Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30987644›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2019

How are evidence generation partnerships between researchers and policy-makers enacted in practice? A qualitative interview study.

Anna Williamson, Hannah Tait, Fadi El Jardali, Luke Wolfenden, Sarah Thackway, Jessica Stewart, Lyndal O'Leary, Julie Dixon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Anna WilliamsonThe Sax Institute, PO Box K617, Haymarket, NSW, 1240, Australia. anna.williamson@saxinstitute.org.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0897-4769
Hannah TaitThe Sax Institute, PO Box K617, Haymarket, NSW, 1240, Australia.
Fadi El JardaliAmerican University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Luke WolfendenUniversity of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.
Sarah ThackwayNew South Wales Health, North Sydney, Australia.
Jessica StewartDepartment of Family and Community Services (FACS) Insights, Analysis and Research (FACSIAR), Ashfield, Australia.
Lyndal O'LearyWestern NSW & Far West Local Health Districts, Dubbo, Australia.
Julie DixonSouth Eastern Sydney Local Health District (SESLHD), Carringbah, Australia.

Funding

NSW Ministry of Health N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence generation partnerships between researchers and policy-makers are a potential method for producing more relevant research with greater potential to impact on policy and practice. Little is known about how such partnerships are enacted in practice, however, or how to increase their effectiveness. We aimed to determine why researchers and policy-makers choose to work together, how they work together, which partnership models are most common, and what the key (1) relationship-based and (2) practical components of successful research partnerships are.

methodsSemi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 18 key informants largely based in New South Wales, Australia, who were (1) researchers experienced in working in partnership with policy in health or health-related areas or (2) policy and programme developers and health system decision-makers experienced in working in partnership with researchers. Data was analysed thematically by two researchers.

resultsResearcher-initiated and policy agency-initiated evidence generation partnerships were common. While policy-initiated partnerships were thought to be the most likely to result in impact, researcher-initiated projects were considered important in advancing the science and were favoured by researchers due to greater perceived opportunities to achieve key academic career metrics. Participants acknowledged that levels of collaboration varied widely in research/policy partnerships from minimal to co-production. Co-production was considered a worthy goal by all, conferring a range of benefits, but one that was difficult to achieve in practice. Some participants asserted that the increased time and resources required for effective co-production meant it was best suited to evaluation and implementation projects where the tacit, experiential knowledge of policy-makers provided critical nuance to underpin study design, implementation and analysis. Partnerships that were mutually considered to have produced the desired outcomes were seen to be underpinned by a range of both relationship-based (such as shared aims and goals and trust) and practical factors (such as sound governance and processes).

conclusionsOur findings highlight the important role of policy-makers in New South Wales in ensuring the relevance of research. There is still much to understand about how to initiate and sustain successful research/policy partnerships, particularly at the highly collaborative end.

Indexed as

Administrative PersonnelCooperative BehaviorHealth PolicyHealth Services ResearchInterprofessional RelationsKnowledgeResearch PersonnelDelivery of Health CareEvidence-Based MedicineHumansNew South WalesPolicy Makingco-productionPartnershippolicy

Identifiers

PMID30987644
PMCPMC6466802

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.