Transcript New Employee Orientation

How to Advance
Research to Policy
Timothy D. McBride
Professor
Washington University
Bridging Research to Policy in Diabetes Research:
Dissemination Strategies
 Policy in the knowledge transfer process
 The Culture Clash between Researchers and Policymakers
 What is the Problem?
 Strategies for Overcoming the Problem
 Services the HEPAC can provide
Policy translation and dissemination in
Knowledge transfer process
In Knowledge
translation process,
what are the best
methods for
translating and
delivering
evidence-based
research to policy?
Through guidelines
(T2) to improve
population health
(T4)?
Components of Policy Analysis
Solution
Analysis
Problem
Analysis
Information
Gathering
Conclusions
Or
Recommendations
The Policy Process
The
Problem
Policy
Alternatives
The
Politics
Evidence-Based Information
& Analysis
John Kingdon, 1995, “Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies,” New York: Harper Collins.
Politics and Policy
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble,
finding it whether it exists or not,
diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the
wrong remedy."
-- Ernest Benn
A Problem with Knowledge Translation:
Culture Clash Between Researchers and
Policymakers
Policy making: two competing views
 Policy making is not always rational
 Rational decision making: research-based and largely context
free
 Sensible decision making: pragmatically driven and dependent on
institutional and political context
 Policy makers are influenced by factors other than
evidence based research
 e.g., budget, ideology, interest groups, other policy makers
Source: Williams C. Director Office of Health Information, AHRQ. Presentation to 2000 Summer
Institute for Professional Health Legislative Staff Development. UNC.
Policymakers Views of Researchers
 They take forever even to answer the simplest question(s). Then they
are late with the results.
 What is this stuff they write? Who can understand it?
 They’re always hedging. I can’t get a straight answer.
 They don’t answer the question I thought I asked.
 They take little responsibility for the implications of their findings.
Source: Williams C. Director Office of Health Information, AHRQ. Presentation to 2000 Summer
Institute for Professional Health Legislative Staff Development. UNC.
Researchers Views of Policy Makers
 They don’t ask researchable questions.
 They don’t accept uncertainty. They don’t accept that reducing
uncertainty costs more money.
 They don’t appreciate the influence of publish or perish on my life.
 They want unrealistic turn-around for results.
 They expect me to drop everything and delivery results for policy input.
 They want “bottom line” answers to take them off the policy hook.
 They can’t be trusted with my results—misinterpret/misuse my results.
Source: Williams C. Director Office of Health Information, AHRQ. Presentation to 2000 Summer
Institute for Professional Health Legislative Staff Development. UNC.
With this Culture Clash, How Can
Researchers Affect Policy?
 Researchers need to understand the policy making process
 Need to design policy-relevant research and be aware of policy time
constraints
 Researchers need to disseminate research findings in language and
mediums that policy makers will understand
 Researchers can become directly involved in the policy making process
or can work with advocates
Source: McBride et al. 2008. “Bridging Health Research and Policy: Effective
Dissemination Strategies,” Amer J of Public Health Management Practice 14(2).
Five Strategies
Five strategies as crucial for researchers and funders to follow:
1. Engage end users when framing research.
2. Tailor the design of products to meet the needs of the
diversity of end users interested in health research.
3. Make research products easily accessible to end users.
4. Expand contact and working relationships with end users
5. Invest in developing greater capacity for effective
dissemination.
Source: McBride et al. 2008. “Bridging Health Research and Policy: Effective
Dissemination Strategies,” Amer J of Public Health Management Practice 14(2).
Engage end users when framing research
 Establish a “research to policy network” composed of researchers
and users
 Develop “synthesis” products that summarize in an accessible,
readable format what is known on a topic to identify needed
additional research.
 Researchers and others should monitor policy developments so that
previously released research findings are communicated when they are
relevant to current policy debates.
Source: McBride et al. 2008. “Bridging Health Research and Policy: Effective
Dissemination Strategies,” Amer J of Public Health Management Practice 14(2).
Rapid Response and Dissemination
 Provide findings to different types of policy makers
 Use the media to communicate findings
 Work with advocates to help disseminate research findings
 Be willing to spend time meeting the needs of the policy makers
 Attend policy meetings, review laws, draft legislation, answer staff questions or
constituents concerns
 Rapid response—special data runs
 Spend time on strategic planning
 Anticipate: what will be the key issues: 6 months from now? One year ahead?
 Ask your strategic partners all the time what are key questions?
Source: McBride et al. 2008. “Bridging Health Research and Policy: Effective
Dissemination Strategies,” Amer J of Public Health Management Practice 14(2).
Invest in developing greater capacity
 Effective dissemination efforts require dedicated resources to
support specialized knowledge and skills
 The two uses, research and dissemination, must be additive
 Some efforts could be unfamiliar to researchers; for example, writing
effective press releases
Source: McBride et al. 2008. “Bridging Health Research and Policy: Effective
Dissemination Strategies,” Amer J of Public Health Management Practice 14(2).
Expand contact and working relationships
with end users
 The most effective means of disseminating research to policy users?
 Direct, interpersonal contact
 Users must trust that the information they receive is reliable and credible
 Sustained and substantive communication engenders trust.
 Policy staff turnover demands researchers renew relationships
 Natural interchanges may occur over issues initiated by researcher or staff, advocacy group
 Researchers earn the trust of policy makers when they






present accurate and evidence-based information,
acknowledge data or information limitations,
provide an objective and nonpartisan viewpoint,
work diligently to be a recognized expert in their field,
respond to staff requests in a timely fashion, and
provide policy-relevant information specific to staff needs.
Source: McBride et al. 2008. “Bridging Health Research and Policy: Effective
Dissemination Strategies,” Amer J of Public Health Management Practice 14(2).
Tailor the design of products
 Different products for different stakeholder groups.
 Policy makers prefer short, user-friendly products
 Policy briefs or summary fact sheets with key descriptive findings
 However, journal articles remain important reinforcing the credibility of the
research.
 Use Policy briefs or other dissemination products
 Briefs, briefings
 Website, webinars
Source: McBride et al. 2008. “Bridging Health Research and Policy: Effective
Dissemination Strategies,” Amer J of Public Health Management Practice 14(2).
Structure of Policy Briefs
 Communicate findings in easy to read brief
reports and articles. For legislators:
 Be concise: Communications with legislators must
be short (generally not more than 1-2 pages).
 Use lay language; no jargon or scientific terms.
 Use graphics and human stories (if possible).
 Explain how research will affect local constituents
 Not the same as a “mini” journal article
 Organization
 Well-written titles that reflect key “takeaways”
 Strategic visuals: simple and clear graphs/charts,
presented in color
 Avoid superfluous pictures.
 Information on local areas (all politics is “local”)
 Key findings and a conclusion
 Contact information
Make research products easily accessible to end
users
 Users need research results in seconds or minutes, not hours or days.
 Multiple communication channels are needed to reach various audiences,
including policy makers, associations, advocacy groups, and media.
 Traditional communication vehicles for research findings, including
conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications, are not the
primary information source for policymakers.
 Alternatively, they prefer report that electronic and verbal communications
and web sites
 Web sites should be professionally designed, have search capabilities, connect
to all other research centers, and be tested for usability and usefulness
 Virtually all research products produced in paper form should be electronically
available.
Source: McBride et al. 2008. “Bridging Health Research and Policy: Effective
Dissemination Strategies,” Amer J of Public Health Management Practice 14(2).
Reminder: What Can the Health
Economics and Policy Analysis Core
(HEPAC) do for Diabetes Researchers?
Timothy McBride, Director
Michael Sherraden, co-Director
Byron Yount
HEPAC Objectives
 Develop understanding of common conceptual policy and economic models and
methods, and their use in in diabetes translation research;
 Increase familiarity with cutting-edge policy analytic techniques for their application to
type II translation;
 Increase familiarity and use of available economic and policy-relevant databases for the
translation of research to policy and practice;
 Develop an understanding of the steps in the policy assessment process and its impact
on type II translational research;
 Increase familiarity with, and the application of, cost-effectiveness analysis in diabetes
translation studies.
HEPAC Services Provided
 Economic and Policy Design Methods
 Policy analysis techniques, conceptual approaches and research methods
 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
 Assistance in methods for analyzing costs of diabetes interventions and reporting this analysis
 Diabetes Policy Data Archive
 Assistance on use of data potentially relevant to diabetes policy research (e.g., BRFSS, CPS,
SIPP, MEPS)
 Catalogues of datasets, questions, codebooks, measures, methods
 Policy Assessment Toolkit
 Archive of diabetes policies; toolkit for evaluating content of diabetes-related policies
 Policy evaluation measures across multiple environments (e.g., community, worksite, school)
Policy Analysis Compared to Five Other
Paradigms
Weimer and Vining (2010) compare policy analysis to five
other paradigms in Figure 1.1:
Journalism
Academic social science research
Classical planning
Policy research
The “old” public administration
Policy Analysis Compared to Five Other Paradigms
Basic Components of a Policy Analysis
 Problem analysis
 What is the problem?
 Understanding the problem
 Goals and constraints
 Solution analysis
 Policy alternatives
 Evaluation and analysis
 Conclusions and recommendations?
 [Note: this is just one framework I favor. Other frameworks
possible…]