Embedding health policymakers and administrators into the research process could improve the translation of research into policy, according to a new perspective published in the latest issue of the Sax Institute’s peer-reviewed journal, Public Health Research & Practice.
The authors, from the NSW Ministry of Health and UNSW Sydney, point out that the failure to translate research into tangible policy or practice costs an estimated A$380 billion every year. One example is cancer management, where it has been estimated that applying current evidence-based cancer management practices and policies would see a 30% improvement in patient outcomes and a 10% decrease in cancer deaths in the US.
While integrating research end-users – such as consumers or clinicians – into research can be an effective way of promoting the use of the research, a lot less work has been done on the potential impact of health decision makers.
The authors say integrating health decision makers – such as policymakers, administrators, directors or other managers – into the research process, including in funding decisions, could enable positive findings to be more readily implemented into health services, translating into better patient outcomes and a more robust healthcare system.
Some of the barriers to implementation – such as failure to take account of local contexts and needs, or political and financial sensitivities – could be avoided by engaging health decision makers early in the research process, so they can bring to bear their better understanding of these factors in the structuring of the research and increase its chances of influencing policy at a later stage.
The authors point out the expertise that health decision makers have in understanding the complexities of local health systems, something that was brought into sharp focus during the recent COVID-19 pandemic.
Partnerships with health decision makers could take the form of high-level advice (consultation), developing the research question (co-creation), developing the research methodology (co-creation), or even actively undertaking research activities (co-production), the authors argue.
“Health decision makers understand the wider and local context of their decision-making and have the authority to implement change, so they are valuable partners and contributors to research activities,” the authors conclude.
Access the full paper here
Read the latest issue of PHRP here
PUBLICATION DATE
24 June 2024
