Suppr超能文献

研究者与政策制定者对话:南非西开普省的政策伙伴项目

Researcher and policymaker dialogue: the Policy BUDDIES Project in Western Cape Province, South Africa.

作者信息

Young Taryn, Shearer Jessica C, Naude Celeste, Kredo Tamara, Wiysonge Charles S, Garner Paul

机构信息

Centre for Evidence-based Health Care, Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.

Health Systems Innovation and Delivery, PATH, Seattle, Washington, USA.

出版信息

BMJ Glob Health. 2018 Dec 14;3(6):e001130. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001130. eCollection 2018.

Abstract

Dialogue and exchange between researchers and policy personnel may increase the use of research evidence in policy. We piloted and evaluated a programme of formalised dialogue between researchers and provincial health policymakers in South Africa, called the buddying programme. An external evaluation examined implementation and short-term impact, drawing on documents, in-depth interviews with policymakers, a researcher buddies focus group and our own reflection on what we learnt. We set up buddying with seven policymakers and five researchers on six policy questions. Researchers knew little about policymaking or needs of policymakers. Policymakers respected the contact with researchers, respected researchers' objectivity and appreciated the formalised approach. Having policymaker champions facilitated the dialogue. Scenarios for policy questions and use were different. One topic was at problem identification stage (contraceptives and HIV risk), four at policy formulation stage (healthy lifestyles, chronic illness medication adherence, integrated care of chronic illness and maternal transmission of HIV to infants) and one at implementation stage (task shifting). Research evidence were used to identify or solve a policy problem (two scenarios), to legitimise a predetermined policy position (three scenarios) or the evidence indirectly influenced the policy (one scenario). The formalised dialogue required in this structured buddying programme took time and commitment from both sides. The programme illustrated the importance of researchers listening, and policymakers understanding what research can offer. Both parties recognised that the structured buddying made the dialogue happen. Often the evidence was helpful in supporting provincial policy decisions that were in the roll-out phase from the national government.

摘要

研究人员与政策制定人员之间的对话与交流可能会增加研究证据在政策中的应用。我们在南非试点并评估了一项研究人员与省级卫生政策制定者之间的正式对话计划,即结对计划。一项外部评估通过文件、对政策制定者的深入访谈、研究人员结对焦点小组以及我们对所学内容的反思,审视了该计划的实施情况和短期影响。我们就六个政策问题与七位政策制定者和五位研究人员建立了结对关系。研究人员对政策制定或政策制定者的需求了解甚少。政策制定者重视与研究人员的接触,尊重研究人员的客观性,并赞赏这种正式的方式。有政策制定者支持者促进了对话。政策问题及应用的情景各不相同。一个主题处于问题识别阶段(避孕药具与艾滋病毒风险),四个处于政策制定阶段(健康生活方式、慢性病药物依从性、慢性病综合护理以及艾滋病毒母婴传播),一个处于实施阶段(任务转移)。研究证据被用于识别或解决政策问题(两种情景)、使预先确定的政策立场合法化(三种情景)或证据间接影响政策(一种情景)。这种结构化结对计划中所需的正式对话需要双方投入时间和精力。该计划说明了研究人员倾听以及政策制定者理解研究所能提供内容的重要性。双方都认识到结构化结对促成了对话。通常,这些证据有助于支持国家政府正在推广阶段的省级政策决策。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/031d/6304097/62bb35c1bab5/bmjgh-2018-001130f01.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验