49
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The development of ORACLe: a measure of an organisation’s capacity to engage in evidence-informed health policy

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Evidence-informed policymaking is more likely if organisations have cultures that promote research use and invest in resources that facilitate staff engagement with research. Measures of organisations’ research use culture and capacity are needed to assess current capacity, identify opportunities for improvement, and examine the impact of capacity-building interventions. The aim of the current study was to develop a comprehensive system to measure and score organisations’ capacity to engage with and use research in policymaking, which we entitled ORACLe (Organisational Research Access, Culture, and Leadership).

          Method

          We used a multifaceted approach to develop ORACLe. Firstly, we reviewed the available literature to identify key domains of organisational tools and systems that may facilitate research use by staff. We interviewed senior health policymakers to verify the relevance and applicability of these domains. This information was used to generate an interview schedule that focused on seven key domains of organisational capacity. The interview was pilot-tested within four Australian policy agencies. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was then undertaken using an expert sample to establish the relative importance of these domains. This data was used to produce a scoring system for ORACLe.

          Results

          The ORACLe interview was developed, comprised of 23 questions addressing seven domains of organisational capacity and tools that support research use, including (1) documented processes for policymaking; (2) leadership training; (3) staff training; (4) research resources (e.g. database access); and systems to (5) generate new research, (6) undertake evaluations, and (7) strengthen relationships with researchers. From the DCE data, a conditional logit model was estimated to calculate total scores that took into account the relative importance of the seven domains. The model indicated that our expert sample placed the greatest importance on domains (2), (3) and (4).

          Conclusion

          We utilised qualitative and quantitative methods to develop a system to assess and score organisations’ capacity to engage with and apply research to policy. Our measure assesses a broad range of capacity domains and identifies the relative importance of these capacities. ORACLe data can be used by organisations keen to increase their use of evidence to identify areas for further development.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-015-0069-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references62

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          How Can Research Organizations More Effectively Transfer Research Knowledge to Decision Makers?

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The utilisation of health research in policy-making: concepts, examples and methods of assessment

            The importance of health research utilisation in policy-making, and of understanding the mechanisms involved, is increasingly recognised. Recent reports calling for more resources to improve health in developing countries, and global pressures for accountability, draw greater attention to research-informed policy-making. Key utilisation issues have been described for at least twenty years, but the growing focus on health research systems creates additional dimensions. The utilisation of health research in policy-making should contribute to policies that may eventually lead to desired outcomes, including health gains. In this article, exploration of these issues is combined with a review of various forms of policy-making. When this is linked to analysis of different types of health research, it assists in building a comprehensive account of the diverse meanings of research utilisation. Previous studies report methods and conceptual frameworks that have been applied, if with varying degrees of success, to record utilisation in policy-making. These studies reveal various examples of research impact within a general picture of underutilisation. Factors potentially enhancing utilisation can be identified by exploration of: priority setting; activities of the health research system at the interface between research and policy-making; and the role of the recipients, or 'receptors', of health research. An interfaces and receptors model provides a framework for analysis. Recommendations about possible methods for assessing health research utilisation follow identification of the purposes of such assessments. Our conclusion is that research utilisation can be better understood, and enhanced, by developing assessment methods informed by conceptual analysis and review of previous studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              The in-between world of knowledge brokering.

              J Lomas (2007)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                steve.makkar@saxinstitute.org.au
                tari.turner@worldvision.com.au
                anna.williamson@saxinstitute.org.au
                jordan.louviere@unisa.edu.au
                sally.redman@saxinstitute.org.au
                abby.haynes@saxinstitute.org.au
                sally.green@monash.edu
                sue.brennan@monash.edu
                Journal
                Health Res Policy Syst
                Health Res Policy Syst
                Health Research Policy and Systems
                BioMed Central (London )
                1478-4505
                14 January 2016
                14 January 2016
                2015
                : 14
                : 4
                Affiliations
                [ ]The Sax Institute, Level 13, Building 10, 235 Jones Street, Ultimo, Sydney, NSW 2007 Australia
                [ ]World Vision Australia, 1 Vision Drive, Burwood East, Melbourne, Victoria 3151 Australia
                [ ]Institute for Choice, University of South Australia, Level 13, 140 Arthur Street, North Sydney, NSW 2060 Australia
                [ ]Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Edward Ford Building, Fisher Road, Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia
                [ ]School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Level 6, The Alfred Centre, 99 Commercial Road, Melbourne, VIC 3004 Australia
                Article
                69
                10.1186/s12961-015-0069-9
                4712550
                26769570
                a2c95b2e-1d37-4f20-8cf3-f4ba4d94e8da
                © Makkar et al. 2016

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 13 March 2015
                : 4 December 2015
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2016

                Health & Social care
                assessment,capacity,discrete choice experiments,evidence,health policy,knowledge translation,measure,organisation,policymaker,research,research use

                Comments

                Comment on this article