Evidence & Policy最新文献

{"title":"Local politicians in action? The relationship between perceived prerequisites and actions of political committees responsible for social services in supporting the implementation of evidence-based practice","authors":"A. Bäck, U. V. T. Schwarz, Anna Bergström, H. Hasson, A. Richter","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16178101375342","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16178101375342","url":null,"abstract":"Background: A supportive context is essential for successful implementation processes. Local politicians are delivery system actors who might both enable and hinder the implementation of health and social policies. Aims and objectives: The study examines the relationship between perceived prerequisites and the type of actions taken by local political committees to support the implementation of evidence-based practice in social services. Methods: A cross-sectional web survey targeting the chair and vice-chair of committees responsible for social services in Sweden (n=181). The data was analysed with regression analysis, cluster analysis and ANOVA. Findings: Three clusters of action were identified (passive, neutral and active), capturing the reported actions taken by the committees to support implementation of EBP. The committees’ perceived prerequisites (capability, motivation, and opportunity) were highest in the active cluster and lowest in the passive cluster. The clusters also differed regarding chair/vice-chair educational level, and type of municipality in which the chair/vice-chair were active. Discussions and conclusion: The variation in reported actions among the committees to support the implementation of EBP implies that some social service organisations might lack the contextual support they need for implementing EBP. The prerequisites for the committees might need to be strengthened with regard to capability, motivation and opportunity. This study is an indication of the relationship between committees’ prerequisites and their actions in the implementation of EBP, but further research is needed.Key messagesThis study contributes to the literature on the contextual factors that may facilitate local politicians’ actions regarding the implementation of evidence-based practice (EBP).The reported actions taken by the political committees to support the implementation of EBP varied greatly.Strengthening the prerequisites of political committees should not only encompass capability, but also motivation and opportunity.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66286460","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Does evaluation quality enhance evaluation use?","authors":"Pirmin Bundi, Kathrin Frey, T. Widmer","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16141794148067","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16141794148067","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Evaluations are a useful tool to learn more about the effectiveness of public measures. In the era of evidence-based policymaking, recent research suggests that quality is an important determinant of the utilisation of evaluations. Despite this claim, hardly any empirical study has investigated whether the quality of an evaluation – measured by a meta-evaluation – influences its perceived utilisation by decision makers.Aims and objectives: This article asks how the quality of an evaluation study is related to its perceived use, and investigates the relationship between the quality of an evaluation, assessed through a meta-evaluation, and how the evaluation is perceived and accepted by the parties concerned.Methods: The basis for the empirical analyses were 34 external evaluations, conducted from 2006 to 2014, of upper secondary schools in the canton of Zurich, as well as a standardised survey conducted among 307 representatives of these schools (teachers, administrators, members of quality development teams, and the heads of school oversight commissions).Findings: We conclude that the quality of the evaluation, as assessed in a meta-evaluation, is not particularly associated with the perception of evaluation quality and the perceived use of the evaluation. The perceived quality, however, is related to the perceived impact of an evaluation.Discussion and conclusion: These findings are relevant for evaluation research and practice, since they show that the quality of an evaluation and evaluation use do not necessarily go hand in hand.Key messagesEvaluators have to be aware that a systematically assessed quality of an evaluation does not go hand in hand with the perceived quality of that evaluation;Evaluators often focus on the instrumental form of evaluation use, but they should not ignore other forms of use and maybe try to maximise these utilisation forms in the design of their evaluation;Evaluators should be more active in advising stakeholders when it comes to evaluation use, for example, through policy narratives;Evaluators should carefully think about the measurement of evaluation quality and evaluation effects in research on evaluation.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66285630","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Disability and family violence prevention: a case study on participation in evidence making","authors":"S. Robinson, Kylie Valentine, Jan Idle","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16143457505305","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16143457505305","url":null,"abstract":"Background: The paper draws on empirical evidence from a project investigating service responses to disabled women and children experiencing domestic and family violence (DFV). Service provision in these sectors is often rationed due to resource constraints, and increasingly marketised, and disabled people often do not have their needs met. Their opportunities for participation in policy and practice are also constrained.Aims and objectives: Our aim is to bring critical studies of intersectionality into dialogue with ‘evidence-making’ scholarship on policy implementation, to allow for new analyses of the inclusion of lived experience expertise in policy.We ask: What are the potential drivers for new forms of practice and evidence making in policy and service settings?Methods: The multi-method study comprised literature and policy review and qualitative research about the experience and implementation of an early intervention violence prevention support programme. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with mothers (n=27) and children (n=7), and service providers (n=28).Findings: Many mothers did not identify as disabled, although they discussed the effects of impairment. However, children were all diagnosed, and diagnosis was a means of accessing funding and services. The service was focused on brokering responses to family needs, and formal participation mechanisms for clients were not prioritised.Discussion and conclusion: Resource constraints and workforce capacity are ongoing concerns in the disability and violence prevention sectors. Relationships that facilitate trust, agency and choice remain key. Insights from critical policy scholarship suggest opportunities to recognise existing relationships as participation, with implications for policy and practice.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66285652","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Understanding knowledge brokerage and its transformative potential: a Bourdieusian perspective","authors":"Sarah Chew, N. Armstrong, G. Martin","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16149632470114","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16149632470114","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Knowledge brokering is promoted as a means of enabling exchange between fields and closer collaboration across institutional boundaries. Yet examples of its success in fostering collaboration and reconfiguring boundaries remain few.Aims and objectives: We consider the introduction of a dedicated knowledge-brokering role in a partnership across healthcare research and practice, with a view to examining the interaction between knowledge brokers’ location and attributes and the characteristics of the fields across which they work.Methods: We use qualitative data from a four-year ethnographic study, including observations, interviews, focus groups, reflective diaries and other documentary sources. Our analysis draws on Pierre Bourdieu’s conceptual framework.Findings: In efforts to transform the boundaries between related but disjointed fields, a feature posited as advantageous – knowledge brokers’ liminality – may in practice work to their disadvantage. An unequal partnership between two fields, where the capitals (the resources, relationships, markers of prestige and forms of knowledge) valued in one are privileged over the other, left knowledge brokers without a prior affiliation to either field adrift between the two.Discussion and conclusions: Lacking legitimacy to act across fields and bridge the gap between them, knowledge brokers are likely to seek to develop their skills on one side of the boundary, focusing on more limited and conservative activities, rather than advance the value of a distinctive array of capitals in mediating between fields. We identify implications for the construction and deployment of knowledge-brokering interventions towards collaborative objectives.Key messagesKnowledge brokers are vaunted as a means of translating knowledge and removing barriers between fields;Their position ‘in between’ fields is important, but their influence in those fields may be limited;Lacking the resources and relationships to work across fields, they may align with only one;Both the structure of fields and the prior knowledge and habitus of brokers will influence knowledge brokerage’s success.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66286352","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Embedding researchers into organisations: a study of the features of embedded research initiatives","authors":"Vicky Ward, T. Tooman, Benet Reid, H. Davies, M. Marshall","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16165177580453","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16165177580453","url":null,"abstract":"Background: ‘Embedded research’ (co-locating researchers within non-academic organisations) is advocated as a way of developing more effective services through better creation and application of knowledge.Aims and objectives: The existing literature on embedded initiatives has largely been descriptive. There has been less in the way of analysis, for example, disaggregating the components of such schemes, unpacking underpinning logics, or comparing the diverse ways in which schemes are instantiated. We aimed to explore the nature and organisation of such schemes in health settings in the UK, with the objective of providing a systematised means of understanding their makeup.Methods: This study uses a focused literature review combined with a systematic scoping exercise of extant initiatives. We assembled documentation on each scheme (n=45) and conducted in-depth interviews in twelve of them (n=17). Analytically, we focused on surfacing and articulating the key features of embedded research initiatives in relation to their intent, structure and processes. Findings were then tested and validated during a co-production workshop with embedded researchers and their managers.Findings: We identified 26 ‘clusters’ of peer-reviewed papers detailing specific embedded research initiatives, and we explored 45 extant initiatives. The initiatives were varied in intent, structure and processes, but we were able to surface ten themes representing common features: intended outcomes, power dynamics, scale, involvement, proximity, belonging, functional activities, skill and expertise, relational roles, and learning and reflection.Discussion and conclusion: The themes uncovered can be used as a framework for guiding further systematic and evaluative enquiry on embedded research initiatives.Key messagesEmbedded research initiatives come in a range of different shapes and sizes;Despite this variety, initiatives share a number of common features;An understanding of these features can promote dialogue about the design and management of embedded initiatives;These features can also guide systematic and evaluative enquiry of such initiatives.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66286396","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Why is lived experience important for market stewardship? A proposed framework for why and how lived experience should be included in stewarding disability markets","authors":"A. Meltzer, H. Dickinson, Eleanor Malbon, Gemma Carey","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16142714946996","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16142714946996","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Many countries use market forces to drive reform across disability supports and services. Over the last few decades, many countries have individualised budgets and devolved these to people with disability, so that they can purchase their own choice of supports from an available market of services.Key points for discussion: Such individualised, market-based schemes aim to extend choice and control to people with disability, but this is only achievable if the market operates effectively. Market stewardship has therefore become an important function of government in guiding markets and ensuring they operate effectively.The type of evidence that governments tend to draw on in market stewardship is typically limited to inputs and outputs and has less insight into the outcomes services do or do not achieve. While this is a typical approach to market stewardship, we argue it is problematic and that a greater focus on outcomes is necessary.Conclusions and implications: To include a focus on outcomes, we argue that market stewards need to take account of the lived experience of people with disability. We present a framework for doing this, drawing on precedents where people with disability have contributed lived experience evidence within other policy, research, knowledge production and advocacy contexts.With the lived experience evidence of people with disability included, market stewardship will be better able to take account of outcomes as they play out in the lives of those using the market and, ultimately, achieve greater choice and control for people with disability.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66285920","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A framework to support the design and cultivation of embedded research initiatives","authors":"Vicky Ward, T. Tooman, Benet Reid, H. Davies, Breid O’ Brien, Liz Mear, M. Marshall","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16165177707227","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16165177707227","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Embedded research involves co-locating researchers within non-academic organisations to better link research and practice. Embedded research initiatives are often complex and emergent with a range of underlying intents, structures and processes. This can create tensions within initiatives and contributes to ongoing uncertainty about the most suitable designs and the effectiveness of different approaches.Aims and objectives: We aimed to devise a practical framework to support those designing and cultivating embedded research by operationalising findings from an extensive study of existing initiatives.Key conclusions: The underpinning research on embedded initiatives – a literature review and scoping exercise of initiatives in health settings across the UK – showed that such initiatives share ten common sets of concerns in relation to their intent, structure and processes. We used these insights during a co-production workshop with embedded researchers and their managers that made use of a range of creative activities.The workshop resulted in a practical framework (and associated web-based tools) that draw on the metaphor of a garden to represent the growing, emergent nature of embedded research initiatives and the active work which individuals and organisations need to put into planning and maintaining such initiatives. Each of the aspects is represented as a separate area within the garden using relevant visual metaphors. Building on this, we also present a series of reflective questions designed to facilitate discussion and debate about design features, and we link these to the wider literature, thereby helping those involved to articulate and discuss their preferences and expectations.Key messagesEmbedded research initiatives are becoming increasingly popular across public sector organisations;There are many choices to be made when designing an embedded research initiative, and fresh challenges and tensions emerge as initiatives unfold;We present a structured, multilayered framework to support those designing, analysing and managing embedded research initiatives;The framework can support transparency, dialogue, agreement of expectations and ongoing learning within and between initiatives.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66286411","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Creating an action plan to advance knowledge translation in a domestic violence research network: a deliberative dialogue","authors":"Jacqui Cameron, C. Humphreys, A. Kothari, K. Hegarty","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16106634806152","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16106634806152","url":null,"abstract":"Background: There is limited research on how knowledge translation of a domestic violence (DV) research network is shared. This lack of research is problematic because of the complexity of establishing a research network, encompassing diverse disciplines, methods, and focus of study potentially impacting how knowledge translation functions.Aims and objectives: To address the limited research, we completed a deliberative dialogue with the following questions: Is there a consensus regarding a coherent knowledge translation framework for a domestic violence research network? What are the key actions that a domestic violence research network could take to enhance knowledge translation?Methods: Deliberative dialogue is a group process that blends research and practice to identify potential actions. In total, 16 participants attended three deliberative dialogue meetings. We applied a qualitative analysis to the data to identify the key actions.Findings: The deliberative dialogue facilitated mutual agreement regarding four key actions: (1) agreement on a knowledge translation approach; (2) active promotion of dedicated leadership within an authorising environment; (3) development of sustainable partnerships through capacity building and collaboration, particularly with DV survivors; and (4) employment of multiple strategies applying different kinds of evidence for diverse purposes and emerging populations.Discussion and conclusions: The use of the deliberative dialogue has uncovered specific factors required for the successful knowledge translation of domestic violence research. These factors have been added to the Integrated Knowledge Translation (IKT) capacity framework to enhance its application for domestic violence research. Future research could explore these organisational, professional and individual factors further by evaluating them in practice.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66285208","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Insights from system leaders about operationalising a knowledge translation department in the Oman Ministry of Health","authors":"S. M. Sabahi, Michael G. Wilson, J. Lavis, F. El-Jardali, Kaelan A. Moat","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16123709152129","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16123709152129","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Oman has prioritised enhanced efforts for supporting evidence-informed policymaking (EIPM), including establishing a knowledge translation department in the Omani Ministry of Health (MOH).Aim and objective: Our aim was to gather insights to guide the process of activating this department.Methods: We conducted a document review and in-depth, semi-structured interviews with policymakers, researchers, and stakeholders who are familiar with the Omani system.Findings: We conducted 17 interviews, which highlighted that policymakers in Oman use multiple sources of data and evidence to inform policymaking about health systems. However, several challenges to using evidence were identified, including low quality and limited availability of local evidence, system fragmentation, low interest in research, and lack of skills, capacity and time for finding, synthesising and using research evidence. Five possible activities for the department were refined with participants: building capacity, finding evidence, sparking action, embedding supports, and evaluating innovations. Participants viewed each of these activities as equally important and they should be pursued simultaneously. However, when asked to rank the most important option, participants identified capacity building as the most important to enable cultural changes needed within the MOH.Discussion and conclusions: This study provides insights for activating the knowledge translation department in the Omani MOH. Fully operationalising the department will require convening a codesign process to reach consensus on the scope of the activities undertaken by the department. Implementation will also require capitalising on the relevant experience of highly qualified staff and existing infrastructure as well as continuing to foster a supportive climate for EIPM.Key messagesA systematic and transparent approach is important for Oman to support evidence-informed policymaking;Enhancing the quality and quantity of local evidence is essential to support evidence-informed policymaking;Building capacity and ensuring sustainability are a priority when establishing a policy support organisation.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66285282","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Empathy is key: addressing obstacles to policy progress of ‘work-focused healthcare’","authors":"S. Bartys, Rachel Martin, C. Parker, Amanda J Edmondson, K. Burton","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16340308463939","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16340308463939","url":null,"abstract":"Background: In 2019, Public Health England commissioned the authors of this paper to conduct research examining healthcare professionals’ conversations about work with their patients to inform policy aimed at reducing work loss due to ill health.Aims and objectives: The purpose of this paper is to show how the commission provided a unique opportunity for the authors to collaborate with the funders to address obstacles to policy progress.Methods: A steering group was established to revise the original remit of research. In outlining that process here, qualitative data collected from a wide range of healthcare professionals as part of the commission are presented for the first time. We are able to further illuminate and expand on the previously published report findings and policy recommendations, revealing novel insights on researcher-policy engagement.Findings: Robust implementation of ‘work-focused healthcare’ policy has been limited, resulting in an overwhelming lack of empirical data and misguided directives. However, the existing evidence did provide important information about obstacles to policy progress and how to overcome them. The qualitative data were instrumental in this respect, with healthcare professionals revealing various interpretations of, and discourse on the policy.Discussion and conclusions: This paper adds to the expanding literature which suggests that long term, mutualistic, collaborative working is central to addressing barriers to improving evidence use and mobilising health policy into practice. It was shown that tacit, generous, open, empathic and ongoing knowledge exchange, advocacy, and alliances are needed.Key messagesThis paper builds on the literature which reports relationship- and skills-building with policymakers to be the most important factors in influencing the use of evidence and mobilising health policy into practice.A unique opportunity to participate in a continuous, informal, and timely exchange of information with decision makers to address obstacles to policy progress is described.Novel insights are revealed into the alliances needed between academic, policy, and healthcare professionals to implement ‘work-focused healthcare’.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66286928","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}