ArticleHealth research policy and systems2015
Using conjoint analysis to develop a system to score research engagement actions by health decision makers.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of frameworks for the interrelationships of mental health evidence and policy in low- and middle-income countries.Health research policy and systems · 2018Pooled it
- From bench to policy: a critical analysis of models for evidence-informed policymaking in healthcare.Frontiers in public health · 2024Review
- Decision tool of medical endoscope maintenance service in Chinese hospitals: a conjoint analysis.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- A Virtual 3D Dynamic Model of Caries Lesion Progression as a Learning Object for Caries Detection Training and Teaching: Video Development Study.JMIR medical education · 2020Article
- How was research engaged with and used in the development of 131 policy documents? Findings and measurement implications from a mixed methods study.Implementation science : IS · 2019Article
- Audience segmentation to disseminate behavioral health evidence to legislators: an empirical clustering analysis.Implementation science : IS · 2018Article
- Organisational capacity and its relationship to research use in six Australian health policy agencies.PloS one · 2018Article
- Promoting evidence informed policymaking for maternal and child health in Nigeria: lessons from a knowledge translation workshop.Health promotion perspectives · 2018Article
- Preliminary testing of the reliability and feasibility of SAGE: a system to measure and score engagement with and use of research in health policies and programs.Implementation science : IS · 2017Article
- Policymakers' experience of a capacity-building intervention designed to increase their use of research: a realist process evaluation.Health research policy and systems · 2017Article
- The development of ORACLe: a measure of an organisation's capacity to engage in evidence-informed health policy.Health research policy and systems · 2016Article
- Using conjoint analysis to develop a system of scoring policymakers' use of research in policy and program development.Health research policy and systems · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.