Presentation on theme: "Building Bridges Between Research and Health Policy Decision-Making Canadian Research Data Centre Network National Conference, October 22-24, 2012 Jasmine."— Presentation transcript:
Building Bridges Between Research and Health Policy Decision-Making Canadian Research Data Centre Network National Conference, October 22-24, 2012 Jasmine Lefebvre Senior Knowledge Translation Specialist
Today I will talk about… Overview of CIHR Overview of CIHR Challenges in bridging research and policy Challenges in bridging research and policy Initiatives aimed at bridging research and policy Initiatives aimed at bridging research and policy Evidence on Tap Evidence on Tap Evidence-Informed Healthcare Renewal Evidence-Informed Healthcare Renewal Outcomes and Lessons Learned Outcomes and Lessons Learned
Overview of CIHR CIHR is the Government of Canada’s funding agency for health research and knowledge translationCIHR is the Government of Canada’s funding agency for health research and knowledge translation CIHR supports more than 14,000 researchers and traineesCIHR supports more than 14,000 researchers and trainees CIHR funds a broad spectrum of health research, encompassing four themes:CIHR funds a broad spectrum of health research, encompassing four themes: Biomedical Biomedical Clinical Clinical Health systems and services Health systems and services Population and public health Population and public health
CIHR Approach - 13 virtual institutes Each led by a Scientific Director who: builds Institute and research capacity establishes and nurtures partnerships fosters networking, knowledge dissemination and communication works as part of CIHR management team conducts research Supported by Institute Advisory Boards: linkage to stakeholder communities
Support a high-quality, accessible and sustainable healthcare system (Strategic Direction #2) Support evidence- informed policy-making to improve health and the health system at provincial and federal levels (Strategic Direction #3) Health Research Roadmap
Why bridge research and policymaking? Policy which is informed by systematic evidence generally leads to better outcomes Widely agreed that health policies do not reflect research evidence to the extent that in theory they could There are many genuine obstacles to evidence-informed policy-making, which require a concerted effort to build capacity Research indicates that exchange between the very different worlds of research and policymaking leads to more relevant research and policy decisions
Challenges in supporting research use in policymaking 1.Research isn’t valued as an information input (general climate for research use) 2.Research isn’t relevant (production) 3.Research isn’t easy to use (translation) a.Research isn’t communicated effectively (push) b.Research isn’t available when policymakers need it and in a form that they can use (facilitating pull) c.Policymakers lack mechanisms to prompt them to use research in policymaking (pull) d.Policymakers lack fora where systems challenges can be worked through with key stakeholders (exchange) Taken from Dr. John’s Lavis’ presentation to the HealthCare 2010 Symposium
“Personal two-way communication between researchers and decision-makers should be used to facilitate the use of research. This can reduce mutual mistrust and promote a better understanding of policy-making by researchers and research by policy-makers.” FacilitatorsBarriers absence of personal contact personal contactlack of timeliness or relevance of research timeliness and relevance of researchcultural differences, mutual mistrust summaries + policy recommendationsconcerns about quality of research time commitments and constraints staff turnover Barriers and facilitators to researcher/policymaker collaboration Innvaer et al. (2002) J Health Serv Res Policy, 7(4):239-44.
Research Process Knowledge Translation Processes Policy- Making Process Taken from Dr. John’s Lavis’ presentation to the HealthCare 2010 Symposium Purposefully linked processes Knowledge translation activities to link the research and policymaking processes
Integrated Knowledge Translation Integrated KT: Is a way of doing research (i.e., an approach, not a method) Is collaborative, participatory, action-oriented research Involves engaging and integrating knowledge users into the research process Knowledge users can be: Policymakers, decision makers, researchers, the public, industry, clinicians, the media Investigators from different disciplines, teams, countries Because they participate throughout the research process, the research results are more likely to be relevant to and used by decision makers
CIHR Initiatives contributing to bridging research and policy 1.Evidence on Tap (EoT) 2.Evidence-Informed Healthcare Renewal (EIHR) Objective: To produce high-quality, timely, and accessible evidence that is of immediate interest and use to senior government policy makers. Objective: To provide timely and high-quality evidence - both in the short term and beyond for the perennial topics of how best to finance, sustain and govern provincial, territorial and federal healthcare systems
EIHR*EoT Healthcare Renewal Policy Analysis Science Policy Fellowships CIHR initiatives contributing to bridging research and policy Best Brains Exchanges Expedited Knowledge Synthesis PHSI *Other funding tools are also used within the EIHR initiative
A one-day meeting that brings together the “best brains” of research and decision-making on a ministry-identified, high-priority issue for a closed-door “brain dump”. In-camera discussions (Chatham House Rule) Researchers summarize the relevant evidence and suggest what it implies about possible policy directions Researchers and decision makers discuss the implications of the research EoT: Best Brains Exchanges What is a Best Brains Exchange?
Syntheses are often cited as the preferred source of evidence to inform decision-making but usually take too long to produce EKS accelerates all phases of synthesis production – application, review, research, knowledge translation. Decision-makers submit priority synthesis topics to CIHR Pre-qualified teams apply, and following merit review, selected teams synthesize the evidence in an accelerated timeframe and participate in a workshop illustrating their findings. Outcomes: high-quality knowledge syntheses and workshops that respond to decision-making priorities. EoT: Expedited Knowledge Synthesis What is an Expedited Knowledge Synthesis? Recent topics: EIHR, Suicide Prevention, MS (CCSVI)
EIHR: Healthcare Renewal Policy Analysis Purpose: to support the generation of health policy analyses that identify evidence-informed policy options for healthcare renewal (including public health) in Canada and that will be useful to health system policy and decision makers. to offer policy and decision makers evidence-informed policy options for healthcare renewal issues of high importance over the next two-to-three years. Areas of Focus: EIHR: Financing and funding models, governance and sustainability of the healthcare system
Expedited Knowledge Synthesis Healthcare Renewal Policy Analysis Research responding to the needs of policy and decision makers
EIHR: Science Policy Fellowships Purpose: To establish and nurture critical links between policy makers and external researchers in support of evidence-informed public policy by providing short-term policy assignments Provide trainees and investigators with exposure to how government works and how public policies are made Engage health research trainees and investigators in the policy-making process Encourage trainees and investigators to conduct policy- relevant research that addresses challenges facing society Assist policy-makers in gathering the external scientific expertise required to inform their decisions Currently accepting applications (deadline Dec. 5, 2012)
Partnerships for Health System Improvement (PHSI) PHSI offers Canada’s health-system decision makers evidence- informed answers to their most pressing questions. A funding program founded on partnerships, every PHSI project involves collaboration between decision makers and researchers interested in working together to address health system challenges. Any applied health services and policy research topic can be addressed so long as it responds to the information needs of the participating decision makers.
Outcomes and Lessons Learned Cultivated an appreciation for and tendency to consider health services research (“There’s a tone and culture shift I’m feeling about valuing and appreciating health services research in our policy”) Fostered relationships with researchers (“we’re more inclined to reach out”) Strengthened relationships between the Ministries and CIHR (“we have a much deeper relationship with CIHR now” and “Now you hear our Deputy talk about CIHR all the time. He talks about the Best Brains and says that what we’re trying to do is accomplish fundamental change and that CIHR, with the Best Brains, is helping us achieve this.”) Contributed directly to policy- and decision-making (“We went from Best Brains into action really fast,” and “it has contributed to evidence-informed decision-making – especially in terms of directions not taken.”) Mechanism for follow-up with individual decision makers is needed Feedback from Policy Makers (Ministry leads)
Most common goals are “to be useful” and “to contribute to policymaking” Researchers valued the exchange of ideas with decision makers, opportunity for insight into their priority questions, chance to contribute directly to policy-making, and the opportunity to network Comments “Put me down as a wild enthusiast!”; “it’s an absolutely fabulous initiative.” “Absolutely [CIHR should continue the program]. I’d advocate for this because it’s a very effective use of KT dollars.” Feedback from Researchers: Outcomes and Lessons Learned
"I think my experience as a science policy fellow has prepared me to interact more effectively with policy makers and health professionals. I can see things from their perspective, which will be invaluable if I want to succeed as an applied researcher and impact population health through decision-making and knowledge translation." Dr. Rasha Maal-Bared, CIHR/Health Canada Science Policy Fellow “The CIHR Science Policy Fellowship was a unique opportunity to really step out of my academic setting and get a sense of what matters most in policy development. Working alongside the policy experts at Health Canada allowed me to translate my research into a meaningful health policy discussion. Because of the links existing between Health Canada and the Canadian healthcare industry, the Fellowship also gave me a better understanding of how to bridge the gap between research and innovation.” Jason Millar, CIHR/Health Canada Science Policy Fellow Feedback from Science Policy Fellows: Outcomes and Lessons Learned
For More Information Website: About Knowledge Translation http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/29418.html Thank you E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org