IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v8y2021i1d10.1057_s41599-021-00821-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Insights from a cross-sector review on how to conceptualise the quality of use of research evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Mark Rickinson

    (Monash University)

  • Connie Cirkony

    (Monash University)

  • Lucas Walsh

    (Monash University)

  • Jo Gleeson

    (Monash University)

  • Mandy Salisbury

    (Monash University)

  • Annette Boaz

    (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine)

Abstract

Recent decades have seen widespread efforts to improve the generation and use of evidence across a number of sectors. Such efforts can be seen to raise important questions about how we understand not only the quality of evidence, but also the quality of its use. To date, though, there has been wide-ranging debate about the former, but very little dialogue about the latter. This paper focuses in on this question of how to conceptualise the quality of research evidence use. Drawing on a systematic review and narrative synthesis of 112 papers from health, social care, education and policy, it presents six initial principles for conceptualising quality use of research evidence. These concern taking account of: the role of practice-based expertise and evidence in context; the sector-specific conditions that support evidence use; how quality use develops and can be evaluated over time; the salient stages of the research use process; whether to focus on processes and/or outcomes of evidence use; and the scale or level of the use within a system. It is hoped that this paper will act as a stimulus for future conceptual and empirical work on this important, but under-researched, topic of quality of use.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark Rickinson & Connie Cirkony & Lucas Walsh & Jo Gleeson & Mandy Salisbury & Annette Boaz, 2021. "Insights from a cross-sector review on how to conceptualise the quality of use of research evidence," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:8:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-021-00821-x
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-021-00821-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-021-00821-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-021-00821-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dobrow, Mark J. & Goel, Vivek & Lemieux-Charles, Louise & Black, Nick A., 2006. "The impact of context on evidence utilization: A framework for expert groups developing health policy recommendations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(7), pages 1811-1824, October.
    2. Schalock, Robert L. & Verdugo, Miguel Angel & Gomez, Laura E., 2011. "Evidence-based practices in the field of intellectual and developmental disabilities: An international consensus approach," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 273-282, August.
    3. Bridge, Tana J. & Massie, Enos Greer & Mills, Crystal S., 2008. "Prioritizing cultural competence in the implementation of an evidence-based practice model," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(10), pages 1111-1118, October.
    4. Kathryn Oliver & Annette Boaz, 2019. "Transforming evidence for policy and practice: creating space for new conversations," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-10, December.
    5. John Boswell, 2014. "‘Hoisted with our own petard’: evidence and democratic deliberation on obesity," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 345-365, December.
    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. Gaucher, Nathalie & Lantos, John & Payot, Antoine, 2013. "How do national guidelines frame clinical ethics practice? A comparative analysis of guidelines from the US, the UK, Canada and France," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 74-78.
    2. Giesbrecht, Melissa & Crooks, Valorie A. & Schuurman, Nadine & Williams, Allison, 2009. "Spatially informed knowledge translation: Informing potential users of Canada's Compassionate Care Benefit," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 411-419, August.
    3. Jonathan Breckon, 2022. "Communicating and using systematic reviews—Learning from other disciplines," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), December.
    4. Federica Angeli & Silvia Camporesi & Giorgia Dal Fabbro, 2021. "The COVID-19 wicked problem in public health ethics: conflicting evidence, or incommensurable values?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-8, December.
    5. Evans, Sarah & Scarbrough, Harry, 2014. "Supporting knowledge translation through collaborative translational research initiatives: ‘Bridging’ versus ‘blurring’ boundary-spanning approaches in the UK CLAHRC initiative," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 119-127.
    6. Anna Wesselink & Hal Colebatch & Warren Pearce, 2014. "Evidence and policy: discourses, meanings and practices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 339-344, December.
    7. Jos H M van Loon & Remco Mostert, 2020. "Guidelines in Supporting People with Intellectual Disabilities.It’s all About Values," Global Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 7(1), pages 13-17, October.
    8. Michelle Farr & Philippa Davies & Heidi Andrews & Darren Bagnall & Emer Brangan & Rosemary Davies, 2021. "Co-producing knowledge in health and social care research: reflections on the challenges and ways to enable more equal relationships," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-7, December.
    9. Schlaufer, Caroline, 2018. "The contribution of evaluations to the discourse quality of newspaper content," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 157-165.
    10. Steve Connelly & Dave Vanderhoven & Robert Rutherfoord & Liz Richardson & Peter Matthews, 2021. "Translating research for policy: the importance of equivalence, function, and loyalty," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    11. Robert L. Schalock & Ruth Luckasson & Karrie A. Shogren, 2020. "Going beyond Environment to Context: Leveraging the Power of Context to Produce Change," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-14, March.
    12. Gómez, Laura E. & Verdugo, Miguel Ángel & Arias, Benito & Navas, Patricia & Schalock, Robert L., 2013. "The development and use of Provider Profiles at the organizational and systems level," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 17-26.
    13. Sachit Mahajan & Ming-Kuang Chung & Jenny Martinez & Yris Olaya & Dirk Helbing & Ling-Jyh Chen, 2022. "Translating citizen-generated air quality data into evidence for shaping policy," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-18, December.
    14. Abelson, Julia & Forest, Pierre-Gerlier & Eyles, John & Casebeer, Ann & Martin, Elisabeth & Mackean, Gail, 2007. "Examining the role of context in the implementation of a deliberative public participation experiment: Results from a Canadian comparative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(10), pages 2115-2128, May.
    15. E. E. A. Wolf & Wouter Van Dooren, 2017. "How policies become contested: a spiral of imagination and evidence in a large infrastructure project," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(3), pages 449-468, September.
    16. Stucki, Iris, 2018. "Evidence-based arguments in direct democracy: The case of smoking bans in Switzerland," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 148-156.
    17. Yi Ran & Yuanyuan Hu & Shouming Chen & Fangjun Qiu & Ahmed Rabeeu, 2022. "The Impact of Two-Invoice System on Pharmaceutical Manufacturers’ Selling Expenses in China: A Difference-in-Differences Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-18, April.
    18. Wells, Susan J. & Merritt, Lani M. & Briggs, Harold E., 2009. "Bias, racism and evidence-based practice: The case for more focused development of the child welfare evidence base," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(11), pages 1160-1171, November.
    19. Kathryn Oliver & Warren Pearce, 2017. "Three lessons from evidence-based medicine and policy: increase transparency, balance inputs and understand power," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-7, December.
    20. van Loon, Jos H.M. & Bonham, Gordon S. & Peterson, Dale D. & Schalock, Robert L. & Claes, Claudia & Decramer, Adelien E.M., 2013. "The use of evidence-based outcomes in systems and organizations providing services and supports to persons with intellectual disability," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 80-87.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:pal:palcom:v:8:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-021-00821-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.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.