Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 4 Research engagement action subactions and their importance values

From: Using conjoint analysis to develop a system to score research engagement actions by health decision makers

Research engagement action Subaction Importance† (%)
1. Searching for research a. Policymaker searched academic literature databases and/or physical libraries 31.45
b. Policymaker searched grey literature sources 15.82
c. Policymaker obtained research by chance, research that was on-hand, or provided by colleagues 12.04
d. Policymaker requested experts (researchers, working groups, librarians, or other research experts) to identify research 17.32
e. Policymaker searched generic databases or search engines 9.80
f. Policymaker examined reference lists, citation indices, or databases of references 13.56
2. Research obtained a. Policymaker found systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses 36.50
b. Policymaker found books and/or technical monographs 6.42
c. Policymaker found primary research and/or theoretical research 18.61
d. Policymaker found unpublished research and/or conference resources 9.16
e. Policymaker found internal policies, evaluations, or data 4.28
f. Policymaker found policies, evaluations, or data from external organisations or registries 11.27
g. Policymaker obtained recent (up-to-date) research from the above categories 13.75
3. Appraising relevance a. Policymaker assessed whether the research was applicable to the policy context or policy issue 22.84
b. Policymaker assessed whether research recommendations were actionable and/or feasible 20.50
c. Policymaker assessed whether the research was consistent with previous research on the issue 13.70
d. Policymaker assessed if research was compatible with his/her OR the organisation's values, knowledge, or experience 13.05
e. Policymaker consulted experts to assess the relevance of research 14.35
f. Policymaker undertook these actions as part of a pre-specified strategy 15.56
4. Appraising quality a. Policymaker assessed whether the design or conclusions of the research were valid 22.17
b. Policymaker evaluated whether the design or conclusions of the research were described clearly and comprehensively 12.98
c. Policymaker assessed whether the source of the research was credible 12.17
d. Checked if the research cited, or was referenced in other high-quality research or policy documents 8.60
e. Policymaker consulted experts to assess quality 14.51
f. Policymaker assessed the level of evidence of the research 16.77
g. Policymaker undertook these actions as part of a pre-specified strategy 12.79
5. Generating new researcher a. The level of intention of the policymaker to generate or commission new research (to follow-up the current policy) 38.79
b. Policymaker mentioned thorough research generation activities 32.17
c. Policymaker mentioned less intensive research activities 17.85
d. Policymaker advocated for future research to be undertaken 11.19
6. Interacting with researchers a. Policymaker engaged in thorough collaborative activities with researchers 41.78
b. Policymaker engaged in less intensive interactions with (other) researchers 14.09
c. Policymaker engaged in sporadic contact with (other) researchers? 11.03
d. Policymaker actively initiated these interaction activities 33.10
  1. † Importance values were calculated by dividing a subaction’s range (i.e., highest utility minus the lowest utility) by the sum of ranges across all subactions.