Skip to main content

Table 2 Baseline questionnaire results for assessing the climate for the use of evidence for policymaking in the region

From: A multi-faceted approach to promote knowledge translation platforms in eastern Mediterranean countries: climate for evidence-informed policy

 

Never

Very Rarely/Rarely

Occasionally

Frequently/Very Frequently

Always

 

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

1. How often was relevant research evidence about high-priority policy issues easily available to policymakers?

a) Copies of articles or reports about primary research on high-priority policy issues were widely disseminated to policymakers working on these issues.

0 (0.0%)

14 (51.9%)

4 (14.8%)

8 (29.6%)

1 (3.7%)

b) Systematic reviews of the research literature on high-priority policy issues were widely disseminated to policymakers working on these issues.

7 (26.9%)

10 (38.5%)

6 (23.1%)

2 (7.7%)

1 (3.8%)

c) Policy briefs that described research evidence about a high-priority problem, options for addressing the problem, and key implementation considerations were widely disseminated to policymakers working on these issues.

2 (7.7%)

17 (65.4%)

3 (11.5%)

4 (15.4%)

0 (0.0%)

d) Policymakers had access to a personal computer with a functional internet connection.

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

3 (11.5%)

7 (26.9%)

16 (61.5%)

e) Policymakers had access to research evidence on high-priority policy issues through a searchable database focused on these issues.

2 (7.4%)

12 (44.4%)

4 (14.8%)

8 (29.6%)

1 (3.7%)

f) Policymakers had access to research evidence on high-priority policy issues through a service operated by researchers and designed to respond in a timely way to questions about these issues.

5 (18.5%)

11 (40.7%)

4 (14.8%)

6 (22.2%)

1 (3.7%)

g) Research evidence concerning high-priority policy issues was available to policymakers.

1 (3.7%)

10 (37%)

9 (33.3%)

7 (25.9%)

0 (0.0%)

2. How often did policymakers and researchers interact in the following ways?

a) Policymakers interacted with researchers as part of a priority-setting process to identify high-priority policy issues for which primary research and systematic reviews were needed.

1 (3.7%)

15 (55.6%)

6 (22.2%)

5 (18.5%)

0 (0.0%)

b) Policymakers interacted with researchers as part of the process of conducting primary research or systematic reviews about high-priority policy issues.

0 (0.0%)

12 (46.2%)

7 (26.9%)

7 (26.9%)

0 (0.0%)

c) Policymakers interacted with researchers to obtain assistance with finding and using research evidence about high-priority policy issues.

2 (7.7%)

8 (30.8%)

7 (26.9%)

9 (34.6%)

0 (0.0%)

d) Policymakers interacted with researchers through targeted efforts to support research use in policymaking (i.e., a rapid-response service or policy dialogues).

2 (8.3%)

17 (70.8%)

1 (4.2%)

4 (16.7%)

0 (0.0%)

e) Policymakers interacted with researchers on an informal basis (i.e., through membership on committees, attendance at meetings, personal conversations).

0 (0.0%)

6 (22.2%)

9 (33.3%)

8 (29.6%)

4 (14.8%)

3. How often did policymakers develop and demonstrate their capacity to find and use health research evidence in health systems policymaking?

a) Policymakers participated in training to develop their capacity to find and use research evidence about high-priority policy issues.

4 (15.4%)

11 (42.3%)

6 (23.1%)

5 (19.2%)

0 (0.0%)

b) Policymakers acquired research evidence on high-priority policy issues.

1 (3.8%)

12 (46.2%)

6 (23.1%)

7 (26.9%)

0 (0.0%)

c) Policymakers assessed the quality and local applicability of research evidence on high-priority policy issues.

6 (23.1%)

11 (42.3%)

5 (19.2%)

4 (15.4%)

0 (0.0%)

d) Policymakers identified or created places for research evidence in decision-making processes.

2 (7.7%)

14 (53.8%)

6 (23.1%)

4 (15.4%)

0 (0.0%)