1 / 29

Title page

Title page. Evidence Check: Commissioning better research syntheses Sally Redman, Danielle Campbell, Gai Moore. Sax Institute Mission. To improve health and increase the quality and performance of health services and programs by: building excellent policy and practice focused research and

keola
Download Presentation

Title page

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Title page Evidence Check: Commissioning better research syntheses Sally Redman, Danielle Campbell, Gai Moore

  2. Sax Institute Mission To improve health and increase the quality and performance of health services and programs by: • building excellent policy and practice focused research and • increasing the impact of this research on health policy, programs and services

  3. Is research used to inform policy in NSW? • Policy Maker Survey - 38 senior policy makers from the NSW Department of Health and Area Health Services • Researcher Survey - 41 senior researchers from 29 Universities and research centres across NSW

  4. Proportion perceiving a HIGH need to improve the use of research in policy Source: Policy Maker Survey and Researcher Survey

  5. Perceived facilitators of evidence in policy NSW policy makers • Better access to researchers • Better access to research/reviews • Policy-relevant research Innvaer et al, 2002 (Review of 24 interview studies of health policy makers) • Personal contact with researchers • Timely relevance • Inclusion of summaries & recommendations

  6. Increasing the impact of research:Some goals of the Sax Institute • Increase research in areas where NSW Health has knowledge priorities • Give policy makers more timely and effective access to research findings • Bring policy makers and researchers closer together to more easily understand each others expertise and priorities • Identify research findings that are of potential importance to policy and assist researchers to package and communicate their findings in ways that can influence the policy agenda.

  7. Ability to find research to inform policy in last 12 months • 68% found brief research summaries difficult or impossible to find • 84% found more systematic reviews difficult or impossible to find • Difficulty in finding research summaries nominated as one of greatest barriers to using evidence in policy Policy Maker Survey

  8. What goes wrong?Policy makers… Reviews are: • Too slow • Too focused on researcher’s interests rather than policy question • Too time consuming to commission • Too long with key messages buried • Focused on need for more research rather than best summary of current position

  9. Policy makers’ feedback about research reviews “I don’t think we use reviews much at all – people don’t even think of it” “A couple of times either I didn’t specify clearly enough what I wanted or the specs changed and what they produced...was awkward for the Department” “Also there’s the timing issue, you don’t want to have to put a lot of effort into a tendering process that won’t get you a product when you really need it”

  10. What goes wrong?Researchers.. Commissioned reviews: • Are often buried and cannot be published • Are frustrating because policy makers do not know what they want and change their mind • Compete with research through urgent tender requests

  11. Prop’n of researchers perceiving that little value is placed on efforts to get research into policy Source: Researcher Survey

  12. Evidence Check To enable policy makers to more readily access high quality reviews of research suited to their needs Will also: • Encourage researchers to undertake reviews for government • Result in greater knowledge of research expertise in NSW among policy makers

  13. Evidence Check Diagnosis Identification of expertise Review Commissioning Tool RADAR Partnership and production guidelines Knowledge Brokers Preferred Provider Rules

  14. Evidence Check: Diagnosis Evidence Check Commissioning Tool: Series of structured questions to assist policy makers to analyse and make explicit their needs Knowledge brokers: Individuals with experience in policy AND research - trained and supported to work between researchers and policy makers

  15. Commissioning Tool • Background and purpose of the policy • How will the review be used, at what stage in the policy process, and by whom? • What is the political context? • What risks are associated with the policy issue? • Questions to guide the review • What are the specific questions that need to be answered (define: intervention, target population and outcome)?

  16. Commissioning Tool • Timeframe and funding • Is an answer required immediately, in the short term, or in the long term? • What funds are available? • Depth of analysis of evidence • Systematic review or a summary of key findings? • Are strength and recency of evidence important? • Format of final product • How long should the report be? • What level of language is appropriate?

  17. Case Study: Advanced Care Planning

  18. Case Study: Type 2 Diabetes Prevention

  19. Evidence Check Diagnosis Identification of expertise Review Commissioning Tool RADAR Partnership and production guidelines Knowledge Brokers Preferred Provider Rules

  20. Evidence Check: Identifying expertise RADAR: Database 38 research centres and Universities that are members of the Sax Institute used to generate a database of expertise Selecting reviewers: Preferred provider Competitive tender avoided by decision rules for selecting individuals with best expertise based on discipline base (eg epidemiology, health economics), content knowledge (i.e. diseases, settings, interventions, and populations), and review experience

  21. Prop’n of researchers interested in commissioned research reviews Source: Researcher survey

  22. Evidence Check Diagnosis Identification of expertise Review Commissioning Tool RADAR Partnership and production guidelines Knowledge Brokers Preferred Provider Rules

  23. Evidence check: the review • Range of review types depending on policy issue • (eg systematic review, review of evaluations, ‘headline’ review) • Guidelines for reviewers • (eg CHSRF 1:3:25 format) • Translation process by knowledge broker

  24. Feedback from the pilot study • Provided a valuable framework for critical thinking and discussion among policy makers • Helped policy makers move from a general issue to specific questions • Helped policy makers anticipate the potential challenges and risks that could result in a product that does not meet policy needs

  25. Outcomes so far • 7 reviews using Evidence Check commissioned so far by NSW Health in broad range of areas:e.g. health workforce, diabetes prevention, HIV services, obesity, population health priorities • Rapid increase in demand over the past few months • 2 groups that used Evidence Check during pilot/early stages have returned with new project requests

  26. Case Study: Health Workforce

More Related