Sax Institute, 235 Jones Street, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia.
Sydney School of Public Health, Edward Ford Building (A27), University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 Apr 10;16(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0277-1.
Health policy-making can benefit from more effective use of research. In many policy settings there is scope to increase capacity for using research individually and organisationally, but little is known about what strategies work best in which circumstances. This review addresses the question: What causal mechanisms can best explain the observed outcomes of interventions that aim to increase policy-makers' capacity to use research in their work?
Articles were identified from three available reviews and two databases (PAIS and WoS; 1999-2016). Using a realist approach, articles were reviewed for information about contexts, outcomes (including process effects) and possible causal mechanisms. Strategy + Context + Mechanism = Outcomes (SCMO) configurations were developed, drawing on theory and findings from other studies to develop tentative hypotheses that might be applicable across a range of intervention sites.
We found 22 studies that spanned 18 countries. There were two dominant design strategies (needs-based tailoring and multi-component design) and 18 intervention strategies targeting four domains of capacity, namely access to research, skills improvement, systems improvement and interaction. Many potential mechanisms were identified as well as some enduring contextual characteristics that all interventions should consider. The evidence was variable, but the SCMO analysis suggested that tailored interactive workshops supported by goal-focused mentoring, and genuine collaboration, seem particularly promising. Systems supports and platforms for cross-sector collaboration are likely to play crucial roles. Gaps in the literature are discussed.
This exploratory review tentatively posits causal mechanisms that might explain how intervention strategies work in different contexts to build capacity for using research in policy-making.
卫生政策制定可以通过更有效地利用研究成果获益。在许多政策制定环境中，都有机会提高个人和组织使用研究的能力，但对于哪些策略在哪些情况下最有效知之甚少。本综述旨在回答以下问题：旨在提高政策制定者在工作中使用研究能力的干预措施，其观察到的结果可以用哪些因果机制来最好地解释？
从三篇现有综述和两个数据库（PAIS 和 WoS；1999-2016 年）中确定了文章。采用现实主义方法，根据背景、结果（包括过程效应）和可能的因果机制对文章进行了回顾。根据理论和其他研究的发现，制定了战略+背景+机制=结果（SCMO）配置，以制定适用于一系列干预地点的初步假设。
我们发现了 22 项研究，这些研究跨越了 18 个国家。有两种主要的设计策略（基于需求的定制和多组分设计）和 18 种针对四个能力领域的干预策略，即获取研究、技能提高、系统改进和互动。确定了许多潜在的机制以及一些持久的背景特征，所有干预措施都应该考虑这些特征。证据是可变的，但 SCMO 分析表明，有针对性的互动研讨会，辅以目标导向的指导以及真正的合作，似乎特别有希望。系统支持和跨部门合作平台可能会发挥关键作用。文献中的差距也进行了讨论。
本探索性综述初步提出了因果机制，这些机制可能解释了干预策略在不同背景下如何工作，以建立在政策制定中使用研究的能力。
