S Visram1, D J Hunter2, T Kuchenmüller3. 1. Centre for Public Policy and Health, School of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health, Durham University Queen's Campus, Thornaby, Stockton-on-Tees, TS17 6BH, UK; Fuse (UKCRC Centre for Translational Research in Public Health), Baddiley-Clark Building, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK. Electronic address: shelina.visram@newcastle.ac.uk. 2. Centre for Public Policy and Health, School of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health, Durham University Queen's Campus, Thornaby, Stockton-on-Tees, TS17 6BH, UK; Fuse (UKCRC Centre for Translational Research in Public Health), Baddiley-Clark Building, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK. 3. Knowledge Management, Evidence and Research for Policy-Making, Division of Information, Evidence, Research and Innovation, WHO Regional Office for Europe, UN City, Marmorvej 51, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Evidence-informed policymaking (EIP) is increasingly viewed as a complex endeavour that requires integration of research evidence with available resources and the preferences of those affected by the policy. The first technical expert meeting to enhance EIP in the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region identified the scope to develop and conduct a survey to gather insights into the generation, translation and application of research evidence across the region. This article describes the process of developing and piloting a multistakeholder survey (promoted and technically supported by WHO/Europe) on the topic of capacity for EIP. STUDY DESIGN: Rapid review and pilot cross-sectional survey. METHODS: A survey instrument was developed based on findings from the published literature and refined with input from EIP experts/champions. The online survey was then piloted using various recruitment strategies designed to maximise its reach among the key target groups (senior researchers, knowledge brokers and members of civil society). RESULTS: The rapid review revealed a clear gap in the evidence base in relation to broader surveys of capacity for EIP, as opposed to evidence-based practice at an individual level. Thirteen responses to the pilot survey were received from individuals in 10 European countries. Reported barriers to EIP included a lack of understanding among policymakers and a lack of interaction with researchers. There were examples of efforts to enhance capacity for EIP, both at region or country level and through membership of international networks and collaborations. However, few examples were given of the application and impact of research evidence on the policymaking process. CONCLUSION: This research has demonstrated the feasibility of developing and piloting a multicountry, multistakeholder survey to generate better understanding of evidence use in health policymaking. Next steps include incorporating the lessons learned into a revised version of the survey to be implemented with all 53 WHO/Europe Member States.
OBJECTIVES: Evidence-informed policymaking (EIP) is increasingly viewed as a complex endeavour that requires integration of research evidence with available resources and the preferences of those affected by the policy. The first technical expert meeting to enhance EIP in the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region identified the scope to develop and conduct a survey to gather insights into the generation, translation and application of research evidence across the region. This article describes the process of developing and piloting a multistakeholder survey (promoted and technically supported by WHO/Europe) on the topic of capacity for EIP. STUDY DESIGN: Rapid review and pilot cross-sectional survey. METHODS: A survey instrument was developed based on findings from the published literature and refined with input from EIP experts/champions. The online survey was then piloted using various recruitment strategies designed to maximise its reach among the key target groups (senior researchers, knowledge brokers and members of civil society). RESULTS: The rapid review revealed a clear gap in the evidence base in relation to broader surveys of capacity for EIP, as opposed to evidence-based practice at an individual level. Thirteen responses to the pilot survey were received from individuals in 10 European countries. Reported barriers to EIP included a lack of understanding among policymakers and a lack of interaction with researchers. There were examples of efforts to enhance capacity for EIP, both at region or country level and through membership of international networks and collaborations. However, few examples were given of the application and impact of research evidence on the policymaking process. CONCLUSION: This research has demonstrated the feasibility of developing and piloting a multicountry, multistakeholder survey to generate better understanding of evidence use in health policymaking. Next steps include incorporating the lessons learned into a revised version of the survey to be implemented with all 53 WHO/Europe Member States.