A Risky Business? The Politics of Knowledge Transfer in Public Health

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

Against a backdrop of increasing commitments to evidence-informed public health, a wealth of studies explore how evidence is used in public-health decision-making, some of which have informed emerging guidelines for increasing research 'impact'. Much of this work appears to conflate increasing the use of research evidence with improving its use, despite the vast array of studies demonstrating that policymakers often employ evidence symbolically (Boswell, 2009). Moreover, advice for researchers on improving the policy 'impact' of their research frequently assumes that policymakers will welcome these efforts, if appropriately articulated (e.g. Lavis et al, 2005; Pope et al, 2006), in spite of claims many are already oversaturated with evidence (Stevens, 2011). Finally, often ignoring 'policy network' type theories, public health studies rarely consider the role of 'research mediators', such as third sector & private interests (Kromm, 2010). This project will use qualitative methods to begin addressing these gaps.First, via a literature review & interviews with public health policymakers, the project will explore how individuals involved in developing UK public health policies perceive & experience efforts to increase/improve the use of evidence. Specifically, it will examine how these actors view tools & systems designed to support the use of evidence in policy decisions, such as policy-orientated systematic reviews, impact assessments & 'impact' guidelines/incentives for academics. It will consider whether policymakers are concerned about any of the following risks, identified as possibilities in existing research: (i) policymakers, already oversaturated with evidence (Stevens, 2011), will become increasingly overburdened (Smith & Meer, 2012); (ii) the 'symbolic' use of evidence will increase (Boswell, 2009; Smith & Meer, 2012); & (iii) evidence-based policy requirements will make it harder to pass new public health legislation (Smith et al, 2010a). I will also explore whether policymakers' perceptions of evidence-based public health policy appear to be changing over time or in relation to particular tools/systems by comparatively drawing on my existing (PhD & Post-Doctoral) data.Second, the project will examine the role of potential 'research mediators', notably third sector & commercial organisations involved in public health policy groups (e.g. Public Health Responsibility Deals). Again using a literature review & interview data, but supplementing this with relevant documentary analysis (e.g. of policy submissions) & a series of short placements within third sector organisations, the project will explore how these actors inform the relationship between public health research & policy. This strand of the project will complement a growing interest in public health advocacy (Chapman, 2007; Kromm, 2010) & corporate public health policy influence (Freudenburg et al, 2008; Gilmore et al, 2011).Finally, the findings from the above will inform a Delphi survey of public health researchers & research users which will examine how different groups think the use of research in policy ought to be incentivised & governed. The results will inform bespoke recommendations for different groups, plus a manual & short course for research users & mediators.Theoretically, the findings will enable me to: unpack policymakers' experiences of tools/incentives to promote evidence use; outline the roles of 'research mediators' in the relationship between public health research & policy; & develop the ideational framework for understanding relationships between research & policy I set out in my PhD (see Case for Support) by incorporating 'research mediators'. Practically, the project will enable me to collaboratively develop (with participants) sector-specific recommendations for using evidence to improve public health policies. All of this should reinforce my emerging reputation as a leading knowledge transfer & health policy scholar