Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25928693›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2015

Using conjoint analysis to develop a system to score research engagement actions by health decision makers.

Steve R Makkar, Anna Williamson, Tari Turner, Sally Redman, Jordan Louviere

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Steve R MakkarThe Sax Institute, Level 13, Building 10, 235 Jones Street, Ultimo, New South Wales, 2007, Australia. steve.makkar@saxinstitute.org.au.
Anna WilliamsonThe Sax Institute, Level 13, Building 10, 235 Jones Street, Ultimo, New South Wales, 2007, Australia. anna.williamson@saxinstitute.org.au.
Tari TurnerWorld Vision Australia, 1 Vision Drive, Burwood East, Victoria, 3151, Australia. tari.turner@worldvision.com.au.
Sally RedmanThe Sax Institute, Level 13, Building 10, 235 Jones Street, Ultimo, New South Wales, 2007, Australia. sally.redman@saxinstitute.org.au.
Jordan LouviereSchool of Marketing, University of South Australia, Level 4, Yungondi Building, North Terrace, Adelaide, South Australia, 5000, Australia. jordan.louviere@unisa.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEffective use of research to inform policymaking can be strengthened by policymakers undertaking various research engagement actions (e.g., accessing, appraising, and applying research). Consequently, we developed a thorough measurement and scoring tool to assess whether and how policymakers undertook research engagement actions in the development of a policy document. This scoring tool breaks down each research engagement action into its key 'subactions' like a checklist. The primary aim was to develop the scoring tool further so that it assigned appropriate scores to each subaction based on its effectiveness for achieving evidence-informed policymaking. To establish the relative effectiveness of these subactions, we conducted a conjoint analysis, which was used to elicit the opinions and preferences of knowledge translation experts.

methodFifty-four knowledge translation experts were recruited to undertake six choice surveys. Respondents were exposed to combinations of research engagement subactions called 'profiles', and rated on a 1-9 scale whether each profile represented a limited (1-3), moderate (4-6), or extensive (7-9) example of each research engagement action. Generalised estimating equations were used to analyse respondents' choice data, where a utility coefficient was calculated for each subaction. A large utility coefficient indicates that a subaction was influential in guiding experts' ratings of extensive engagement with research.

resultsThe calculated utilities were used as the points assigned to the subactions in the scoring system. The following subactions yielded the largest utilities and were regarded as the most important components of engaging with research: searching academic literature databases, obtaining systematic reviews and peer-reviewed research, appraising relevance by verifying its applicability to the policy context, appraising quality by evaluating the validity of the method and conclusions, engaging in thorough collaborations with researchers, and undertaking formal research projects to inform the policy in question.

conclusionsWe have generated an empirically-derived and context-sensitive method of measuring and scoring the extent to which policymakers engaged with research to inform policy development. The scoring system can be used by organisations to quantify staff research engagement actions and thus provide them with insights into what types of training, systems, and tools might improve their staff's research use capacity.

Indexed as

Administrative PersonnelDecision Support TechniquesResearchChecklistHumansPolicy Making

Identifiers

PMID25928693
PMCPMC4443514

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.