Predicting research use in a public health policy environment: results of a logistic regression analysis

Implementation Science

Alex Collie¹  Pauline Zardo¹ 

[1] Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne 3004, Australia

关键词: Intervention;    Research translation;    Government;    Decision-making;    Policy;    Factors;    Predictors;    Research use;   

Others  :  1139535
DOI  :  10.1186/s13012-014-0142-8

 received in 2013-11-28, accepted in 2014-09-19,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Use of research evidence in public health policy decision-making is affected by a range of contextual factors operating at the individual, organisational and external levels. Context-specific research is needed to target and tailor research translation intervention design and implementation to ensure that factors affecting research in a specific context are addressed. Whilst such research is increasing, there remain relatively few studies that have quantitatively assessed the factors that predict research use in specific public health policy environments.

Method

A quantitative survey was designed and implemented within two public health policy agencies in the Australian state of Victoria. Binary logistic regression analyses were conducted on survey data provided by 372 participants. Univariate logistic regression analyses of 49 factors revealed 26 factors that significantly predicted research use independently. The 26 factors were then tested in a single model and five factors emerged as significant predictors of research over and above all other factors.

Results

The five key factors that significantly predicted research use were the following: relevance of research to day-to-day decision-making, skills for research use, internal prompts for use of research, intention to use research within the next 12 months and the agency for which the individual worked.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that individual- and organisational-level factors are the critical factors to target in the design of interventions aiming to increase research use in this context. In particular, relevance of research and skills for research use would be necessary to target. The likelihood for research use increased 11- and 4-fold for those who rated highly on these factors. This study builds on previous research and contributes to the currently limited number of quantitative studies that examine use of research evidence in a large sample of public health policy and program decision-makers within a specific context. The survey used in this study is likely to be relevant for use in other public health policy contexts.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Zardo and Collie; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Moore G, Redman S, Haines M, Todd A: What works to increase the use of research in population health policy and programmes: a review. Evid Pol 2011, 7(3):277-305.
• [2]Davies P: The state of evidence-based policy evaluation and its role in policy formation. National Institute Economic Review 2012, 219(1):R41-R52.
• [3]Research Translation Faculty. 2013.
• [4]Rymer L: Measuring The Impact Of Research¿The Context For Metric Development. The Group of Eight, Canberra; 2011.
• [5]Lavis J, Ross S, McLeod C, Gildiner A: Measuring the impact of health research. J Health Serv Res Policy 2003, 8(3):165-170.
• [6]Orton L, Lloyd-Williams F, Taylor-Robinson D, O¿Flaherty M, Capewell S: The use of research evidence in public health decision making processes: systematic review. PLoS One 2011, 6(7):e21704.
• [7]Grimshaw J, Eccles M, Lavis J, Hill S, Squires J: Knowledge translation of research findings. Implement Sci 2012, 7(1):50. BioMed Central Full Text
• [8]Glasgow RE, Emmons KM: How can we increase translation of research into practice? Types of evidence needed. Annu Rev Public Health 2007, 28:413-433.
• [9]Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K: Realist review¿a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005, 10:21-34.
• [10]Greenhalgh , Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O: Diffusion of innovations in service organisations: systematic review and recommendations. Millbank Q 2004, 82(4):581-629.
• [11]Bowen Z: Pathways to ¿evidence-informed¿ policy and practice: a framework for action. PLoS Med 2005, 2(7):e166.
• [12]Lavis JN, Røttingen JA, Bosch-Capblanch X, Atun R, El-Jardali F, Gilson L, Lewin S, Oliver S, Ongolo-Zogo P, Haines A: Guidance for evidence-informed policies about health systems: linking guidance development to policy development. PLoS Med 2012, 9(3):e1001186.
• [13]Rycroft-Malone J, Seers K, Chandler J, Hawkes C, Crichton N, Allen C, Bullock I, Strunin L: The role of evidence, context, and facilitation in an implementation trial: implications for the development of the PARIHS framework. Implement Sci 2013, 8(1):28. BioMed Central Full Text
• [14]Chagnon F, Pouliot L, Malo C, Gervais M-J, Pigeon M-E: Comparison of determinants of research knowledge utilization by practitioners and administrators in the field of child and family social services. Implement Sci 2010, 5(1):41. BioMed Central Full Text
• [15]Stetler CB, Ritchie JA, Rycroft-Malone J, Schultz AA, Charns MP: Institutionalizing evidence-based practice: an organizational case study using a model of strategic change. Implement Sci 2009, 4(1):78. BioMed Central Full Text
• [16]Head B, Ferguson M, Cherney A, Boreham P: Are policy-makers interested in social research? Exploring the sources and uses of valued information among public servants in Australia. Pol Soc 2014, 33(2):89-101.
• [17]Australian Demographic Statistics. Commonwealth Government, Canberra; 2012.
• [18]Kothari A, Edwards N, Hamel N, Judd M: Is research working for you? validating a tool to examine the capacity of health organizations to use research.Implementation Science 2009, 4(46): doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-46.
• [19]Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, Lawton R, Parker D, Walker A: Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. Qual Saf Health Care 2005, 14:26-33.
• [20]Campbell DM, Redman S, Jorm L, Cooke M, Zwi AB, Rychetnik L: Increasing the use of evidence in health policy: practice and views of policy makers and researchers.Aust New Zealand Health Policy 2009, 6(21).
• [21]Amara N, Ouimet M, Landry R: New evidence on instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic utilization of university research in government agencies. Sci Comm 2004, 26(1):75-106.
• [22]Mitton C, Adair CE, McKenzie E, Patten SB, Waye PB: Knowledge transfer and exchange: review and synthesis of the literature. Milbank Q 2007, 85(4):729-768. Epub 2007/12/12
• [23]Streiner D: Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. J Pers Assess 2003, 80(1):99-103.
• [24]DeVellis RF: Scale Development Theory and Applications. Sage, Thousand Oaks; 2012.
• [25]Hosmer D, Lemeshow S: Applied Logistic Regression Second Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, N.J.; 2000.
• [26]Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J: A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res 2014, 14(1):2. BioMed Central Full Text
• [27]Haynes AS, Derrick GE, Chapman S, Redman S, Hall WD, Gillespie J, Sturk H: From ¿our world¿ to the ¿real world¿: exploring the views and behaviour of policy-influential Australian public health researchers. Soc Sci Med 2011, 72(7):1047-1055.
• [28]Haynes AS, Gillespie JA, Derrick GE, Hall WD, Redman S, Chapman S, Sturk H: Galvanizers, guides, champions, and shields: the many ways that policymakers use public health researchers. Milbank Q 2011, 89(4):564-598.
• [29]Cherney A, Head B, Boreham P, Povey J, Ferguson M: Perspectives of academic social scientists on knowledge transfer and research collaborations: a cross-sectional survey of Australian academics. Evid Pol 2012, 8(4):433-453.
• [30]Shine KT, Bartley B: Whose evidence base? The dynamic effects of ownership, receptivity and values on collaborative evidence-informed policy making. Evid Pol 2011, 7(4):511-530.
• [31]Banks G: Challenges of Evidence-Based Policy-Making. Edited by Commission APS. Commonweath of Australia, Canberra; 2009.
• [32]Lomas J: Master Class: Diffusion, Spread and Sustainability of Innovation Australian Primary Health Care Research Institute Lecture Series. Australian National University; 2011.
• [33]Ritter A: How do drug policy makers access research evidence? Int J Drug Policy 2009, 20(1):70-75.
• [34]Flitcroft K, Gillespie J, Salkeld G, Carter S, Trevena L: Getting evidence into policy: the need for deliberative strategies? Soc Sci Med 2011, 72(7):1039-1046.
• [35]Ouimet M, Bédard PO, Turgeon J, Lavis JN, Gélineau F, Gagnon F, Dallaire C: Correlates of consulting research evidence among policy analysts in government ministries: a cross-sectional survey. Evid Pol 2010, 6(4):433-460.
• [36]Ellen ME, Lavis JN, Ouimet M, Grimshaw J, Bédard P-O: Determining research knowledge infrastructure for healthcare systems: a qualitative study. Implement Sci 2011, 6(1):60. BioMed Central Full Text
• [37]Lavis JN, Lomas J, Hamid M, Sewankambo NK: Assessing country-level efforts to link research to action. Bull World Health Organ 2006, 84(8):620-628. Epub 2006/08/19
• [38]Lavis J: How can we support the use of systematic reviews in policymaking? PLoS Med 2009, 6(11):e1000141.
• [39]Landry R, Lamari M, Amara N: The extent and determinants of the utilization of university research in government agencies. Public Adm Rev 2003, 63(2):192-205.
• [40]Innvær S, Vist G, Trommald M, Oxman A: Health policy-makers¿ perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy 2002, 7(4):239-244.
• [41]Weiss CH, Bucuvalas MJ: Truth tests and utility tests: decision-makers¿ frames of reference for social science research. Am Sociol Rev 1980, 45(2):302-313.
• [42]Weiss JA, Weiss CH: Social scientists and decision makers look at the usefulness of mental health research. Am Psychol 1981, 36(8):837-847.
• [43]Kingdon JW: Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. HarperCollins College Publishers, New York; 1995.
• [44]Weiss CH: The many meanings of research utilization. Public Adm Rev 1979, 39(5):426-431.
• [45]Taylor RS, Reeves BC, Ewings PE, Taylor RJ: Critical appraisal skills training for health care professionals: a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN46272378]. BMC Med Educ 2004, 4(1):30. BioMed Central Full Text
• [46]Denis J-L, Lomas J, Stipich N: Creating receptor capacity for research in the health system: the Executive Training for Research Application (EXTRA) program in Canada. J Health Serv Res Policy 2008, 13(Suppl 1):1-7.
• [47]Azjen I, Czasch C: From intentions to behavior: implementation intention, commitment, and conscientiousness. J Appl Psychol 2009, 39(6):1356-1372.
• [48]Maio GR, Haddock G: Contemporary Perspectives on The Psychology of Attitudes, Volume xviii. Hove, U.K.; New York: Psychology Press; 2004:469.
• [49]Dobbins M, Hanna SE, Ciliska D, Manske S, Cameron R, Mercer SL, O'Mara L, DeCorby K, Robeson P: A randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of knowledge translation and exchange strategies.Implement Sci 2009, 61(4).
• [50]Centre for Informing Policy in Health with Evidence from Research. 2013.