Views of health system policymakers on the role of research in health policymaking in Israel

Background: The use of research evidence in health policymaking is an international challenge. Health systems, including that of Israel, are usually characterized by scarce resources and the necessity to make rapid policy decisions. Knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) has emerged as a paradigm to start bridging the “know-do” gap. The purpose of this study was to explore the views of health system policymakers and senior executives involved in the policy development process in Israel regarding the role of health systems and policy research (HSPR) in health policymaking, the barriers and facilitators to the use of evidence in the policymaking process, and suggestions for improving the use of HSPR in the policymaking process. Methods: A survey and an interview were verbally administered in a single face-to-face meeting with health system policymakers and senior executives involved in the policy development process in Israel. The data collection period was from July to October 2014. The potential participants included members of Knesset, officials from Israel’s Ministry of Health, Ministry of Finance, health services organizations, and other stakeholder organizations (i.e., National Insurance Institute). The close-ended questions were based on previous surveys that had been conducted in this field. Interviews were tape recorded and transcribed. Descriptive statistics were conducted for close ended survey-questions and thematic analysis was conducted for open-ended interview questions. Results: There were 32 participants in this study. Participants felt that the use of HSPR helps raise awareness on policy issues, yet the actual use of HSPR was hindered for many reasons. Facilitators do exist to support the use of HSPR in the policymaking process, such as a strong foundation of relationships between researchers and policymakers. However, many barriers exist such as the lack of relevance and timeliness of much of the currently available research to support decision-making and the paucity of funding to support research use. Suggestions to improve the use of HSPR focused on improving dissemination of research findings and ensuring that the research was more relevant and timely. Conclusions: This research demonstrated that health systems policymakers in Israel perceive having strong relationships and collaborations with researchers however there is room for improvement, e.g. partnering in research projects to ensure relevance and use. Furthermore, health system policymakers seem to be interested in receiving relevant research in a more useable format and are open to using research in decision making

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

Abstract 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

Views of health system policymakers on the role of research in health policymaking in Israel

Abstract Background The use of research evidence in health policymaking is an international challenge. Health systems, including that of Israel, are usually characterized by scarce resources and the necessity to make rapid policy decisions. Knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) has emerged as a paradigm to start bridging the “know-do” gap. The purpose of this study was to explore the views of health system policymakers and senior executives involved in the policy development process in Israel regarding the role of health systems and policy research (HSPR) in health policymaking, the barriers and facilitators to the use of evidence in the policymaking process, and suggestions for improving the use of HSPR in the policymaking process. Methods A survey and an interview were verbally administered in a single face-to-face meeting with health system policymakers and senior executives involved in the policy development process in Israel. The data collection period was from July to October 2014. The potential participants included members of Knesset, officials from Israel’s Ministry of Health, Ministry of Finance, health services organizations, and other stakeholder organizations (i.e., National Insurance Institute). The close-ended questions were based on previous surveys that had been conducted in this field. Interviews were tape recorded and transcribed. Descriptive statistics were conducted for close ended survey-questions and thematic analysis was conducted for open-ended interview questions. Results There were 32 participants in this study. Participants felt that the use of HSPR helps raise awareness on policy issues, yet the actual use of HSPR was hindered for many reasons. Facilitators do exist to support the use of HSPR in the policymaking process, such as a strong foundation of relationships between researchers and policymakers. However, many barriers exist such as the lack of relevance and timeliness of much of the currently available research to support decision-making and the paucity of funding to support research use. Suggestions to improve the use of HSPR focused on improving dissemination of research findings and ensuring that the research was more relevant and timely. Conclusions This research demonstrated that health systems policymakers in Israel perceive having strong relationships and collaborations with researchers however there is room for improvement, e.g. partnering in research projects to ensure relevance and use. Furthermore, health system policymakers seem to be interested in receiving relevant research in a more useable format and are open to using research in decision making

Physical activity self-efficacy online intervention for adults with obesity: protocol for a feasibility study

Abstract Background Even without weight loss, adults with obesity can greatly benefit from regular physical activity. The Physical Activity Self-efficacy (PAS) intervention is an online behavioral intervention newly developed to promote physical activity in adults with obesity by providing capability-enhancing learning opportunities. The objective of this manuscript is to describe the protocol for a feasibility study designed to investigate the feasibility and acceptability of implementing the PAS online intervention for adults with obesity recruited from a local weight management center in the United States of America (USA). Methods The study design is a prospective, double-blind, parallel-group individual randomized pilot trial. Thirty participants will be randomly assigned to the PAS group or usual care group to achieve a 1:1 group assignment. Recruitment of participants is scheduled to begin on 1 March 2024 at a local weight management center within a private healthcare system in the USA. There are six eligibility criteria for participation in this study (e.g., a body mass index ≥ 25.00 kg/m2). Eligibility verification and data collection will be conducted online. Three waves of data collection will take up to 14 weeks depending on participants’ progress in the study. The primary feasibility outcomes in the study will be: (a) participation rate, (b) engagement behavior, and (c) a preliminary effect size estimate for the effect of the PAS intervention on physical activity. Instruments designed to measure demographic information, anthropometric characteristics, self-efficacy, and acceptability will be included in the survey battery. A research-grade accelerometer will be used to measure free-living physical activity objectively. Data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics and inferential statistical models under an intention-to-treat approach. Discussion Results are intended to inform the preparation of a future definitive randomized controlled trial. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05935111, registered 7 July 2023

Off-label use of sodium valproate for schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Off-label use of a drug not according to its regulatory labeling has become common in medicine, especially in the field of psychiatry. Mood stabilizers are intended to be used to attenuate mood fluctuations in bipolar disorder, but their use has spread to patients with schizophrenia, as it provides greater control of impulsivity and aggressiveness. Sodium valproate is one of the most frequently used mood stabilizers in psychiatry. This study determined the prevalence of off-label use of sodium valproate for schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder in Abarbanel Psychiatric Hospital and the demographic and clinical characteristics associated with its use. METHODS: Retrospective study of patients hospitalized in 2011-2012 with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder in one of three general psychiatric wards. RESULTS: Valproate use was significantly lower in the geriatric group (11.6% vs. 20.1%, chi square  = 4.7, p = .03), in patients with schizophrenia (14.1% vs. schizoaffective disorder (35.2%), chi square  = 29, p<.001) and in patients receiving both atypical and typical antipsychotics (23.3% vs. 16.4%, p = .04). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, diagnosis and the combination of atypical and typical antipsychotics predicted the use of sodium valproate. The number of other medications prescribed did not predict sodium valproate use. CONCLUSIONS: Off-label use of sodium valproate in psychiatric patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder is extensive, especially in younger patients and those with schizoaffective disorder. More research is needed to determine whether it is being prescribed appropriately

Patient demographics and medications by ward.

a<p>Totals might exceed 100% because some patients received more than one drug type.</p>b<p>chlorpromazine, flupentixol, fluphenazine, haloperidol, levomepromazine, penfluridol, perhphenazine, zuclopenthixol.</p>c<p>amisulpride, aripriprazole, asenapine, clotiapine, clozapine, olanzapine, paliperidone, palperidone, quetiepine, risperidone, sertindole, ziprasidone.</p>d<p>escitalopram, paroxetine, reboxetine, trazadone.</p>e<p>buspirone, clonazepam, diazepam, lorazepam, oxazepam.</p>f<p>carbamazepine, lamotrigine, lithium.</p>g<p>brotizolam, nitrazepam, zopiclone.</p

Logistic regression predicting the use of sodium valproate by gender, diagnosis, ward and number of antipsychotics.

<p>Logistic regression predicting the use of sodium valproate by gender, diagnosis, ward and number of antipsychotics.</p

Frequency and percentage of sodium valproate use by number and type of drugs.

a<p>Other than sodium valproate.</p

Types of antipsychotics by ward.

<p>Types of antipsychotics by ward.</p