multiple causes is more likely to have less definitive evidence that does not translate well into policy and clear-cut interventions.
- Politically timely 'household' studies (eg. Australia-wide national surveys). Qualitative research exploring families' decision-making is also valued by policy-makers, particularly if the research is undertaken in different types of households and coincides with a high-priority policy issue.
- Natural policy experiments. Evaluations of equivalent policies introduced elsewhere may inform the debate on proposed policies in Australia.
- Historical evidence. Evidence from very early research may also be considered if it is deemed to be relevant to the current social or political context.
influences on evidence use in policy
According to policymakers, the reality of public health policy decisions are influenced variously by a range of factors, including:
- Local vs national. Transferable evidence at the local level is needed as well as the bigger picture to provide context for policy.
- Recency & relevancy. Policymakers typically give more credence to recent studies and evaluations that are similar to policies under consideration.
- Policy-making constraints. Researchers need to understand the organisational and structural constraints inherent in the policymakers' environment, including timescales/timing.
- Political & social factors. Research evidence is not privileged; public opinion, budgets, change capacity, fit with existing policy and with election and public commitments are also considered.
- Costs. Costs associated with action compared to inaction, and available funding mechanisms, are very relevant to policymakers.
Research evidence may be used in a variety of ways and at different stages in the policy process, including post hoc (in evaluation and review). While research quality is crucial to researchers aiming to appraise and synthesise a body of evidence, it is only one element to policymakers, who must consider a range of factors including short-term impacts.
key research messages
- Simple. Keep the research message simple - avoid jargon
- Timely. Align research evidence to users' timescales
- Relevant. Ensure research is relevant to ongoing policy debates
- Clear. Temper predilection to outline bias, ambiguity and uncertainty in the evidence base
- Costs. Provide information on costs and cost-effectiveness of interventions, where possible.
resources
PHC RIS Resources
 Evidence-informed health policy: Information sources
Researchers influencing policy development: closing the gap
Primary health care systems. Resources for international comparison
 Rapid reviews of the literature for knowledge transfer to inform policy
Jackson Bowers E, Hordacre A-L, Kalucy L. (2009). 2009 GP & PHC Research Conference abstract
Linking researchers and policy-makers to improve the use of health research
JournalWatch
(2001). This issue of JournalWatch discusses the importance of linking researchers and policy-makers, to facilitate effective dissemination of research results, and to increase the influence of research results in policy-making.
Peer-reviewed literature
 Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews
Watt A, Cameron A, Sturm L, et al. (2008). International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 24(2) 133–139
Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews
Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H. (2010). Implementation Science, 5(56) doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-56
What influences the transfer of research into health policy and practice?
Nutbeam D, Boxall A-M. (2008). Public Health, 122(8) 747-753
From "our world" to the "real world": exploring the behaviour of policy-influential Australian public health researchers
Haynes AS, Derrick GE, Redman S, Chapman S, Hall WD, Gillespie JA, Sturk H. (2010). Under Review . Social Science and Medicine
Tools
SUPPORT tools for evidence-informed health policymaking (STP)
Lavis JN, Oxman AD, Lewin S, Fretheim A. (2009). Health Research Policy and Systems, 7(Suppl 1), I1
Rapid Evidence Assessment Toolkit
A Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) is a tool for getting on top of the available research evidence on a policy issue, as comprehensively as possible, within the constraints of a given timetable.
Tools for policy impact. A handbook for researchers
Start D, Hovland I. (2004). London: Overseas Development Institute
|
