Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 11 Suggestions to improve the use of HSPR in health policymaking in Israela

From: Views of health system policymakers on the role of research in health policymaking in Israel

Topic Quotes to support
1. Increased and more effective dissemination of research findings to policymakers There should be someone who connects and create this link between policymakers and researchers, because, in this era of profusion of studies in various fields, we need to have someone to do the integration before they submit it to policy makers. ᅟ You come to the decision maker and show him a study and he has no idea how to judge it, how reliable it is, how valid it is, whether the methodology is correct … ᅟ Need to find form of transferring information that is convenient to policy makers.
Practical ideas re: implementation Consolidating dissemination of findings: Once the institute has published something, send it, maybe not every month, but maybe several times a year, every quarter … you can send abstracts … and suddenly I see that it’s something very interesting to me and that I’m working on at the moment. I may not read it now, maybe I’ll print it and read it later… ᅟ Some kind of a digest, a site that sends abstracts directed at policy issues, that I can choose from a list of topics. ᅟ A quarterly, bi-annual or annual publication that collects all the articles… Whoever wrote an article and thought it is relevant to the field of policy should send it is to this place and they can distribute it as a news-letter once every X time, and you can see all the things that were published, and see if you want to get into it or not. Not every time there is a new study- not something that overwhelm people- but something they know that comes out between 1 and 4 times a year, each time an email. And whoever wants to, can look at it. ᅟ Disseminating concise summaries of study findings: Distributing very concise summaries by e-mail to the target audience. If it’s really an abstract- 3-5 lines- I can read it. ᅟ Inviting researchers to present in the decision-makers’ organizations Inviting researchers to present their research work within a policy-oriented framework, i.e. to policy makers within the organization, not in an external conference … for example, a board meeting of the Ministry of Health or our meetings, if a researcher can came to present his work more frequently. ᅟ Training both knowledge producers and knowledge users on effective dissemination and usage of research findings: To train policymakers in using findings efficiently and to train the reviewers on how to correctly present and how to fit the needs of policy makers in the way they pass on the information. ᅟ Pushing findings: Researcher who conduct a study and has findings should push it. Publish it in all sorts of ways. There are many ways to publish. Pushing knowledge – but pushing is something you do again and again. You sent something and there is no response, you can send it again. Don’t be afraid to push, to be a little aggressive in pushing knowledge that seems very important. To push it via e-mail or other kinds of mail, or request an appointment or send it again, or remind them, if the situation arise. Marketing the information, the knowledge, upwards and onwards. ᅟ Using knowledge brokers or leaders to disseminate the information: Research should involve people of reputation and status that may promote this tool called research to decision makers, including knowledge brokers. ᅟ Enabling the ability to search in national language i.e. Hebrew A search engine in Hebrew- that I can have one in Hebrew as well, some place that collects all the studies and then I can search … something more accessible. It does not have to be only peer-reviewed studies, but also documents from Brookdale (Centre for Health Policy Research) and the like…
2. Collaboration between researchers and policymakers on research production At the stage when they develop research, that it should kind of fit the needs, i.e. to be involved early in the development of research so that it would answer my needs, that someone will take into account issues and methodology that interests me. The researchers will know what is the product that I need. ᅟ Building research together with policymakers, in advance- defining the main objective, reaching consensus on its meaning..something that is done in advance together. ᅟ Interactions with policy makers in advance to define the questions that interest them and are still unanswered by research. In major issues, you should also consult with them on study design, in a way that will make it more relevant to policymakers.
3. Opportunities for official linkage and exchange between policymakers and researchers such as; If you define in advance the role of decision maker, or an executive; if you make it a part of his roles not only to provide services but also to create an interface with the Academy. So you generate, in advance, an organizational commitment, even a physical one, for the purpose of learning, reading, hearing and cooperation. .
• Conferences Periodic meetings with the NIHP. The Health Ministry has a level that knows what is happening at the NIHP. At my level, which is an intermediate level, we don’t know… If there were conferences to the middle levels… to see what you are researching, what you are doing, how it relates. ᅟ For me, this whole story of conferences and journal clubs is very helpful, but many policy makers don’t see its importance of it and make time.
• Journal club/research clubs Periodic meetings – invite various organizations to present their fields of interest to the Health Ministry, the HOMs management, all kinds of decision-makers. There are institutions such as Tel Aviv University, Brookdale (Centre for Health Policy Research), Gertner (Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research), places like this, that can, once in a while, come and present their work in these fields and to see what are the relevant components and where they can augment each other. ᅟ Formal meetings. To make some seminar or a consensus conference where policy makers will be invited (usually there are only researchers in such consensus conferences) so a kind of sharing, joint seminar....
4. Increased budget to support KTE Instead of investing 100 NIS in research, spend 90 on research and 10 on implementation…
  1. aThe themes in the table are presented from the most common themes to the least common themes mentioned in the interviews