A taxonomy of demand-driven questions for use by evidence producers, intermediaries and decision-makers: results from a cross-sectional survey.

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Cristián Mansilla, Arthur Sweetman, Gordon Guyatt, John N Lavis
{"title":"A taxonomy of demand-driven questions for use by evidence producers, intermediaries and decision-makers: results from a cross-sectional survey.","authors":"Cristián Mansilla, Arthur Sweetman, Gordon Guyatt, John N Lavis","doi":"10.1186/s12961-024-01160-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Globally, a growing number of calls to formalize and strengthen evidence-support systems have been released, all of which emphasize the importance of evidence-informed decision making. To achieve this, it is critical that evidence producers and decision-makers interact, and that decision-makers' evidence needs can be efficiently translated into questions to which evidence producers can respond. This paper aims to create a taxonomy of demand-driven questions for use by evidence producers, intermediaries (i.e., people working in between researchers and decision-makers) and decision-makers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a global cross-sectional survey of units providing some type of evidence support at the explicit request of decision-makers. Unit representatives were invited to answer an online questionnaire where they were asked to provide a list of the questions that they have addressed through their evidence-support mechanism. Descriptive analyses were used to analyze the survey responses, while the questions collected from each unit were iteratively analyzed to create a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive list of types of questions that can be answered with some form of evidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-nine individuals completed the questionnaire, and more than 250 submitted questions were analysed to create a taxonomy of 41 different types of demand-driven questions. These 41 questions were organized by the goal to be achieved, and the goals were grouped in the four decision-making stages (i) clarifying a societal problem, its causes and potential impacts; (ii) finding and selecting options to address a problem; (iii) implementing or scaling-up an option; and (iv) monitoring implementation and evaluating impacts.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive list of demand-driven questions will help decision-makers (to ask and prioritize questions), evidence producers (to organize and present their work), and evidence-intermediaries (to connect evidence needs with evidence supply).</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"22 1","pages":"78"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11225415/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Research Policy and Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01160-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Globally, a growing number of calls to formalize and strengthen evidence-support systems have been released, all of which emphasize the importance of evidence-informed decision making. To achieve this, it is critical that evidence producers and decision-makers interact, and that decision-makers' evidence needs can be efficiently translated into questions to which evidence producers can respond. This paper aims to create a taxonomy of demand-driven questions for use by evidence producers, intermediaries (i.e., people working in between researchers and decision-makers) and decision-makers.

Methods: We conducted a global cross-sectional survey of units providing some type of evidence support at the explicit request of decision-makers. Unit representatives were invited to answer an online questionnaire where they were asked to provide a list of the questions that they have addressed through their evidence-support mechanism. Descriptive analyses were used to analyze the survey responses, while the questions collected from each unit were iteratively analyzed to create a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive list of types of questions that can be answered with some form of evidence.

Results: Twenty-nine individuals completed the questionnaire, and more than 250 submitted questions were analysed to create a taxonomy of 41 different types of demand-driven questions. These 41 questions were organized by the goal to be achieved, and the goals were grouped in the four decision-making stages (i) clarifying a societal problem, its causes and potential impacts; (ii) finding and selecting options to address a problem; (iii) implementing or scaling-up an option; and (iv) monitoring implementation and evaluating impacts.

Conclusion: The mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive list of demand-driven questions will help decision-makers (to ask and prioritize questions), evidence producers (to organize and present their work), and evidence-intermediaries (to connect evidence needs with evidence supply).

供证据制作者、中介机构和决策者使用的需求驱动型问题分类法:横向调查的结果。
背景:在全球范围内,已经有越来越多的呼吁要求正式建立并加强证据支持系统,所有这些呼吁都强调了有证据支持的决策的重要性。要实现这一目标,证据生产者和决策者之间的互动至关重要,决策者的证据需求可以有效地转化为证据生产者可以回应的问题。本文旨在创建需求驱动型问题分类法,供证据生产者、中间人(即在研究者和决策者之间工作的人)和决策者使用:我们对应决策者明确要求提供某种证据支持的单位进行了一次全球性横向调查。我们邀请单位代表回答一份在线问卷,要求他们提供一份他们通过证据支持机制解决的问题清单。我们使用描述性分析方法对调查回答进行分析,同时对从每个单位收集到的问题进行反复分析,以创建一个相互排斥且共同详尽的问题类型清单,这些问题可以通过某种形式的证据来回答:29 人填写了调查问卷,对提交的 250 多个问题进行了分析,得出了由 41 个不同类型的需求驱动型问题组成的分类法。这 41 个问题按照要实现的目标进行了分类,并将这些目标归纳为四个决策阶段:(i) 厘清社会问题、其原因和潜在影响;(ii) 寻找和选择解决问题的方案;(iii) 实施或扩大方案;(iv) 监督实施情况和评估影响:结论:需求驱动型问题清单相互排斥且共同详尽,有助于决策者(提出问题并确定问题的优先次序)、证据制作者(组织并展示其工作)和证据中介(将证据需求与证据供应联系起来)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Research Policy and Systems
Health Research Policy and Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.50%
发文量
124
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Research Policy and Systems is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that aims to provide a platform for the global research community to share their views, findings, insights and successes. Health Research Policy and Systems considers manuscripts that investigate the role of evidence-based health policy and health research systems in ensuring the efficient utilization and application of knowledge to improve health and health equity, especially in developing countries. Research is the foundation for improvements in public health. The problem is that people involved in different areas of research, together with managers and administrators in charge of research entities, do not communicate sufficiently with each other.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信