How research funding agencies support science integration into policy and practice: An international overview

Implementation Science

Jean-Louis Denis¹  Pernelle A Smits² 

[1] ENAP (École Nationale d’Administration Publique), 4750 Henri Julien, Montréal, Québec H2T 3E5, Canada;Université de Montréal, C.P. 6128, succursale Centre-ville, Montréal, Québec H3C 3J7, Canada

关键词: Funding agency;    Policy;    Science;    International;    Knowledge use/utilization;    Knowledge funding agencies;    Knowledge management system;   

Others  :  805330
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-5908-9-28

 received in 2013-04-15, accepted in 2014-02-11,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Funding agencies constitute one essential pillar for policy makers, researchers and health service delivery institutions. Such agencies are increasingly providing support for science implementation. In this paper, we investigate health research funding agencies and how they support the integration of science into policy, and of science into practice, and vice versa.

Methods

We selected six countries: Australia, The Netherlands, France, Canada, England and the United States. For 13 funding agencies, we compared their intentions to support, their actions related to science integration into policy and practice, and the reported benefits of this integration. We did a qualitative content analysis of the reports and information provided on the funding agencies’ websites.

Results

Most funding agencies emphasized the importance of science integration into policy and practice in their strategic orientation, and stated how this integration was structured. Their funding activities were embedded in the push, pull, or linkage/exchange knowledge transfer model. However, few program funding efforts were based on all three models. The agencies reported more often on the benefits of integration on practice, rather than on policy. External programs that were funded largely covered science integration into policy and practice at the end of grant stage, while overlooking the initial stages. Finally, external funding actions were more prominent than internally initiated bridging activities and training activities on such integration.

Conclusions

This paper contributes to research on science implementation because it goes beyond the two community model of researchers versus end users, to include funding agencies. Users of knowledge may be end users in health organizations like hospitals; civil servants assigned to decision making positions within funding agencies; civil servants outside of the Ministry of Health, such as the Ministry of the Environment; politicians deciding on health-related legislation; or even university researchers whose work builds on previous research. This heterogeneous sample of users may require different user-specific mechanisms for research initiation, development and dissemination. This paper builds the foundation for further discussion on science implementation from the perspective of funding agencies in the health field. In general, case studies can help in identifying best practices for evidence-informed decision making.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Smits and Denis; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, Robinson N: Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof 2006, 26:13-24.
• [2]Landry R, Amara N, Lamari M: Climbing the Ladder of Research Utilization. Science Communication 2001, 22:396-422.
• [3]Lavis JN, Ross SE, Hurley JE, Hohenadel JM, Stoddart GL, Woodward CA, Abelson J: Examining the Role of Health Services Research in Public Policymaking. Milbank Q 2002, 80:125-154.
• [4]Lavis JN, Robertson D, Woodside JM, McLeod CB, Abelson J: How Can Research Organizations More Effectively Transfer Research Knowledge to Decision Makers? Milbank Q 2003, 81:221-248.
• [5]Ettelt S, Mays N: Health services research in Europe and its use for informing policy. J Health Serv Res & Policy 2011, 16:48-60.
• [6]Gluckman P: Towards better use of evidence in policy formation : a discussion paper. Office of the Prime Minister. Auckland, New Zealand: Science advisory committee; 2011:17.
• [7]Gold M: Pathways to the Use of Health Services Research in Policy. Health Serv Res 2009, 44:1111-1136.
• [8]Damschroder L, Aron D, Keith R, Kirsh S, Alexander J, Lowery J: Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science 2009, 4:50.
• [9]Klazinga N, Fischer C, ten Asbroek A: Health services research related to performance indicators and benchmarking in Europe. J Health Serv Res Policy 2011, 16:38-47.
• [10]Lomas J: Using ‘linkage and exchange’ to move research into policy at a Canadian foundation. Health Affairs 2000, 19:236-240.
• [11]Denis J-L, Lomas J: Convergent evolution: the academic and policy roots of collaborative research. J Health Serv Res Policy 2003, 8:1-6.
• [12]Graham I, Tetroe J: Getting Evidence into Policy and Practice: perspective of a Health Research Funder. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2009, 18:46-50.
• [13]Straus SE, Tetroe J, Graham I: Defining knowledge translation. CMAJ 2009, 181:165-168.
• [14]Weiss C: The Many Meanings of Research Utilization. Public Administration Review 1979, 39:426-431.
• [15]Leiden Universiy 2013. http://www.leiden.edu/ webcite
• [16]Kogan M, Henkel M: Government and research: The Rothschid Experiment in a government department. London: Heinemann; 1983.
• [17]Kogan M, Henkel M, Hanney S: Government and research: thirty years of evolution. 2nd edition. Dordrecht: Springer; 2006.
• [18]Heinze T: How to sponsor ground-breaking research: a comparison of funding schemes. Sci Public Policy 2008, 35:302-318.
• [19]Kastrinos N: Policies for co-ordination in the European Research Area: a view from the social sciences and humanities. Sci Public Policy 2010, 37:297-310.
• [20]Stampfer M, Pichler R, Hofer R: The making of research funding in Austria: transition politics and institutional development, 1945–2005. Sci Public Policy 2010, 37:765-780.
• [21]Braun D: Organising the political coordination of knowledge and innovation policies. Sci Public Policy 2008, 35:227-239.
• [22]Lepori B, van den Besselaar P, Dinges M, Pot B, Reale E, Slipers, ter S, Th ves J, van der Meulen B: Comparing the evolution of national research policies: what patterns of change? Sci Public Policy 2007, 34:372-388.
• [23]Sutherland WJ, Bellingan L, Bellingham JR, Blackstock JJ, Bloomfield RM, Bravo M, Cadman VM, Cleevely DD, Clements A, Cohen AS, Cope DR, Daemmrich AA, Devecchi C, Anadon LD, Denegri S, Doubleday R, Dusic NR, Evans RJ, Feng WY, Godfray HCJ, Harris P, Hartley SE, Hester AJ, Holmes J, Hughes A, Hulme M, Irwin C, Jennings RC, Kass GS, Littlejohns P, et al.: A Collaboratively-Derived Science-Policy Research Agenda. PLoS ONE 2012, 7:e31824.
• [24]Jacobson N: Social Epistemology. Science Communication 2007, 29:116-127.
• [25]Tetroe JM, Graham ID, Foy R, Robinson N, Eccles MP, Wensing M, Durieux P, Légaré F, Nielson CP, Adily A, Ward JE, Porter C, Shea B, Grimshaw JM: Health research funding agencies’ support and promotion of knowledge translation: an international study. Milbank Q 2008, 86(1):125-155.
• [26]Gholami J, Majdzadeh R, Nedjat S, Nedjat S, Maleki K, Ashoorkhani M, Yazdizadeh B: How should we assess knowledge translation in research organizations; designing a knowledge translation self-assessment tool for research institutes (SATORI). Health Res Policy Syst 2011, 9:10.
• [27]Denis JL, Lehoux P, Champagne F: A knowledge utilization perspective on fine-tuning dissemination and contextualisaing knowledge. In Using Knowledge and Evidence in Health Care: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Edited by Lemieux-charles L, Champagne F. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press; 2008:18-40.
• [28]Denis J-L, Lehoux P: Organizational theories. In Knowledge Translation in Health Care. United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2013:308-319.
• [29]Lavis J, Ross S, McLeod C, Gildiner A: Measuring the impact of health research. J Health Serv Res & Policy 2003, 8:165-170.
• [30]Consan Consulting: Analysis of NHMRC funded research in 1992 and 1997. Final report to EOWC and NHMRC. Book Analysis of NHMRC funded research in 1992 and 1997. Final report to EOWC and NHMRC 2005.
• [31]Ward V, House A, Hamer S: Developing a framework for transferring knowledge into action: a thematic analysis of the literature. J Health Serv Res & Policy 2009, 14:156-164.
• [32]Wilson P, Petticrew M, Calnan M, Nazareth I: Does dissemination extend beyond publication: a survey of a cross section of public funded research in the UK. Implementation Science 2010, 5:61.
• [33]Hanney S, Kuruvilla S, Soper B, Mays N: Who needs what from a national health research system: lessons from reforms to the English Department of Health’s R&D system. Health Res Policy Syst 2010, 8:11.
• [34]Slipersæter S, Lepori B, Dinges M: Between policy and science: Research councils’ responsiveness in Austria, Norway and Switzerland. Sci Public Policy 2007, 34:401-415.
• [35]Quevauviller P, Balabanis P, Fragakis C, Weydert M, Oliver M, Kaschl A, Arnold G, Kroll A, Galbiati L, Zaldivar JM, Bidoglio G: Science-policy integration needs in support of the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive. Environ Sci Policy 2005, 8:203-211.