Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK.
Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018 Apr 1;7(4):353-355. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2017.97.
We offer a UK-based commentary on the recent "Perspective" published in IJHPM by Thakkar and Sullivan. We are sympathetic to the authors' call for increased funding for health service and policy research (HSPR). However, we point out that increasing that investment - in any of the three countries they compare: Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom- will ipso facto not necessarily lead to any better use of research by health system decision-makers in these settings. We cite previous authors' descriptions of the many factors that tend to make the worlds of researchers and decision-makers into "two solitudes." And we call for changes in the structure and funding of HSPR, particularly the incentives now in place for purely academic publishing, to tackle a widespread reality: most published research in HSPR, as in other applied fields of science, is never read or used by the vast majority of decision-makers, working out in the "real world.
我们对 Thakkar 和 Sullivan 在 IJPHM 上发表的最近的“Perspective”一文进行了英国式的评论。我们对作者呼吁增加对卫生服务和政策研究(HSPR)的资金支持表示同情。然而,我们指出,在他们所比较的三个国家——加拿大、美国和英国——增加投资,不一定会导致这些国家的卫生系统决策者更好地利用研究。我们引用了以前作者对使研究人员和决策者的世界成为“两个孤岛”的许多因素的描述。我们呼吁改变 HSPR 的结构和资金,特别是现在为纯学术出版提供的激励措施,以应对一个普遍的现实:HSPR 以及其他应用科学领域的大多数已发表的研究,都没有被绝大多数决策者阅读或使用,他们在“现实世界”中工作。