Semmelweis University Doctoral School, 2 Kőhalom street, Budapest, 1118, Hungary.
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, OPIH and EVIPNet Europe steering group, Jette, Belgium.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 Jun 19;16(1):50. doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0331-z.
In evidence-informed policy-making (EIP), major knowledge gaps remain in understanding the context and possibilities for institutionalisation of knowledge translation. In 2014, the WHO Evidence-informed Policy Network (EVIPNet) Europe initiated a number of pilot countries, with Hungary among them, to engage in a 'situation analysis' (SA) in order to fill some of those gaps. This contribution discusses the results of the SA in Hungary on research-policy interactions, facilitating factors and potential barriers to establish a knowledge translation platform (KTP).
In line with the EVIPNet Europe SA Manual, a document analysis, 13 interviews, 3 focus group discussions with 21 participants, and an online survey with 31 respondents were carried out from April to October, 2015. A SA aims to assess the context in which EIP takes form and seeks opportunities to establish a KTP, so information was gathered on the current practice of EIP and knowledge translation, its relevant actors, enablers and barriers for EIP, and opinions on a future KTP. Methodological and researcher triangulation resulted in a narrative synthesis of data, including a comparison with literature. A stakeholder consultation was organised to validate findings.
This study reveals that stakeholders show commitment to produce and use research evidence in Hungarian health policy-making. All stakeholders endorsed the idea of strengthening the systematic use of evidence in decision-making and favoured the idea of establishing a KTP. In line with literature on other countries, some good practices exist on the uptake of evidence in policy-making; however, a systematic approach of developing, translating and using research evidence in health policy processes is lacking. EIP is currently hampered by scattered capacity, coordination problems, high fluctuation in government, an often legalistic and a more 'symbolic' rather than practical support for knowledge translation and EIP. The article summarises recommendations on a Hungarian KTP.
Pragmatic adaptation of the SA Manual to local needs proved to be a useful mechanism to provide insight into the Hungarian EIP field and the establishment of a potential KTP. Despite the success of a KTP pilot, it remains unclear how a KTP in Hungary will be institutionalised in a sustainable way.
在循证决策（EIP）中，人们对理解知识转化的制度背景和可能性仍然存在重大知识差距。2014 年，世卫组织循证政策网络（EVIPNet）欧洲启动了一些试点国家，其中包括匈牙利，以进行“情况分析”（SA），以填补其中的一些空白。本文讨论了匈牙利在研究-政策互动、促进因素和建立知识转化平台（KTP）的潜在障碍方面的 SA 结果。
根据 EVIPNet 欧洲 SA 手册的要求，从 2015 年 4 月至 10 月，我们开展了文件分析、13 次访谈、3 次有 21 名参与者参加的焦点小组讨论和 31 名受访者参加的在线调查。SA 的目的是评估 EIP 形成的背景，并寻找建立 KTP 的机会，因此收集了有关 EIP 和知识转化的现行做法、其相关行为者、EIP 的促进因素和障碍以及对未来 KTP 的意见的信息。方法学和研究人员的三角测量导致对数据进行叙述性综合，包括与文献的比较。组织了一次利益相关者协商，以验证调查结果。
本研究表明，利益攸关方承诺在匈牙利卫生决策中产生和使用研究证据。所有利益攸关方都赞同加强在决策中系统使用证据的想法，并赞成建立 KTP 的想法。与其他国家的文献一致，在政策制定中采用证据方面存在一些良好做法；然而，在卫生政策过程中制定、翻译和使用研究证据方面缺乏系统方法。EIP 目前受到分散能力、协调问题、政府更迭频繁、法律主义倾向以及对知识转化和 EIP 的更具“象征性”而非实际支持的阻碍。本文总结了有关匈牙利 KTP 的建议。
对 SA 手册进行切合实际的调整以满足当地需求，这被证明是深入了解匈牙利 EIP 领域和建立潜在 KTP 的有用机制。尽管 KTP 试点取得了成功，但匈牙利的 KTP 如何以可持续的方式制度化仍不清楚。
