The Sax Institute, PO Box K617, Haymarket, NSW, 1240, Australia.
University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2019 Apr 15;17(1):41. doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0441-2.
Evidence generation partnerships between researchers and policy-makers are a potential method for producing more relevant research with greater potential to impact on policy and practice. Little is known about how such partnerships are enacted in practice, however, or how to increase their effectiveness. We aimed to determine why researchers and policy-makers choose to work together, how they work together, which partnership models are most common, and what the key (1) relationship-based and (2) practical components of successful research partnerships are.
Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 18 key informants largely based in New South Wales, Australia, who were (1) researchers experienced in working in partnership with policy in health or health-related areas or (2) policy and programme developers and health system decision-makers experienced in working in partnership with researchers. Data was analysed thematically by two researchers.
Researcher-initiated and policy agency-initiated evidence generation partnerships were common. While policy-initiated partnerships were thought to be the most likely to result in impact, researcher-initiated projects were considered important in advancing the science and were favoured by researchers due to greater perceived opportunities to achieve key academic career metrics. Participants acknowledged that levels of collaboration varied widely in research/policy partnerships from minimal to co-production. Co-production was considered a worthy goal by all, conferring a range of benefits, but one that was difficult to achieve in practice. Some participants asserted that the increased time and resources required for effective co-production meant it was best suited to evaluation and implementation projects where the tacit, experiential knowledge of policy-makers provided critical nuance to underpin study design, implementation and analysis. Partnerships that were mutually considered to have produced the desired outcomes were seen to be underpinned by a range of both relationship-based (such as shared aims and goals and trust) and practical factors (such as sound governance and processes).
Our findings highlight the important role of policy-makers in New South Wales in ensuring the relevance of research. There is still much to understand about how to initiate and sustain successful research/policy partnerships, particularly at the highly collaborative end.
研究人员和政策制定者之间的循证生成伙伴关系是一种产生更相关研究的潜在方法，这些研究更有可能对政策和实践产生影响。然而，人们对这种伙伴关系在实践中是如何实施的，以及如何提高其有效性知之甚少。我们的目的是确定研究人员和政策制定者为什么选择合作，他们如何合作，哪些伙伴关系模式最常见，以及成功的研究伙伴关系的关键（1）基于关系和（2）实际组成部分是什么。
我们对 18 名主要来自澳大利亚新南威尔士州的关键信息提供者进行了半结构化定性访谈，这些信息提供者（1）是在卫生或与卫生相关领域与政策合作方面经验丰富的研究人员，或（2）是与研究人员合作经验丰富的政策和方案制定者和卫生系统决策者。两名研究人员对数据进行了主题分析。
研究人员发起的和政策机构发起的循证生成伙伴关系很常见。虽然政策发起的伙伴关系被认为最有可能产生影响，但研究人员发起的项目被认为对推进科学很重要，并且由于研究人员认为有更多实现关键学术职业指标的机会而受到青睐。参与者承认，研究/政策伙伴关系中的合作程度从最低到共同制定从广泛变化。所有参与者都认为共同制定是一个有价值的目标，带来了一系列好处，但在实践中很难实现。一些参与者断言，有效共同制定所需的时间和资源增加意味着它最适合评估和实施项目，政策制定者的隐性、经验性知识为研究设计、实施和分析提供了关键的细微差别。被认为产生了预期结果的伙伴关系被认为是基于一系列基于关系的（如共同的目标和信任）和实际因素（如健全的治理和流程）。
我们的研究结果强调了新南威尔士州政策制定者在确保研究相关性方面的重要作用。人们仍然需要了解如何启动和维持成功的研究/政策伙伴关系，特别是在高度协作的一端。
