Knowledge brokers and rapid reviews: what do they do and how do they do it?

Knowledge brokering is a strategy frequently utilised to increase interaction between policymakers and researchers and build capacity for research. The Sax Institute uses knowledge brokers in one-off brief interventions to commission rapid reviews for use in decision making. Using knowledge brokers has been found to increase the clarity of rapid review proposals, yet little is known about how knowledge brokers assist policymakers to define their rapid research needs

Health research policy: a case study of policy change in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research

The need for research to better address health disparities in Indigenous people has been widely recognised. This paper examines past policies and outlines issues for Indigenous health policy in the future. There is considerate potential for health research to contribute to better health services and programs and improved health outcomes; the policies of health research funding agencies are critical to achieving health gains from research. This paper (i) describes the policy changes by NHMRC from 1997 to 2002 to improve funding of Aboriginal health research (ii) examines the catalysts for the policy changes (iii) describes the extent to which this has resulted in new models of research and (iv) outlines issues for Indigenous health policy in the future. &nbsp

Psychological distress in carers of aboriginal children in urban New South Wales: Findings from search (phase one)

OBJECTIVE: To examine the factors associated with psychological distress in parents and carers of Aboriginal children living in urban communities in New South Wales. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey (phase one of the Study of Environment on Aboriginal Resilience and Child Health [SEARCH], November 2007 - December 2011). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Primary care; 589 parents and carers of Aboriginal children were recruited when attending one of the four Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHSs) in urban NSW that participated in SEARCH. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) scores; a score of 22 or higher was deemed to indicate high levels of psychological distress. RESULTS: High levels of psychological distress were identified in 18% of our sample. The factors most strongly associated with this distress were functional limitations (v those with K10 scores under 22: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.2; 95% CI, 1.3-13.5), previous hospitalisation (aOR, 5.5; 95% CI, 1.5-19.4) or other treatment for social and emotional wellbeing (aOR, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.3-8.4), low satisfaction with feeling part of the community (aOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.98) and low involvement in clubs and groups (aOR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.2-7.3). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should note that those with functional limitations or a history of treatment for mental health problems are at higher risk of psychological distress and may require additional support. Increased funding that allows ACCHSs to provide mental health services, and funding and promoting programs and activities that increase social connectedness should remain focuses for ACCHSs and policy makers

Increasing the use of evidence in health policy: practice and views of policy makers and researchers

Background: Better communication is often suggested as fundamental to increasing the use of research evidence in policy, but little is known about how researchers and policy makers work together or about barriers to exchange. This study explored the views and practice of policy makers and researchers regarding the use of evidence in policy, including: (i) current use of research to inform policy; (ii) dissemination of and access to research findings for policy; (iii) communication and exchange between researchers and policy makers; and (iv) incentives for increasing the use of research in policy. Methods: Separate but similar interview schedules were developed for policy makers and researchers. Senior policy makers from NSW Health and senior researchers from public health and health service research groups in NSW were invited to participate. Consenting participants were interviewed by an independent research company. Results: Thirty eight policy makers (79% response rate) and 41 researchers (82% response rate) completed interviews. Policy makers reported rarely using research to inform policy agendas or to evaluate the impact of policy; research was used more commonly to inform policy content. Most researchers reported that their research had informed local policy, mainly by increasing awareness of an issue. Policy makers reported difficulty in accessing useful research syntheses, and only a third of researchers reported developing targeted strategies to inform policy makers of their findings. Both policy makers and researchers wanted more exchange and saw this as important for increasing the use of research evidence in policy; however, both groups reported a high level of involvement by policy makers in research. Conclusion: Policy makers and researchers recognise the potential of research to contribute to policy and are making significant attempts to integrate research into the policy process. These findings suggest four strategies to assist in increasing the use of research in policy: making research findings more accessible to policy makers; increasing opportunities for interaction between policy makers and researchers; addressing structural barriers such as research receptivity in policy agencies and a lack of incentives for academics to link with policy; and increasing the relevance of research to policy. © 2009 Campbell et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

The Iowa Homemaker vol.34, no.3

Star your college goals, Gwen Olson, page 5 Encourage your Cyclones, Carolyn Shehan, page 6 Brighten up, Sally Young, page 9 Dollars for scholars, Becky Metcalf, page 10 Forecast, Donna Mumford, page 12 What’s new, Jean Redman, page 14 That missing leaf, Joan Mertens, page 17 Trends, Kay Scholten, page 1

The Iowa Homemaker vol.34, no.4

Weather or not, Jean Redman, page 5 Flaming dinners, Jane Brintlinger, page 6 You and AHEA, Sally Young, page 7 Polish with wax, Joan Mertens, page 8 What’s new, Donna Mumford, page 10 Sell ISC, Doris Jirsa, page 11 Do it yourself, Mary Vandecar, page 12 Trends, Carolyn Shehan, page 1

Preliminary testing of the reliability and feasibility of SAGE: a system to measure and score engagement with and use of research in health policies and programs

Background: Few measures of research use in health policymaking are available, and the reliability of such measures has yet to be evaluated. A new measure called the Staff Assessment of Engagement with Evidence (SAGE) incorporates an interview that explores policymakers' research use within discrete policy documents and a scoring tool that quantifies the extent of policymakers' research use based on the interview transcript and analysis of the policy document itself. We aimed to conduct a preliminary investigation of the usability, sensitivity, and reliability of the scoring tool in measuring research use by policymakers. Methods: Nine experts in health policy research and two independent coders were recruited. Each expert used the scoring tool to rate a random selection of 20 interview transcripts, and each independent coder rated 60 transcripts. The distribution of scores among experts was examined, and then, interrater reliability was tested within and between the experts and independent coders. Average- and single-measure reliability coefficients were computed for each SAGE subscales. Results: Experts' scores ranged from the limited to extensive scoring bracket for all subscales. Experts as a group also exhibited at least a fair level of interrater agreement across all subscales. Single-measure reliability was at least fair except for three subscales: Relevance Appraisal, Conceptual Use, and Instrumental Use. Average- and single-measure reliability among independent coders was good to excellent for all subscales. Finally, reliability between experts and independent coders was fair to excellent for all subscales. Conclusions: Among experts, the scoring tool was comprehensible, usable, and sensitive to discriminate between documents with varying degrees of research use. Secondly, the scoring tool yielded scores with good reliability among the independent coders. There was greater variability among experts, although as a group, the tool was fairly reliable. The alignment between experts' and independent coders' ratings indicates that the independent coders were scoring in a manner comparable to health policy research experts. If the present findings are replicated in a larger sample, end users (e.g. policy agency staff) could potentially be trained to use SAGE to reliably score research use within their agencies, which would provide a cost-effective and time-efficient approach to utilising this measure in practice.This study was funded as part of the Centre for Informing Policy in Health with Evidence from Research (CIPHER), an Australian National Health and Makkar et al. Implementation Science (2017) 12:149 Page 8 of 10 Medical Research Council (NHMRC) 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. AW holds an NHMRC Post-Doctoral Fellowship (ID: 510 391)

Knowledge mobilisation for policy development: Implementing systems approaches through participatory dynamic simulation modelling

Background: Evidence-based decision-making is an important foundation for health policy and service planning decisions, yet there remain challenges in ensuring that the many forms of available evidence are considered when decisions are being made. Mobilising knowledge for policy and practice is an emergent process, and one that is highly relational, often messy and profoundly context dependent. Systems approaches, such as dynamic simulation modelling can be used to examine both complex health issues and the context in which they are embedded, and to develop decision support tools. Objective: This paper reports on the novel use of participatory simulation modelling as a knowledge mobilization tool in Australian real-world policy settings. We describe how this approach combined systems science methodology and some of the core elements of knowledge mobilisation best practice. We describe the strategies adopted in three case studies to address both technical and socio-political issues, and compile the experiential lessons derived. Finally, we consider the implications of these knowledge mobilisation case studies and provide evidence for the feasibility of this approach in policy development settings. Conclusion: Participatory dynamic simulation modelling builds on contemporary knowledge mobilisation approaches for health stakeholders to collaborate and explore policy and health service scenarios for priority public health topics. The participatory methods place the decision-maker at the centre of the process and embed deliberative methods and co-production of knowledge. The simulation models function as health policy and programme dynamic decision support tools that integrate diverse forms of evidence, including research evidence, expert knowledge and localized contextual information. Further research is underway to determine the impact of these methods on health service decision-making

Challenges in assessing the characteristics of influential public health research.

The development of frameworks to effectively measure both the scientific and social impact of research is a topic of international debate. This paper examines how Australian public health researchers in six fields (alcohol, drugs, injury, obesity, skin cancer and tobacco) classified the scientific and social impact of what they judged to be their five most influential papers. We compared classifications of researchers rated as most influential by their peers with those not as highly ranked. Highly ranked researchers more often indicated social impact characteristics (Χ2 = 8.13; P = 0.004) than their less influential colleagues. Traditional measures of scientific impact (publication in high impact journals and high citations) were nominated by all researchers regardless of peer-nominated research influence status. There was strong consensus on who were the most influential researchers in five of the six research fields examined. This would appear to provide a sound platform on which to base more qualitative, interview or portfolio-based investigations into the complexities of wider conceptions of research and researcher influence

Does knowledge brokering improve the quality of rapid review proposals? A before and after study

Background: Rapid reviews are increasingly being used to help policy makers access research in short time frames. A clear articulation of the review’s purpose, questions, scope, methods and reporting format is thought to improve the quality and generalisability of review findings. The aim of the study is to explore the effectiveness of knowledge brokering in improving the perceived clarity of rapid review proposals from the perspective of potential reviewers. To conduct the study, we drew on the Evidence Check program, where policy makers draft a review proposal (a pre knowledge brokering proposal) and have a 1-hour session with a knowledge broker, who re-drafts the proposal based on the discussion (a post knowledge brokering proposal). Methods: We asked 30 reviewers who had previously undertaken Evidence Check reviews to examine the quality of 60 pre and 60 post knowledge brokering proposals. Reviewers were blind to whether the review proposals they received were pre or post knowledge brokering. Using a six-point Likert scale, reviewers scored six questions examining clarity of information about the review’s purpose, questions, scope, method and format and reviewers’ confidence that they could meet policy makers’ needs. Each reviewer was allocated two pre and two post knowledge brokering proposals, randomly ordered, from the 60 reviews, ensuring no reviewer received a pre and post knowledge brokering proposal from the same review. Results: The results showed that knowledge brokering significantly improved the scores for all six questions addressing the perceived clarity of the review proposal and confidence in meeting policy makers’ needs; with average changes of 0.68 to 1.23 from pre to post across the six domains. Conclusions: This study found that knowledge brokering increased the perceived clarity of information provided in Evidence Check rapid review proposals and the confidence of reviewers that they could meet policy makers’ needs. Further research is needed to identify how the knowledge brokering process achieves these improvements and to test the applicability of the findings in other rapid review programs.GM was supported by the Outcomes, Services and Policy for the Reproductive Early Years (OSPREY) Program under the NHMRC Capacity Building Grants in Population Health and Health Services Research ID number 57312