Supporting Policy In health with Research : an Intervention Trial (SPIRIT)—protocol for a stepped wedge trial

Funding: SPIRIT is funded as part of the Centre for Informing Policy in Health with Evidence from Research (CIPHER), an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Centre for Research Excellence (APP1001436) and administered by the University of Western Sydney. The Sax Institute receives a grant from the NSW Ministry of Health.Introduction: Governments in different countries have committed to better use of evidence from research in policy. Although many programmes are directed at assisting agencies to better use research, there have been few tests of the effectiveness of such programmes. This paper describes the protocol for SPIRIT (Supporting Policy In health with Research: an Intervention Trial), a trial designed to test the effectiveness of a multifaceted programme to build organisational capacity for the use of research evidence in policy and programme development. The primary aim is to determine whether SPIRIT results in an increase in the extent to which research and research expertise is sought, appraised, generated and used in the development of specific policy products produced by health policy agencies. Methods and analysis: A stepped wedge cluster randomised trial involving six health policy agencies located in Sydney, Australia. Policy agencies are the unit of randomisation and intervention. Agencies were randomly allocated to one of three start dates (steps) to receive the 1-year intervention programme, underpinned by an action framework. The SPIRIT intervention is tailored to suit the interests and needs of each agency and includes audit, feedback and goal setting; a leadership programme; staff training; the opportunity to test systems to assist in the use of research in policies; and exchange with researchers. Outcome measures will be collected at each agency every 6 months for 30 months (starting at the beginning of step 1). Ethics and dissemination: Ethics approval was granted by the University of Western Sydney Human Research and Ethics Committee HREC Approval H8855. The findings of this study will be disseminated broadly through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at conferences and used to inform future strategies.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Policymakers\u27 experience of a capacity-building intervention designed to increase their use of research: A realist process evaluation

Background: An intervention’s success depends on how participants interact with it in local settings. Process evaluation examines these interactions, indicating why an intervention was or was not effective, and how it (and similar interventions) can be improved for better contextual fit. This is particularly important for innovative trials like Supporting Policy In health with Research: an Intervention Trial (SPIRIT), where causal mechanisms are poorly understood. SPIRIT was testing a multi-component intervention designed to increase the capacity of health policymakers to use research. Methods: Our mixed-methods process evaluation sought to explain variation in observed process effects across the six agencies that participated in SPIRIT. Data collection included observations of intervention workshops (n = 59), purposively sampled interviews (n = 76) and participant feedback forms (n = 553). Using a realist approach, data was coded for context-mechanism-process effect configurations (retroductive analysis) by two authors. Results: Intervention workshops were very well received. There was greater variation of views regarding other aspects of SPIRIT such as data collection, communication and the intervention’s overall value. We identified nine inter-related mechanisms that were crucial for engaging participants in these policy settings: (1) Accepting the premise (agreeing with the study’s assumptions); (2) Self-determination (participative choice); (3) The Value Proposition (seeing potential gain); (4) ‘Getting good stuff’ (identifying useful ideas, resources or connections); (5) Self-efficacy (believing ‘we can do this!’); (6) Respect (feeling that SPIRIT understands and values one’s work); (7) Confidence (believing in the study’s integrity and validity); (8) Persuasive leadership (authentic and compelling advocacy from leaders); and (9) Strategic insider facilitation (local translation and mediation). These findings were used to develop tentative explanatory propositions and to revise the programme theory. Conclusion: This paper describes how SPIRIT functioned in six policy agencies, including why strategies that worked well in one site were less effective in others. Findings indicate a complex interaction between participants’ perception of the intervention, shifting contextual factors, and the form that the intervention took in each site. Our propositions provide transferable lessons about contextualised areas of strength and weakness that may be useful in the development and implementation of similar studies