Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2008 Dec 17:3:53.
doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-3-53.

Evidence-informed health policy 1 - synthesis of findings from a multi-method study of organizations that support the use of research evidence

Affiliations

Evidence-informed health policy 1 - synthesis of findings from a multi-method study of organizations that support the use of research evidence

John N Lavis et al. Implement Sci. .

Abstract

Background: Organizations have been established in many countries and internationally to support the use of research evidence by producing clinical practice guidelines, undertaking health technology assessments, and/or directly supporting the use of research evidence in developing health policy on an international, national, and state or provincial level. Learning from these organizations can reduce the need to 'reinvent the wheel' and inform decisions about how best to organize support for such organizations, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Methods: We undertook a multi-method study in three phases - a survey, interviews, and case descriptions that drew on site visits - and in each of the second and third phases we focused on a purposive sample of those involved in the previous phase. We used the seven main recommendations that emerged from the advice offered in the interviews to organize much of the synthesis of findings across phases and methods. We used a constant comparative method to identify themes from across phases and methods.

Results: Seven recommendations emerged for those involved in establishing or leading organizations that support the use of research evidence in developing health policy: 1) collaborate with other organizations; 2) establish strong links with policymakers and involve stakeholders in the work; 3) be independent and manage conflicts of interest among those involved in the work; 4) build capacity among those working in the organization; 5) use good methods and be transparent in the work; 6) start small, have a clear audience and scope, and address important questions; and 7) be attentive to implementation considerations, even if implementation is not a remit. Four recommendations emerged for the World Health Organization (WHO) and other international organizations and networks: 1) support collaborations among organizations; 2) support local adaptation efforts; 3) mobilize support; and 4) create global public goods.

Conclusion: This synthesis of findings from a multi-method study, along with the more detailed findings from each of the three phases of the study (which are reported in the three following articles in the series), provide a strong basis on which researchers, policymakers, international organizations (and networks) like WHO can respond to the growing chorus of voices calling for efforts to support the use of research evidence in developing health policy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. World Health Organization . World Report on Knowledge for Better Health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004.
    1. World Health Organization . Report from the Ministerial Summit on Health Research: Identify Challenges, Inform Actions, Correct Inequities. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004.
    1. World Health Assembly . Resolution 5834 on the Ministerial Summit on Health Research. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2005.
    1. Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1992;268:240–248. doi: 10.1001/jama.268.2.240. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. The science of reviewing research. Annals New York Academy of Sciences. 1993;703:125–134. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb26342.x. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources