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

在对循证公共卫生的承诺日益增加的背景下，大量的研究探讨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“影响力”提供了新的指导方针。尽管大量研究表明，决策者往往象征性地使用证据，但这项工作似乎将增加研究证据的使用与改进其使用混为一谈（博斯韦尔，2009年）。此外，为研究人员提供的关于提高其研究的政策“影响”的建议通常假设，如果得到适当的阐述，政策制定者将欢迎这些努力（例如，拉维斯等人，2005年; Pope等人，2006年），尽管许多人声称证据已经过饱和（Stevens，2011年）。最后，公共卫生研究往往忽视“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）。该项目将使用定性方法来开始解决这些差距。首先，通过文献综述和与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，例如以政策为导向的系统评价，影响评估和“影响”准则/激励措施。会议将审议决策者是否对现有研究中确定为可能存在的以下风险感到关切：（史蒂文斯，2011年），将变得越来越负担过重（Smith &梅尔，2012年）;（ii）证据的“象征性”使用将增加（博斯韦尔，2009年;史密斯和梅尔，2012年）;（iii）循证政策要求将使新的公共卫生立法更难通过（史密斯等人，2010年a）。我也将探讨是否政策制定者的循证公共卫生政策的看法似乎是随着时间的推移或与特定的工具/系统通过比较借鉴我现有的（博士和博士后）data.Second，该项目将检查潜在的“研究中介”的作用，特别是第三部门和商业组织参与公共卫生政策组（例如公共卫生责任交易）。再次使用文献综述和访谈数据，但补充相关的文献分析（例如政策提交）和第三部门组织内的一系列短期职位，该项目将探讨这些参与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日益增长的兴趣（Chapman，2007; Kromm，2010）&企业公共卫生政策的影响（Freudenburg等人，2008年; Gilmore等人，2011）。最后，上述发现将为德尔菲对公共卫生研究人员的调查提供信息，研究用户，将研究不同群体认为如何在政策中使用研究应该受到激励和管理。研究结果将为不同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。理论上，研究结果将使我能够：解开政策制定者在促进证据使用的工具/激励措施方面的经验;概述“研究调解人”在公共卫生研究与政策之间的关系中的作用;并通过纳入“研究调解人”来发展理解研究与政策之间关系的概念框架，这是我在博士学位中提出的（见支持案例）。实际上，该项目将使我能够（与参与者）合作制定针对具体部门的建议，以使用证据来改善公共卫生政策。所有这些都应该加强我作为领先的知识转移和卫生政策学者的声誉

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