A3: Key requirements for improving evidence use in policy and practice
In their keynote paper for the forthcoming Social Policy Research and Evaluation Conference Nutley and others1 offered four key requirements for improving evidence use in policy and practice and identified lessons in relation to each. These are shown in this section, together with additional italicized comment about how these lessons might be applied in a MAL context:
3.1 The nature of evidence
- Research is only one source of evidence for public policy and practice
3.1.1 There may be a case for developing more agreed data sets, enlisting practitioners through a 'toolkit and associated application procedures' approach.
3.1.2 An EBPP Guidelines approach may be beneficial, to engage practitioners in 'filling the research evidence gaps' with consensual opinion about best practice.
- ... Ways of understanding [that are] related to the most appropriate means for achieving each kind of understanding – are likely to be more beneficial ... than simple hierarchies of evidence.
3.1.3 Resource could consider looking at the scope for more systematic sharing of best practice (options include specialist information exchange services such as the Education Management Information Exchange at NFER or electronic services such as the Electronic Library for Social Care or Health Action Website).
3.2 A strategic approach to knowledge creation
- Stakeholder involvement in the creation of wide-ranging R&D strategies is crucial
3.2.1 It would be relatively easy for Resource to make its commissioned research more relevant to practice, by:
- establishing processes for gathering practitioner questions
- commissioning vignettes to explore these
- filtering and prioritizing these (using panels of experts)
- using these as a basis for calls for tenders
- insisting that practitioners are involved in making project proposals and advising on the conduct of research.
- Such strategies need to address capacity building as well as priority areas for future research.
3.3 Effective dissemination and wide access
- Systematic reviews have the potential to increase access to robust bodies of knowledge but the cost ... and the need for further methodological development are barriers to progress.
3.3.1 Resource has commissioned reviews of research on specific topics but so far there have been no rigorous reviews undertaken in the UK using the full systematic review methodology (as espoused by the EPPI-Centre and NFER, based on the Cochrane reviews). Systematic reviews of high priority questions identified in consultation with MAL service managers and others would gradually establish a solid research base on which to build. This work is beginning in USA and Australia. The Campbell collaboration is a possible sponsor of this kind of work especially in relation to 'user education'. The cost issue is important: a recent estimate was that the average cost of systematic reviews in health was £51,0002.
3.3.2 There may be a case for commissioning systematic reviews (or strategic reviews) of the wider research literature (beyond MAL) for a MAL audience (referred to by the Medical Research Council, who already commission this type of study, as 'discipline-hopping'). Obvious areas for attention are management and marketing but there may be others.
3.3.3 Meanwhile it will be useful to identify any rigorous critical literature reviews conducted and make them available as a core information set. (A systematic review of existing critical reviews might be useful.)
- ... even good dissemination has its limits – 'pushing' evidence out is not enough, there is also the need to develop the 'pull' for evidence from potential end users. [See section 4.3]
3.4 Increasing the uptake of evidence
- Uptake needs to be defined broadly – there are many ways in which evidence might be utilised appropriately
- There are a myriad of initiatives aimed at increasing the use of evidence in policy and practice but there is little systematic evidence of the effectiveness of these
- Tentative evidence suggests that multi-faceted strategies that explicitly target barriers to change work best [See section 4.5 and 4.6]
- Partnership models, which encourage ongoing interaction between evidence providers and evidence users, may be the way forward. [See section 4.4]
1. NUTLEY, S., DAVIES, H. and WALTER, I. Evidence based policy and practice: cross sector lessons from the UK Keynote paper for Social Policy Research and Evaluation Conference, Wellington, NZ 2003. [back]
2. BOAZ, A., ASHBY, D. and YOUNG, K. 'Systematic reviews: what have they got to offer evidence based policy and practice?' Working Paper 2 ESRC London: UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice 2002. [back]
|