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

生意有风险吗？

• 批准号: ES/K001728/1
• 负责人: Katherine Smith
• 金额: $ 21.99万
• 依托单位: University of Edinburgh
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Research Grant
• 财政年份: 2013
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2013 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=ES%2FK001728%2F1
• 关键词: Risky; Business; Politics; Knowledge; Transfer

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

在越来越多地致力于循证公共卫生的背景下，大量研究探索了如何在公共卫生决策中使用证据，其中一些研究为增加研究“影响”的新准则提供了信息。尽管大量研究表明政策制定者经常象征性地使用证据，但这项工作的大部分似乎将增加研究证据的使用与改进研究证据的使用混为一谈（Boswell, 2009）。此外，为研究人员提供的关于提高其研究的政策“影响”的建议往往假设，如果政策制定者恰当地阐述这些努力，他们将会欢迎（例如，Lavis等人，2005；Pope等人，2006），尽管许多说法已经被证据过度饱和（Stevens, 2011）。最后，公共卫生研究往往忽略了“政策网络”类型的理论，很少考虑“研究中介”的作用，如第三部门和私人利益（Kromm, 2010）。本项目将使用定性方法开始解决这些差距。首先，通过文献综述和对公共卫生政策制定者的访谈，该项目将探讨参与制定英国公共卫生政策的个人如何感知和体验增加/改善证据使用的努力。具体而言，它将研究这些行为者如何看待旨在支持在政策决策中使用证据的工具和系统，例如政策导向的系统审查、影响评估和对学术界的“影响”指南/激励措施。它将考虑政策制定者是否关心以下任何风险，这些风险在现有研究中被确定为可能性：(i)已经过度饱和的证据（Stevens, 2011）的政策制定者将变得越来越负担过重（Smith & Meer, 2012）；（ii）证据的“象征性”使用将会增加（Boswell, 2009; Smith & Meer, 2012）；（三）基于证据的政策要求将使通过新的公共卫生立法变得更加困难（Smith等人，2010年a）。我还将通过比较借鉴我现有的（博士和博士后）数据，探讨决策者对基于证据的公共卫生政策的看法是否随着时间的推移或与特定工具/系统有关而发生变化。其次，该项目将审查潜在的“研究调解人”的作用，特别是参与公共卫生政策团体（例如公共卫生责任协议）的第三部门和商业组织。再次使用文献综述和访谈数据，但辅以相关的文献分析（例如政策提交）和第三部门组织内的一系列短期安置，该项目将探索这些行为者如何告知公共卫生研究与政策之间的关系。该项目的这一部分将补充对公共卫生宣传（Chapman, 2007; Kromm, 2010）和企业公共卫生政策影响（Freudenburg等人，2008；Gilmore等人，2011）日益增长的兴趣。最后，上述调查结果将为公共卫生研究人员和研究用户的德尔菲调查提供信息，该调查将检查不同群体如何认为在政策中使用研究应该受到激励和管理。结果将为不同的群体提供定制的建议，以及为研究用户和调解人提供的手册和短期课程。从理论上讲，这些发现将使我能够：揭示决策者使用工具/激励措施以促进证据使用的经验；概述“研究调解人”在公共卫生研究与政策之间关系中的作用；并通过纳入“研究中介”，发展我在博士论文中提出的理解研究与政策之间关系的概念框架（见支持案例）。实际上，该项目将使我能够（与参与者）合作制定针对特定部门的建议，以利用证据改善公共卫生政策。所有这些都应该加强我作为知识转移和卫生政策学者的领先声誉

项目成果

Rethinking policy 'impact': four models of research-policy relations

• DOI: 10.1057/s41599-017-0042-z
• 发表时间: 2017-12-12
• 期刊: PALGRAVE COMMUNICATIONS
• 影响因子: 4
• 作者: Boswell, Christina;Smith, Katherine
• 通讯作者: Smith, Katherine

Social movements and public health advocacy in action: the UK People's Health Movement

• DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdv085
• 发表时间: 2016-09-01
• 期刊: JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
• 影响因子: 4.4
• 作者: Kapilashrami, Anuj;Smith, Katherine E.;Scandrett, Eurig
• 通讯作者: Scandrett, Eurig

Decentring Health Policy Learning from British Experiences in Healthcare Governance

去中心化卫生政策学习英国医疗治理经验

• 发表时间: 2017
• 作者: Ralston R

Studying Public Policy: An International Approach

研究公共政策：国际方法

• 发表时间: 2014
• 作者: Katikireddi, S.V.;Smith, K.E.
• 通讯作者: Smith, K.E.

Health Inequalities - Critical Perspectives

健康不平等 - 批判性观点

• DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198703358.003.0018
• 发表时间: 2015
• 作者: Barr B