IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i21p11014-d660445.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Policymakers’ Research Capacities, Engagement, and Use of Research in Public Health Policymaking

Author

Listed:
  • Natasa Loncarevic

    (Unit for Health Promotion Research, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Degnevej 14, 6700 Esbjerg, Denmark)

  • Pernille Tanggaard Andersen

    (Unit for Health Promotion Research, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Degnevej 14, 6700 Esbjerg, Denmark)

  • Anja Leppin

    (Unit for Health Promotion Research, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Degnevej 14, 6700 Esbjerg, Denmark)

  • Maja Bertram

    (Unit for Health Promotion Research, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Degnevej 14, 6700 Esbjerg, Denmark)

Abstract

The use of research in public health policymaking is one of the prerequisites for successfully implemented health policies which have better population health as an outcome. This policy process is influenced by the actors involved under the policy umbrella, with inter-related contextual factors and specific structural and institutional circumstances. Our study investigates how policymakers’ research capacities influence the use of research in the health policy process and identify areas where capacity-building interventions give the most meaning and impact. Furthermore, we investigate policymakers’ research engagement and use this to inform public health policy in the public sector in Denmark. We collect and report data using Seeking, Engaging with, and Evaluation Research (SEER) methodology. Policymakers are reported to have research capacity, but it is questionable how those competences have actually been used in policymaking. Decision-makers were often not aware or did not know about the existing organizational tools and systems for research engagement and use and two third of respondents had not been part of any research activities or had any collaboration with researchers. Overall, research use in public health policymaking and evaluation was limited. As a conclusion, we propose that capacity-building interventions for increasing research use and collaboration in EIPM should be context-oriented, measurable, and sustainable in developing individual and organizational competences.

Suggested Citation

  • Natasa Loncarevic & Pernille Tanggaard Andersen & Anja Leppin & Maja Bertram, 2021. "Policymakers’ Research Capacities, Engagement, and Use of Research in Public Health Policymaking," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-17, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:21:p:11014-:d:660445
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/21/11014/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/21/11014/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Redman, Sally & Turner, Tari & Davies, Huw & Williamson, Anna & Haynes, Abby & Brennan, Sue & Milat, Andrew & O'Connor, Denise & Blyth, Fiona & Jorm, Louisa & Green, Sally, 2015. "The SPIRIT Action Framework: A structured approach to selecting and testing strategies to increase the use of research in policy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 136, pages 147-155.
    2. Lois Orton & Ffion Lloyd-Williams & David Taylor-Robinson & Martin O'Flaherty & Simon Capewell, 2011. "The Use of Research Evidence in Public Health Decision Making Processes: Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-10, July.
    3. Kirsty Newman & Catherine Fisher & Louise Shaxson, 2012. "Stimulating Demand for Research Evidence: What Role for Capacity‐building?," IDS Bulletin, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 43(5), pages 17-24, September.
    4. Steve R. Makkar & Sue Brennan & Tari Turner & Anna Williamson & Sally Redman & Sally Green, 2016. "The development of SAGE: A tool to evaluate how policymakers’ engage with and use research in health policymaking," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 315-328.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pauline Zardo & Adrian G Barnett & Nicolas Suzor & Tim Cahill, 2018. "Does engagement predict research use? An analysis of The Conversation Annual Survey 2016," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-21, February.
    2. Temilade Sesan & Willie Siyanbola, 2021. "“These are the realities”: insights from facilitating researcher-policymaker engagement in Nigeria’s household energy sector," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    3. Paula Hooper & Sarah Foster & Billie Giles-Corti, 2019. "A Case Study of a Natural Experiment Bridging the ‘Research into Policy’ and ‘Evidence-Based Policy’ Gap for Active-Living Science," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-14, July.
    4. Jennifer Petkovic & Vivian Welch & Peter Tugwell, 2017. "PROTOCOL: Do evidence summaries increase health policy‐makers’ use of evidence from systematic reviews? A systematic review protocol," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(1), pages 1-18.
    5. Nancy Li & Markus Luczak-Roesch & Flavia Donadelli, 2023. "A computational approach to study the gap and barriers between science and policy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(1), pages 15-29.
    6. Roger W. Harris, 2016. "How ICT4D Research Fails the Poor," Information Technology for Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 177-192, January.
    7. Cyr, Pascale Renée & Jain, Vageesh & Chalkidou, Kalipso & Ottersen, Trygve & Gopinathan, Unni, 2021. "Evaluations of public health interventions produced by health technology assessment agencies: A mapping review and analysis by type and evidence content," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(8), pages 1054-1064.
    8. Harriet Koorts & Adrian Bauman & Nancy Edwards & William Bellew & Wendy J. Brown & Mitch J. Duncan & David R. Lubans & Andrew J. Milat & Philip J. Morgan & Nicole Nathan & Andrew Searles & Karen Lee &, 2022. "Tensions and Paradoxes of Scaling Up: A Critical Reflection on Physical Activity Promotion," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-16, November.
    9. Matthew Calver, 2016. "Measuring the Appropriate Outcomes for Better Decision-Making: A Framework to Guide the Analysis of Health Policy," CSLS Research Reports 2016-03, Centre for the Study of Living Standards.
    10. Courtney A. Cuthbertson & Don E. Albrecht & Scott Loveridge, 2017. "Rural versus urban perspectives on behavioral health issues and priorities," Community Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(4), pages 515-526, August.
    11. Grimm, Sven & Gensch, Mareike Magdalena & Hauf, Johanna & Prenzel, Julia & Rehani, Nitja & Senz, Sarah & Vogel, Olivier, 2018. "The interface between research and policy-making in South Africa: exploring the institutional framework and practice of an uneasy relationship," IDOS Discussion Papers 19/2018, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    12. Heather Munthe‐Kaas & Heid Nøkleby & Sarah Rosenbaum, 2022. "User experiences of structured stakeholder engagement to consider transferability: The TRANSFER approach," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), December.
    13. Pierre-Olivier Bédard, 2015. "The Mobilization of Scientific Evidence by Public Policy Analysts," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(3), pages 21582440156, September.
    14. Neal Hockley, 2014. "Cost–Benefit Analysis: A Decision-Support Tool or a Venue for Contesting Ecosystem Knowledge?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 32(2), pages 283-300, April.
    15. Rose N Oronje & Carol Mukiira & Elizabeth Kahurani & Violet Murunga, 2022. "Training and mentorship as a tool for building African researchers’ capacity in knowledge translation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(3), pages 1-19, March.
    16. Zardo, Pauline & Collie, Alex & Livingstone, Charles, 2014. "External factors affecting decision-making and use of evidence in an Australian public health policy environment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 120-127.
    17. El-Jardali, Fadi & Bou-Karroum, Lama & Ataya, Nour & El-Ghali, Hana Addam & Hammoud, Rawan, 2014. "A retrospective health policy analysis of the development and implementation of the voluntary health insurance system in Lebanon: Learning from failure," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 45-54.
    18. Toro Andrew Jacob & Omondi Richard Mc’Otieno & Anne Omondi Kerubo, 2020. "The Impact of Industrial Unrest on Selected Performance Outcomes of Health Institutions: A Case of Kiambu County, Kenya," International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation, International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI), vol. 7(11), pages 177-188, November.
    19. P Th Houngbo & H L S Coleman & M Zweekhorst & Tj De Cock Buning & D Medenou & J F G Bunders, 2017. "A Model for Good Governance of Healthcare Technology Management in the Public Sector: Learning from Evidence-Informed Policy Development and Implementation in Benin," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-22, January.
    20. Dagenais, Christian & Dupont, Didier & Brière, Frédéric N. & Mena, Diego & Yale-Soulière, Gabrielle & Mc Sween-Cadieux, Esther, 2020. "Codifying explicit and tacit practitioner knowledge in community social pediatrics organizations: Evaluation of the first step of a knowledge transfer strategy," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:21:p:11014-:d:660445. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.