Research use domain | Key subaction | Levels of each subaction | Raw utility coefficient (SE)a | Rescaled utility coefficientb | Relative importance (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Conceptual research use | a. Background understanding of the health issue | i. No | −0.92 (0.15) | 0 | 11.47 |
ii. Yes | 0 | 1.19 | |||
b. Understanding of the policy context | i. No | −1.09 (0.14) | 0 | 16.27 | |
ii. Yes | 0 | 1.41 | |||
c. Value, skills, and/or understanding of research use in policy | i. No | −0.84 (0.16) | 0 | 9.82 | |
ii. Yes | 0 | 1.09 | |||
d. Alternative perspectives and/or strategies | i. No | −1.26 (0.14) | 0 | 18.94 | |
ii. Yes | 0 | 1.62 | |||
e. Informed core understanding of the issue | i. No, just clarified | −0.69 (0.12) | 0 | 9.43 | |
ii. Yes | 0 | 0.88 | |||
f. Examples were specified | i. No | −2.18 (0.23) | 0 | 34.07 | |
ii. Yes | 0 | 2.81 | |||
2. Instrumental research use | a. Research informed the core of the decision | No/negligible influence | −4.34 (0.50) | 0 | 69.37 |
ii. No, additional details only | −2.37 (0.33) | 2.15 | |||
iii. Yes | 0 | 4.75 | |||
b. Examples were specified | i. No | −1.92 (0.27) | 0 | 30.63 | |
ii. Yes | 0 | 2.10 | |||
3. Tactical research use | a. Support, confirm, or justify predetermined decisions | i. No | −1.44 (0.19) | 0 | 24.59 |
ii. Yes | 0 | 2.21 | |||
b. Persuade targeted stakeholders | i. No | −1.88 (0.22) | 0 | 32.25 | |
ii. Yes | 0 | 2.90 | |||
c. Persuade peripheral stakeholders | i. No | −1.10 (0.15) | 0 | 18.89 | |
ii. Yes | 0 | 1.70 | |||
d. Inform stakeholders about key issues | i. No | −1.42 (0.18) | 0 | 24.26 | |
ii. Yes | 0 | 2.18 | |||
4. Imposed research use | a. Organisation mandates research use | i. No | −3.37 (0.60) | 0 | 43.69 |
ii. Yes | 0 | 3.93 | |||
b. Organisation expects research use | i. No | −2.64 (0.44) | 0 | 34.31 | |
ii. Yes | 0 | 3.09 | |||
c. Organisation encourages research use | i. No | −1.70 (0.39) | 0 | 22.00 | |
ii. Yes | 0 | 1.98 |