Table 2 Organisational factors of research use in policy-making identified in the included studies
From: Organisational factors that facilitate research use in public health policy-making: a scoping review
Thematic overview of the organisational factors/Policy level and population studied by number of studies | Local | State/regional | National/federal | International | Civil servants | Politicians | Service managers and clinical/field staff | Researchers | Other external actors |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
INDIVIDUAL FACTORS | |||||||||
External knowledge exchange linkages | |||||||||
1. Brokering knowledge from different sectors and stakeholder groups (2 empirical studies [56, 60]) | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |||
2. Informal, personal and trusting relationship with researchers (4 reviews [16, 29, 32, 53], 3 empirical studies [56, 60, 65]) | 5 | 7 | 6 | 8 | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||
3. Time spent on networking activities and acquiring research knowledge (1 review [48], 1 empirical study [41]) | 2 | 1 | 2 | ||||||
Gender and age | |||||||||
1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||
2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |||
6. Seniority and having decision-making authority (1 review [48], 2 empirical studies [2, 27]) | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |||||
Individual values, interests and beliefs | |||||||||
7. Having a left-leaning political orientation (1 review [29]) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
8. Level of association and perceived relevance, credibility and objectivity of external research providers (4 reviews [12, 29, 32, 49], 4 empirical studies [8, 58, 60, 67]) | 5 | 9 | 7 | 2 | 9 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 5 |
9. Motivation, intention and expectations towards using research, including its perceived usefulness (7 reviews [12,13,14, 17, 29, 32, 48], 13 empirical studies [8, 9, 27, 30, 33, 41, 43, 47, 54, 56, 67,68,69]) | 13 | 10 | 13 | 1 | 19 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 6 |
10. Ownership of research results (1 review [51]) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
11. Positive experiences with research translation and research use (1 review [29], 2 empirical studies [60, 69]) | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | ||
Position, status and role in the organisation | |||||||||
12. Being a knowledge broker, champion or research gatekeeper (3 reviews [13, 14, 51], 6 empirical studies [10, 55, 58, 61, 70, 71]) | 5 | 4 | 5 | 9 | 4 | 5 | 2 | ||
13. Being an influential member of the organisation in promoting research (5 reviews [12,13,14, 49, 51], 2 empirical studies [10, 55]) | 5 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 |
14. Having a type of specialisation (1 review [48]) | 1 | 1 | |||||||
15. Having decision-making authority (4 reviews [12, 13, 32, 48], 5 empirical studies [2, 41, 43, 66, 72]) | 8 | 5 | 8 | 1 | 11 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
Research awareness and integration skills | |||||||||
16. Competencies and the ability to champion research use in a political setting (3 reviews [16, 17, 49], 4 empirical studies [45, 70, 73, 74]) | 4 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
17. Availability of internal experts with research knowledge in a particular policy area (3 reviews [14, 17, 32], 2 empirical studies [27, 73]) | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 1 | |||
18. Having a high educational level (1 review [48], 6 empirical studies [2, 8, 9, 41, 66, 72]) | 3 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 1 | ||||
19. Having a low educational level (1 empirical study [75]) | 1 | 1 | |||||||
20. Having research experience and skills (4 reviews [16, 17, 29, 52], 7 empirical studies [33, 41, 45, 66, 67, 75, 76]) | 7 | 7 | 5 | 11 | 3 | 2 | 4 | ||
21. Skills in seeking, appraising and interpreting systematic reviews and adapting to contextual needs (5 reviews [14, 16, 17, 32, 53], 9 empirical studies [38, 39, 42, 45, 47, 54, 56, 68, 73]) | 8 | 4 | 9 | 13 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 5 | |
MANAGEMENT OF RESEARCH INTEGRATION | |||||||||
Performance management | |||||||||
22. Availability and organisation of internal staff, which coordinate and respond to specific demands for research to inform a policy (1 review [53], 8 empirical studies [27, 30, 61, 64, 67, 74, 76, 77]) | 7 | 6 | 5 | 12 | 3 | 2 | 5 | ||
23. Continuity and stability of employment for high level leadership and staff (2 reviews [29, 48], 2 empirical studies [30, 45]) | 4 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
24. Development of shared positions or exchange programmes with university (1 review [53], 4 empirical studies [60, 64, 65, 69]) | 2 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 3 | |||
25. Internal capacity-building (9 reviews [11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 32, 51,52,53], 17 empirical studies [27, 30, 33, 36, 38, 42, 45, 46, 54, 56, 59, 60, 64, 67, 69, 71, 73]) | 18 | 12 | 16 | 1 | 26 | 6 | 6 | 8 | |
26. Research integration skills, which form an essential part of recruitment policy and the performance management system (2 reviews [16, 53], 6 empirical studies [30, 33, 42, 45, 61, 72]) | 5 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 1 | 2 | |||
Strategic commitment towards research use | |||||||||
27. Clear strategic vision for, and the systematic incorporation of, research use within existing systems and practises (3 reviews [13, 14, 51], 7 empirical studies [10, 30, 44,45,46, 64, 77]) | 7 | 4 | 5 | 10 | 2 | 3 | 2 | ||
28. Efforts to create an organisational culture favouring research use (6 reviews [11,12,13,14, 17, 51], 3 empirical studies [30, 33, 73]) | 8 | 6 | 7 | 2 | 9 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 2 |
29. Provision of sufficient time and resources to acquire research, make decisions and engage with research activities (7 reviews [12,13,14, 17, 29, 32, 51], 10 empirical studies [8, 30, 33, 36, 41, 42, 45, 56, 59, 67]) | 14 | 8 | 11 | 1 | 16 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 6 |
30. Support by senior managers (3 reviews [14, 29, 51], 8 empirical studies [10, 36, 38, 42, 45, 58, 64, 75]) | 8 | 6 | 4 | 11 | 3 | 3 | 2 | ||
ORGANISATIONAL SYSTEM AND INFRASTRUCTURE FOR RESEARCH USE | |||||||||
Access to research | |||||||||
31. Access to online or in-house databases and repositories of research (5 reviews [12, 17, 29, 32, 53], 7 empirical studies [8, 10, 27, 36, 46, 60, 64]) | 7 | 9 | 6 | 1 | 12 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 |
32. Personal access to a researcher, research consultant or internal expert (4 reviews [29, 48, 53], 3 empirical studies [36, 60, 73]) | 4 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 2 | ||
33. Provision of library services or support by an information specialist (3 reviews [29, 32, 53], 4 empirical studies [10, 71, 73]) | 3 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 2 | ||
34. Availability of tailored, disseminated research findings to policy-makers (4 reviews [12, 17, 29, 53], 4 empirical studies [43, 64, 70, 77]) | 4 | 5 | 7 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 7 |
35. Technical support to access research findings (1 empirical study [39]) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
Inter-organisational communication and collaboration | |||||||||
36. External partnerships and communication channels (5 reviews [12, 29, 48, 52, 53], 9 empirical studies [39, 44, 56, 58,59,60, 76,77,78]) | 9 | 8 | 15 | 1 | 14 | 2 | 3 | 8 | 10 |
37. Government and academia collaborative research (1 review [53], 5 empirical studies [56, 58, 60, 74, 77]) | 2 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 3 | 4 | |||
Intra-organisational communication, learning networks and collaboration teams | |||||||||
38. Clear messages and good internal networks among leaders across departments (1 review [14], 2 empirical studies [45, 73]) | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | ||||
39. Intra-organisational communication and learning networks (3 reviews [14, 48, 52], 7 empirical studies [8, 30, 44, 59, 70, 73, 74]) | 7 | 4 | 6 | 10 | 4 | 3 | 4 | ||
40. Multidisciplinary and multiagency teams (3 review [14, 50, 52], 1 empirical study [70]) | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | ||
Knowledge management systems and methods for internal research generation | |||||||||
41. Availability of a comprehensive knowledge management system for research use (1 review [53], 1 empirical study [30]) | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | |||||
42. Data collection systems for research, monitoring and evaluation (2 review [14, 52], 2 empirical studies [10, 59, 79]) | 3 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 2 | ||
43. Methods for collecting and generating research to inform policy (1 review [16], 1 empirical study [76]) | 1 | 1 | |||||||
INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES AND RULES FOR POLICY-MAKING | |||||||||
Political environment | |||||||||
44. Establishing platforms for engaging all stakeholders across sectors in policy discussions and where research evidence is discussed (2 reviews [52, 53], 2 empirical studies [59, 60]) | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 | ||
45. Funding and commissioning of research (5 reviews [14, 16, 29, 32, 53], 9 empirical studies [30, 58,59,60,61, 64, 69, 73, 76]) | 5 | 7 | 7 | 13 | 4 | 3 | 3 | ||
46. Open and transparent policy-making process that creates opportunities for public input (1 review [48], 4 empirical studies [46, 59, 65, 76]) | 4 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 2 | ||
47. Political support and procedures for using research for policy-making (4 reviews [12, 16, 29, 53]) | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
Implicit rules and preferences on how to make policy | |||||||||
48. High value placed on questioning, experimentation and risk taking as part of the organisation’s culture (1 review [14], 3 empirical studies [10, 30, 74]) | 3 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 1 | ||||
49. High value placed on rationality, professionalism, speciality, measurement, evaluation and quality improvement as part of the organisation’s culture (1 review [14], 6 empirical studies [10, 45, 60, 61, 70, 76]) | 3 | 4 | 3 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 1 | ||
50. Shared importance and high value of research in policy-making as part of the organisation’s culture (5 reviews [13, 17, 32, 48, 51], 7 empirical studies [8, 9, 27, 58, 64, 73, 76]) | 6 | 8 | 6 | 11 | 3 | 3 | 1 | ||
ORGANISATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS | |||||||||
Function of the organisation | |||||||||
51. Being a healthcare organisation (1 empirical study [33]) | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
52. Being a statutory body that has to stand up to legal scrutiny (1 empirical study [61]) | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
53. Being an organisation with high functional differentiation (number of divisions or departments within the organisation) (1 empirical study [47]) | 1 | 1 | |||||||
54. Being an organisation whose primary task focuses on policy and programme development (1 review [48]) | 1 | 1 | |||||||
Size and complexity of the organisation | |||||||||
55. Being a medium- or large-sized organisation and unit (1 review [48], 3 empirical studies [9, 33, 41]) | 3 | 2 | 2 | 4 | |||||
56. Being an organisation that provides a large number of distinct services (1 review [48]) | 1 | 1 | |||||||
Policy area | |||||||||
57. Working in a disease prevention policy area (1 empirical study [57]) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
58. Working in a policy area where political conflicts are low (1 empirical study [57]) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
59. Working in a policy area with a pathogenic focus (1 empirical study [57]) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
60. Working in a technical policy area (1 empirical study [59]) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
61. Working in an education or social policy area (2 empirical studies [9, 66]) | 2 | 1 | 2 | ||||||
Level of policy-making | |||||||||
62. Being a national level organisation (1 empirical study [57]) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
63. Being a provincial level organisation (1 empirical study [9]) | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
Location | |||||||||
64. Being in an urban area (1 review [48]) | 1 | 1 | |||||||