National strategies for knowledge translation in health policy-making: A scoping review of grey literature

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Without strategic actions in its support, the translation of scientific research evidence into health policy is often absent or delayed. This review systematically maps and assesses national-level strategic documents in the field of knowledge translation (KT) for health policy, and develops a practical template that can support Evidence-informed Policy Network (EVIPNet) Europe countries in producing national strategies for evidence-informed policy-making.

METHODS

Websites of organizations with strategic responsibilities in KT were electronically searched, on the basis of pre-defined criteria, in July-August 2017, and an updated search was carried out in April-June 2021. We included national strategies or elements of national strategies that dealt with KT activities, as well as similar strategies of individual institutions with a national policy focus. Two reviewers screened the strategies for inclusion. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 65 unique documents were identified, of which 17 were eligible and analysed for their structure and content. Of the 17, 1 document was a national health KT action plan and 6 documents were institution-level KT strategies. The remaining 10 strategies, which were also included were 2 national health strategies, 5 national health research strategies and 3 national KT strategies (not specific to the field of health alone). In all, 13 structural elements and 7 major themes of health policy KT strategies were identified from the included documents.

CONCLUSION

KT in health policy, as emerged from the national strategies that our mapping identified, is based on the production and accessibility of policy-relevant research, its packaging for policy-making and the activities related to knowledge exchange. KT strategies may play different roles in the complex and context-specific process of policy-making. Our findings show that the main ideas of health-specific evidence-informed policy literature appear in these strategies, but their effectiveness depends on the way stakeholders use them. Specific knowledge-brokering institutions and organizational capacity, advocacy about the use of evidence, and close collaboration and co-decision-making with key stakeholders are essential in furthering the policy uptake of research results.

Institutional roles, structures, funding and research partnerships towards evidence-informed policy-making: a multisector survey among policy-makers in Nigeria

BACKGROUND

Evidence-informed policy-making aims to ensure that the best and most relevant evidence is systematically generated and used for policy-making. The aim of this study was to assess institutional structures, funding, policy-maker perspectives on researcher-policy-maker interactions and the use of research evidence in policy-making in five states in Nigeria.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study carried out among 209 participants from two geopolitical zones in Nigeria. Study participants included programme officers/secretaries, managers/department/facility heads and state coordinators/directors/presidents/chairpersons in various ministries and the National Assembly. A pretested semi-structured self-administered questionnaire on a five-point Likert scale was used to collect information on institutional structures for policy and policy-making in participants' organizations, the use of research evidence in policy and policy-making processes, and the status of funding for policy-relevant research in the participants' organizations. Data were analysed using IBM SPSS version 20 software.

RESULTS

The majority of the respondents were older than 45 years (73.2%), were male (63.2) and had spent 5 years or less (74.6%) in their present position. The majority of the respondents' organizations had a policy in place on research involving all key stakeholders (63.6%), integration of stakeholders' views within the policy on research (58.9%) and a forum to coordinate the setting of research priorities (61.2%). A high mean score of 3.26 was found for the use of routine data generated from within the participants' organizations. Funding for policy-relevant research was captured in the budget (mean = 3.47) but was inadequate (mean = 2.53) and mostly donor-driven (mean = 3.64). Funding approval and release/access processes were also reported to be cumbersome, with mean scores of 3.74 and 3.89, respectively. The results showed that capacity existed among career policy-makers and the Department of Planning, Research and Statistics to advocate for internal funds (mean = 3.55) and to attract external funds such as grants (3.76) for policy-relevant research. Interaction as part of the priority-setting process (mean = 3.01) was the most highly rated form of policy-maker-researcher interaction, while long-term partnerships with researchers (mean = 2.61) had the lower mean score. The agreement that involving policy-makers in the planning and execution of programmes could enhance the evidence-to-policy process had the highest score (mean = 4.40).

CONCLUSION

The study revealed that although institutional structures such as institutional policies, fora and stakeholder engagement existed in the organizations studied, there was suboptimal use of evidence obtained from research initiated by both internal and external researchers. Organizations surveyed had budget lines for research, but this funding was depicted as inadequate. There was suboptimal actual participation of policy-makers in the co-creation, production and dissemination of evidence. The implementation of contextually relevant and sustained mutual institutional policy-maker-researcher engagement approaches is needed to promote evidence-informed policy-making. Thus there is a need for institutional prioritization and commitment to research evidence generation.

Competency profiles for evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM): a rapid review

BACKGROUND

Evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM) requires a set of individual and organizational capacities, linked with background factors and needs. The identification of essential knowledge, skills and attitudes for EIPM can support the development of competency profiles and their application in different contexts.

PURPOSE

To identify elements of competency (knowledge, skills and attitudes) for EIPM, according to different professional profiles (researcher, health professional, decision-maker and citizen).

METHODS

Rapid umbrella review. A structured search was conducted and later updated in two comprehensive repositories (BVSalud and PubMed). Review studies with distinctive designs were included, published from 2010 onwards, without language restrictions. Assessment of the methodological quality of the studies was not performed. A meta-aggregative narrative synthesis was used to report the findings.

RESULTS

Ten reviews were included. A total of 37 elements of competency were identified, eight were categorized as knowledge, 19 as skills and 10 as attitudes. These elements were aggregated into four competency profiles: researcher, health professional, decision-maker and citizen. The competency profiles included different sets of EIPM-related knowledge, skills and attitudes.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

This study is innovative because it aggregates different profiles of competency from a practical perspective, favouring the application of its results in different contexts to support EIPM. Methodological limitations are related to the shortcuts adopted in this review: complementary searches of the grey literature were not performed, and the study selection and data extraction were not conducted in duplicate.

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: EIPM requires the development of individual and organizational capacities. This rapid review contributes to the discussion on the institutionalization of EIPM in health systems. The competency profiles presented here can support discussions about the availability of capacity and the need for its development in different contexts.

How can health technology assessment support our response to public health emergencies?

Public health emergencies (PHEs), such as the COVID-19 crisis, are threats to global health and public order. We recommend that countries bolster their PHE responses by investing in health technology assessment (HTA), defined as a systematic process of gathering pertinent information on and evaluating health technologies from a medical, economic, social and ethical standpoint. We present examples of how HTA organizations in low- and middle-income countries have adapted to supporting PHE-related decisions during COVID-19 and describe the ways HTA can help the response to a PHE. In turn, we advocate for HTA capacity to be further developed globally and for increased institutional acceptance of these methods as a building block for preparedness and response to future PHEs. Finally, the long-term potential of HTA in strengthening health systems and embedding confidence and transparency into scientific policy should be recognized.

An evaluation of the evidence brief for policy development process in WHO EVIPNet Europe countries

BACKGROUND

Evidence briefs for policy (EBPs) represent a potentially powerful tool for supporting evidence-informed policy-making. Since 2012, WHO Evidence-Informed Policy Network (EVIPNet) Europe has been supporting Member States in developing EBPs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the process of developing EBPs in Estonia, Hungary and Slovenia.

METHODS

We used a rapid appraisal approach, combining semi-structured interviews and document review, guided by the Medical Research Council (MRC) process evaluation framework. Interviews were conducted with a total of 20 individuals familiar with the EBP process in the three study countries. Data were analysed thematically, and emerging themes were related back to the MRC framework components (implementation, mechanisms of impact, and context). We also reflected on the appropriateness of this evaluation approach for EVIPNet teams without evaluation research expertise to conduct themselves.

RESULTS

The following themes emerged as important to the EBP development process: how the focus problem is prioritized, who initiates this process, EBP team composition, EBP team leadership, availability of external support in the process, and the culture of policy-making in a country. In particular, the EBP process seemed to be supported by early engagement of the Ministry of Health and other stakeholders as initiators, clear EBP team roles and expectations, including a strong leader, external support to strengthen EBP team capacity and cultural acceptance of the necessity of evidence-informed policy-making. Overall, the evaluation approach was considered feasible by the EBP teams and captured rich qualitative data, but may be limited by the absence of external reviewers and long lag times between the EBP process and the evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

This process occurs in a complex system and must be conceptualized in each country and each EBP project in a way that fits local policy-making culture, priorities, leadership and team styles, roles and available resources. The use of a rapid appraisal approach, combining qualitative interviews and document review, is a feasible method of process evaluation for EVIPNet member countries.

Integrating citizen engagement into evidence-informed health policy-making in eastern Europe and central Asia: scoping study and future research priorities

BACKGROUND

The perspectives of citizens are an important and often overlooked source of evidence for informing health policy. Despite growing encouragement for its adoption, little is known regarding how citizen engagement may be integrated into evidence-informed health policy-making in low- and middle-income counties (LMICs) and newly democratic states (NDSs). We aimed to identify the factors and variables affecting the potential integration of citizen engagement into evidence-informed health policy-making in LMICs and NDSs and understand whether its implementation may require a different approach outside of high-income western democracies. Further, we assessed the context-specific considerations for the practical implementation of citizen engagement in one focus region-eastern Europe and central Asia.

METHODS

First, adopting a scoping review methodology, we conducted and updated searches of six electronic databases, as well as a comprehensive grey literature search, on citizen engagement in LMICs and NDSs, published before December 2019. We extracted insights about the approaches to citizen engagement, as well as implementation considerations (facilitators and barriers) and additional political factors, in developing an analysis framework. Second, we undertook exploratory methods to identify relevant literature on the socio-political environment of the focus region, before subjecting these sources to the same analysis framework.

RESULTS

Our searches identified 479 unique sources, of which 28 were adjudged to be relevant. The effective integration of citizen engagement within policy-making processes in LMICs and NDSs was found to be predominantly dependent upon the willingness and capacity of citizens and policy-makers. In the focus region, the implementation of citizen engagement within evidence-informed health policy-making is constrained by a lack of mutual trust between citizens and policy-makers. This is exacerbated by inadequate incentives and capacity for either side to engage.

CONCLUSIONS

This research found no reason why citizen engagement could not adopt the same form in LMICs and NDSs as it does in high-income western democracies. However, it is recognized that certain political contexts may require additional support in developing and implementing citizen engagement, such as through trialling mechanisms at subnational scales. While specifically outlining the potential for citizen engagement, this study highlights the need for further research on its practical implementation.

Translating health information into policy-making: A pragmatic framework

Knowledge translation (KT) is increasingly acknowledged to have the potential to improve policy-making. The value of health information (HI), as part of the KT context, is now also increasingly understood. This paper aims to identify existing tools for the translation of HI into policy-making and to develop a related framework facilitating future application of these identified tools. Updating and building upon a scoping review undertaken for the Health Evidence Network (HEN) Synthesis Report No. 54, commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for Europe in 2017, a literature search was conducted using the same databases (PubMed and Scopus) and the same keywords as in the WHO/HEN scoping review. All papers elaborating on tools enhancing the use of HI in policy-making were included. Of the 2549 records screened, 17 publications were included in this study. This review identified four different types of tools: 1) Visualisation and modelling tools, 2) Information packaging and synthesis tools, 3) Communication and dissemination tools and 4) Information linkage and exchange tools. The distinctions between these are fluid as different tools can be combined or incorporated into one another to complement each other. Our framework shows that communication/dissemination or linkage tools are crucial to effectively inform policy decisions through HI. This study helps to understand and guide the processes of KT of HI.

Policy options to increase motivation for improving evidence-informed health policy-making in Iran

BACKGROUND

Current incentive programmes are not sufficient to motivate researchers and policy-makers to use research evidence in policy-making. We conducted a mixed-methods design to identify context-based policy options for strengthening motivations among health researchers and policy-makers to support evidence-informed health policy-making (EIHP) in Iran.

METHODS

This study was conducted in 2019 in two phases. In the first phase, we conducted a scoping review to extract interventions implemented or proposed to strengthen motivations to support EIHP. Additionally, we employed a comparative case study design for reviewing the performance evaluation (PE) processes in Iran and other selected countries to determine the current individual and organizational incentives to encourage EIHP. In the second phase, we developed two policy briefs and then convened two policy dialogues, with 12 and 8 key informants, respectively, where the briefs were discussed. Data were analysed using manifest content analysis in order to propose contextualized policy options.

RESULTS

The policy options identified to motivate health researchers and policy-makers to support EIHP in Iran were: revising the criteria of academic PE; designing appropriate incentive programmes for nonacademic researchers; developing an indicator for the evaluation of research impact on policy-making or health outcomes; revising the current policies of scientific journals; revising existing funding mechanisms; presenting the knowledge translation plan when submitting a research proposal, as a mandatory condition; encouraging and supporting mechanisms for increasing interactions between policy-makers and researchers; and revising some administrative processes (e.g. managers and staff PEs; selection, appointment, and changing managers and reward mechanisms).

CONCLUSIONS

The current individual or organizational incentives are mainly focused on publications, rather than encouraging researchers and policy-makers to support EIHP. Relying more on incentives that consider the other impacts of research (e.g. impacts on health system and policy, or health outcomes) is recommended. These incentives may encourage individuals and organizations to be more involved in conducting research evidence, resulting in promoting EIHP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NA.

Systematic review and policy dialogue to determine challenges in evidence-informed health policy-making: findings of the SASHA study

Background

Various interventions have been undertaken in Iran to promote evidence-informed health policy-making (EIHP). Identifying the challenges in EIHP is the first step toward strengthening EIHP in each country through the design of tailored interventions. Therefore, the current study was conducted to synthesize the results of earlier studies and to finalize the list of barriers to EIHP in Iran.

Methods

To identify the barriers to EIHP in Iran, two steps were taken: a systematic review and policy dialogue. To conduct the systematic review, three Iranian databases and PubMed, Health Systems Evidence (HSE), Embase, and Scopus were searched. The reference lists of included papers and documentation from some local organizations were hand-searched. Upon conducting the systematic review, given the significance of stakeholders in clarifying the problem of EIHP, policy dialogue was used to complete the list previously extracted and to do advocacy. Selection criteria for the stakeholders included influential and informed individuals from knowledge-producing, knowledge-utilizing, and knowledge-brokering organizations. Semi-structured interviews were held with three important absent stakeholders.

Results

Challenges specific to Iran that were identified included the lack of integration of the health ministry and the medical universities, lack of ties between health knowledge utilization organizations, failure to establish long-term research plans, neglect of national research needs at the time of recruiting human resources in knowledge-producing organizations, and duplication and lack of coordination in routine data obtained from surveillance systems, disease registration systems, and censuses. It seems that some challenges are common across countries, including neglecting the importance of inter- and intra-disciplinary studies, the capacity of policy-makers and managers to utilize evidence, the criteria for evaluating the performance of policy-makers, managers, and academic members, the absence of long-term programmes in knowledge-utilizing organizations, the rapid replacement of policy-makers and managers, and lack of use of evaluation studies.

Conclusions

In this study, we tried to identify the challenges regarding EIHP in Iran using a systematic review and policy dialogue approach. This is the first step toward determining the best interventions to improve evidence-informed policy-making in each country, because these challenges are contextual and need to be investigated contextually.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-021-00717-x.

EVITA 2.0, an updated framework for understanding evidence-based mental health policy agenda-setting: tested and informed by key informant interviews in a multilevel comparative case study

Background

Mental health remains a neglected issue on the global health policy agenda, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), and the translation of research evidence into policy and practice is slow. The new EVITA framework was developed to improve mental health evidence uptake and policy agenda-setting in LMICs. In addition, behavioural science methods may be able to support knowledge translation to policy.

Methods

Using a mixed-methods study design, we applied and tested the newly developed EVITA 1.1 framework against three case studies related to South Africa at the district, national and international levels. In-depth interviews with 26 experts were conducted between August and November 2019, transcribed, coded and analysed in NVivo, using iterative categorization. The data were analysed against both the EVITA framework and the MINDSPACE framework for behavioural insights.

Results

In our case study comparison, we found that (1) research translation to the policy agenda occurs in a complex, fluid system which includes multiple “research clouds”, “policy spheres” and other networks; (2) mental health research policy agenda-setting is based on key individuals and intermediaries and their interrelationships; and (3) key challenges and strategies for successful research to policy agenda impact are known, but are frequently not strategically implemented, such as including all stakeholders to overcome the policy implementation gap. Our data also suggest that behavioural science methods can be strategically applied to support knowledge translation to policy agenda-setting.

Conclusion

We found that the EVITA framework is useful for understanding and improving mental health research policy interrelationships to support evidence uptake to the policy agenda, and that behavioural science methods are effective support mechanisms. The revised EVITA 2.0 framework therefore includes behavioural insights, for improved mental health policy agenda-setting in LMICs. More research is needed to understand whether EVITA can be applied to other LMICs and to high-income contexts.

Asthma control factors in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and the effectiveness of ICS/LABA fixed dose combinations: a dual rapid literature review

Background

Asthma control is influenced by multiple factors. These factors must be considered when appraising asthma interventions and their effectiveness in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates [UAE]). Based on published studies, the most prevalent asthma treatment in these countries are fixed dose combinations (FDC) of inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta-agonist (ICS/LABA). This study is a rapid review of the literature on: (a) factors associated with asthma control in the GCC countries and (b) generalisability of ICS/LABA FDC effectiveness studies.

Methods

To review local factors associated with asthma control and, generalisability of published ICS/LABA FDC studies, two rapid reviews were conducted. Review 1 targeted literature pertaining to asthma control factors in GCC countries. Eligible studies were appraised, and clustering methodology used to summarise factors. Review 2 assessed ICS/LABA FDC studies in conditions close to actual clinical practice (i.e. effectiveness studies). Eligibility was determined by reviewing study characteristics. Evaluation of studies focused on randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In both reviews, initial (January 2018) and updated (November 2019) searches were conducted in EMBASE and PubMed databases. Eligible studies were appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) checklists.

Results

We identified 51 publications reporting factors associated with asthma control. These publications reported studies conducted in Saudi Arabia (35), Qatar (5), Kuwait (5), UAE (3), Oman (1) and multiple countries (2). The most common factors associated with asthma control were: asthma-related education (13 articles), demographics (11articles), comorbidities (11 articles) and environmental exposures (11 articles). Review 2 identified 61 articles reporting ICS/LABA FDC effectiveness studies from countries outside of the GCC. Of these, six RCTs were critically appraised. The adequacy of RCTs in informing clinical practice varied when appraised against previously published criteria.

Conclusions

Asthma-related education was the most recurring factor associated with asthma control in the GCC countries. Moreover, the generalisability of ICS/LABA FDC studies to this region is variable. Hence, asthma patients in the region, particularly those on ICS/LABA FDC, will continue to require physician review and oversight. While our findings provide evidence for local treatment guidelines, further research is required in GCC countries to establish the causal pathways through which asthma-related education influence asthma control for patients on ICS/LABA FDC therapy.

Strengthening capacity to use research evidence in health sector policy-making: experience from Kenya and Malawi

Background

Among the many barriers to evidence use in decision-making, weak capacity for evidence use has attracted a lot of focus in the last decade. The study aims to inform and enrich ongoing and future efforts to strengthen capacity for evidence use by presenting and discussing the experiences and lessons of a project implemented in Kenya and Malawi to strengthen individual and institutional capacity for evidence use within the ministries of health (MoHs).

Methods

This paper draws on the internal and external evaluations of a 3-year project funded by the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development, the Strengthening Capacity to Use Research Evidence in Health Policy (SECURE Health). To strengthen individual capacity, the project implemented a training and mentorship programme for 60 mid-level policy-makers in the two MoHs. To strengthen institutional capacity, the project conducted sustained advocacy with top leaders to strengthen structures that enable evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM), supported Kenya to develop research-for-health policies and priorities, supported Malawi to review the implementation of its health research agenda, developed EIDM guidelines for both MoHs, and supported bi-annual evidence dialogues to improve interactions and raise the profile of evidence. Internal evaluation included baseline and endline surveys (93 baseline and 92 endline interviews), 60 in-depth interviews, and intervention-specific evaluations (pre–post tests for training workshops, feedback forms for policy dialogues and tracking effects of advocacy efforts). The external evaluation was implemented alongside project implementation, conducting three annual evaluations.

Results

The results show that training and mentorship programmes in EIDM were effective in improving competencies of civil servants. However, such programmes need to train a critical mass to be effective in enhancing EIDM practice at the MoHs. On strengthening institutional capacity for EIDM, while the project achieved some success, it did not realise long-lasting effects because of its limited time of implementation and limited focus on sustained political economy analysis, which meant that the intervention was negatively affected by frequently changing interests within the MoHs.

Conclusions

Although training and mentorship are effective in improving EIDM competencies, they need to be incorporated in existing pre-service and in-service training programmes for sustainability. Strengthening institutional capacity for evidence use is complex and needs sustained political commitment and long-term investments.

A systematic review of frameworks for the interrelationships of mental health evidence and policy in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

The interrelationships between research evidence and policy-making are complex. Different theoretical frameworks exist to explain general evidence-policy interactions. One largely unexplored element of these interrelationships is how evidence interrelates with, and influences, policy/political agenda-setting. This review aims to identify the elements and processes of theories, frameworks and models on interrelationships of research evidence and health policy-making, with a focus on actionability and agenda-setting in the context of mental health in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

METHODS

A systematic review of theories was conducted based on the BeHeMOTh search method, using a tested and refined search strategy. Nine electronic databases and other relevant sources were searched for peer-reviewed and grey literature. Two reviewers screened the abstracts, reviewed full-text articles, extracted data and performed quality assessments. Analysis was based on a thematic analysis. The included papers had to present an actionable theoretical framework/model on evidence and policy interrelationships, such as knowledge translation or evidence-based policy, specifically target the agenda-setting process, focus on mental health, be from LMICs and published in English.

RESULTS

From 236 publications included in the full text analysis, no studies fully complied with our inclusion criteria. Widening the focus by leaving out 'agenda-setting', we included ten studies, four of which had unique conceptual frameworks focusing on mental health and LMICs but not agenda-setting. The four analysed frameworks confirmed research gaps from LMICs and mental health, and a lack of focus on agenda-setting. Frameworks and models from other health and policy areas provide interesting conceptual approaches and lessons with regards to agenda-setting.

CONCLUSION

Our systematic review identified frameworks on evidence and policy interrelations that differ in their elements and processes. No framework fulfilled all inclusion criteria. Four actionable frameworks are applicable to mental health and LMICs, but none specifically target agenda-setting. We have identified agenda-setting as a research theory gap in the context of mental health knowledge translation in LMICs. Frameworks from other health/policy areas could offer lessons on agenda-setting and new approaches for creating policy impact for mental health and to tackle the translational gap in LMICs.

How is the use of research evidence in health policy perceived? A comparison between the reporting of researchers and policy-makers

Background

The use of health policy and systems research (HPSR) to inform health policy-making is an international challenge. Incorporating HPSR into decision-making primarily involves two groups, namely researchers (knowledge producers) and policy-makers (knowledge users). The purpose of this study was to compare the perceptions of Israeli health systems and policy researchers and health services policy-makers regarding the role of HPSR, factors influencing its uses and potential facilitators and barriers to HPSR, and implementation of knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) activities.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was administered to researchers and policy-makers in Israel. The survey consisted of seven closed questions. Descriptive analyses were carried out for closed-ended questions and comparative analysis were conducted between groups using the χ² test.

Results

A total of 37 researchers and 32 policy-makers responded to the survey. While some views were in alignment, others showed differences. More policy-makers than researchers perceived that the use of HPSR in policy was hindered by practical implementation constraints, whereas more researchers felt that its use was hindered by a lack of coordination between knowledge producers and users. A larger percentage of policy-makers, as compared to researchers, reported that facilitators to the KTE process are in place and a larger percentage of researchers perceived barriers within the KTE environment. A larger percentage of policy-makers perceived KTE activities were in place as compared to researchers. Results also showed large differences in the perceptions of the two groups regarding policy formulation and which organisations they perceived as exerting strong influence on policy-making.

Conclusions

This research demonstrated that there are differences in the perceptions of knowledge producers and users about the process of KTE. Future work should focus on minimising the challenges highlighted here and implementing new KTE activities. These activities could include making the researchers aware of the most effective manner in which to package their results, providing training to policy-makers and assuring that policy-makers have technical access to appropriate databases to search for HPSR. These results underscore the need for the groups to communicate and clarify to each other what they can offer and what they require.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-018-0345-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Qualitative assessment of opportunities and challenges to improve evidence-informed health policy-making in Hungary - an EVIPNet situation analysis pilot

BACKGROUND

In evidence-informed policy-making (EIP), major knowledge gaps remain in understanding the context and possibilities for institutionalisation of knowledge translation. In 2014, the WHO Evidence-informed Policy Network (EVIPNet) Europe initiated a number of pilot countries, with Hungary among them, to engage in a 'situation analysis' (SA) in order to fill some of those gaps. This contribution discusses the results of the SA in Hungary on research-policy interactions, facilitating factors and potential barriers to establish a knowledge translation platform (KTP).

METHODS

In line with the EVIPNet Europe SA Manual, a document analysis, 13 interviews, 3 focus group discussions with 21 participants, and an online survey with 31 respondents were carried out from April to October, 2015. A SA aims to assess the context in which EIP takes form and seeks opportunities to establish a KTP, so information was gathered on the current practice of EIP and knowledge translation, its relevant actors, enablers and barriers for EIP, and opinions on a future KTP. Methodological and researcher triangulation resulted in a narrative synthesis of data, including a comparison with literature. A stakeholder consultation was organised to validate findings.

RESULTS

This study reveals that stakeholders show commitment to produce and use research evidence in Hungarian health policy-making. All stakeholders endorsed the idea of strengthening the systematic use of evidence in decision-making and favoured the idea of establishing a KTP. In line with literature on other countries, some good practices exist on the uptake of evidence in policy-making; however, a systematic approach of developing, translating and using research evidence in health policy processes is lacking. EIP is currently hampered by scattered capacity, coordination problems, high fluctuation in government, an often legalistic and a more 'symbolic' rather than practical support for knowledge translation and EIP. The article summarises recommendations on a Hungarian KTP.

CONCLUSIONS

Pragmatic adaptation of the SA Manual to local needs proved to be a useful mechanism to provide insight into the Hungarian EIP field and the establishment of a potential KTP. Despite the success of a KTP pilot, it remains unclear how a KTP in Hungary will be institutionalised in a sustainable way.

Development of measurable indicators to enhance public health evidence-informed policy-making

BACKGROUND

Ensuring health policies are informed by evidence still remains a challenge despite efforts devoted to this aim. Several tools and approaches aimed at fostering evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM) have been developed, yet there is a lack of availability of indicators specifically devoted to assess and support EIPM. The present study aims to overcome this by building a set of measurable indicators for EIPM intended to infer if and to what extent health-related policies are, or are expected to be, evidence-informed for the purposes of policy planning as well as formative and summative evaluations.

METHODS

The indicators for EIPM were developed and validated at international level by means of a two-round internet-based Delphi study conducted within the European project 'REsearch into POlicy to enhance Physical Activity' (REPOPA). A total of 82 researchers and policy-makers from the six European countries (Denmark, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania, the United Kingdom) involved in the project and international organisations were asked to evaluate the relevance and feasibility of an initial set of 23 indicators developed by REPOPA researchers on the basis of literature and knowledge gathered from the previous phases of the project, and to propose new indicators.

RESULTS

The first Delphi round led to the validation of 14 initial indicators and to the development of 8 additional indicators based on panellists' suggestions; the second round led to the validation of a further 11 indicators, including 6 proposed by panellists, and to the rejection of 6 indicators. A total of 25 indicators were validated, covering EIPM issues related to human resources, documentation, participation and monitoring, and stressing different levels of knowledge exchange and involvement of researchers and other stakeholders in policy development and evaluation.

CONCLUSION

The study overcame the lack of availability of indicators to assess if and to what extent policies are realised in an evidence-informed manner thanks to the active contribution of researchers and policy-makers. These indicators are intended to become a shared resource usable by policy-makers, researchers and other stakeholders, with a crucial impact on fostering the development of policies informed by evidence.

Health and beyond… strategies for a better India: incorporating evidence to strengthen health policy

India plans to roll-out universal health coverage in spite of having one of the lowest governments spending on health in the world. A scenario such as this means that health policy decisions particularly with respect to priority setting and resource allocation are often difficult and riddled with difficult choices. Moreover, a variety of decisions and determinants beyond the barriers of the health system has to be taken into account in a pluralistic and diverse nation like India during the healthy policy making process. The review provides a brief overview on the current policy making scenario, where often decisions are not based on latest research evidence, but on placating powerful activist groups and is more problem oriented rather than being solution oriented. Various opportunities which exist in order to incorporate evidence in order to inform health policy are discussed. The article highlights the need to develop a transparent, inclusive and independent mechanism to prospectively appraise all available evidence and help inform policy-making based on predetermined criteria and to as evaluate the impact of policy decisions thereby helping in knowledge creation, translation as well as its implementation.