FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2108233766> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2108233766 abstract "The World Health Organization has recognized need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by best available research evidence. Developing recommendations make little sense if they are not used. Thus, effective strategies to promote appropriate use of recommendations by decision-makers are important.1 Discussions internationally have also been focusing on how to develop mechanisms to support use of research evidence in developing clinical practice guidelines, health technology assessments, and health policy.2Decision makers on health issues have to address a series of difficult questions when choosing programs and policies: What is likely disease burden that might be prevented or reduced? Which programs and policy options are likely to result in meaningful improvements in health? How will benefits be distributed among affected groups? Which potential solutions are appropriate and feasible for a specific situation? In implementing decisions they need to consider issues like political and technical feasibility, fit between strategy and community context, and cost and cost- effectiveness?3It needs to be understood that health researchers and have different perspectives towards resources and time frames regarding availability of research findings. They operate under different settings, each with its own professionalism and limitations. It is noted that policy-makers rarely convey clear messages about policy challenges they face in their specific context to allow for timely and appropriate research agendas. Researchers on other hand often produce scientific evidence which is not always tailor-made for application in different contexts and is usually characterized by complexity and grades of uncertainty.4Researchers cannot in advance predict utilization of their evidence in terms of interpretation and usefulness for decision makers, but they can influence policy outcomes if they engage with policy community as a stakeholder or via other stakeholders.5 Thus, according to van Kammen et al initiatives are needed to facilitate interaction between researchers and to foster greater use of research findings and evidence in policy-making and to narrow ‘know-do gap’. Knowledge brokering is designed to close know-do gap. It differs from other strategies, such as ‘researcher-push’ or ‘policy-maker-pull’. It starts with recognition that creating knowledge and formulating policy are two different processes. The focus of knowledge brokering is not on transferring of results of research, but on organizing interactive process between producers (researchers) and users (policy-makers) of knowledge so that they can co-produce feasible and research-informed policy options. Knowledge brokering is a two-way process that aims to; 1) encourage to be more responsive to research findings, and 2) stimulate researchers to conduct policy-relevant research and translate their findings to be meaningful to policy-makers.6There is growing literature on research synthesis techniques that are focusing on policy makers’ unique concerns. They are different than established methods of summative systematic reviews to answer well-defined clinical effectiveness questions. Admittedly, as Lomas notes the task is more challenging- demanding and often impatient clients, questions that need ongoing negotiation and depend as much on context as on content, literatures with unclear boundaries, multiple relevant methodologies and few generally agreed upon standards for quality. There are, however, those who are rising to these challenges and trying to develop methods for interpretive synthesis for benefit of policy makers. These methods have potential to get social science and health services research contributing to healthcare management and policy as effectively as Cochrane Collaboration brings epidemiologic and economic research to provision of clinical care.7A recently published study to understand perspectives and attitudes of towards use and impact of research in health sector in low- and middle-income countries used data from 83 semi-structured, in-depth interviews conducted with purposively selected at national level in Argentina, Egypt, Iran, Malawi, Oman and Singapore.8 Policy-makers interviewed for this study were unequivocal in their support for health research and high value they attribute to it. However, they stated that there were structural and informal barriers to research contributing to policy processes, to contribution research makes to knowledge generally and to use of research in health decision-making specifically. Major findings regarding barriers to evidence-based policy-making included poor communication and dissemination, lack of technical capacity in policy processes, as well as influence in political context. Policy-makers had a variable understanding of economic analysis, equity and burden of disease measures, and were vague in terms of their use in national decisions. Policy-maker recommendations regarding strategies for facilitating uptake of research into policy included improving technical capacity of policy-makers, better packaging of research results, use of social networks, and establishment of fora and clearinghouse functions to help assist in evidence-based policy-making.8The researchers hope to see research evidence become action in form of a new policy, program or decision but not always are these hopes realized. But they need to realize that research evidence is only one of factors in decision-making. There are other issues to be tackled like governmental vision, political challenges, resource constraints, different lobbyists, traditional values, beliefs etc. Martens and Roos make it explicit that policy makers pay more attention to research findings if they have invested their own funds and time.9 They urge researchers to take efforts in building relationships with policy makers, because there are inevitable tensions between what two parties need and do. Research findings must make sense to decision makers and so researchers must be able to communicate same in simple terms by means of short policy briefs.Hope this article helps to stimulate researchers to uninhibitedly share their perspectives with policy makers and vice versa. This would serve to further strengthen existing relationship between researchers and policy makers to achieve desired health outcomes in Oman and similar countries in region." @default.
• W2108233766 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2108233766 creator A5028124824 @default.
• W2108233766 date "2010-10-01" @default.
• W2108233766 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2108233766 title "Health Researchers and Policy Makers: A Need to Strengthen Relationship" @default.
• W2108233766 cites W1964218078 @default.
• W2108233766 cites W1967888523 @default.
• W2108233766 cites W1973377496 @default.
• W2108233766 cites W2104920041 @default.
• W2108233766 cites W2108430963 @default.
• W2108233766 cites W2127552600 @default.
• W2108233766 cites W2136388180 @default.
• W2108233766 cites W2141809304 @default.
• W2108233766 cites W2788473271 @default.
• W2108233766 doi "https://doi.org/10.5001/omj.2010.75" @default.
• W2108233766 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/3191660" @default.
• W2108233766 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22043351" @default.
• W2108233766 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W2108233766 type Work @default.
• W2108233766 sameAs 2108233766 @default.
• W2108233766 citedByCount "10" @default.
• W2108233766 countsByYear W21082337662013 @default.
• W2108233766 countsByYear W21082337662014 @default.
• W2108233766 countsByYear W21082337662015 @default.
• W2108233766 countsByYear W21082337662017 @default.
• W2108233766 countsByYear W21082337662018 @default.
• W2108233766 countsByYear W21082337662021 @default.
• W2108233766 countsByYear W21082337662022 @default.
• W2108233766 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2108233766 hasAuthorship W2108233766A5028124824 @default.
• W2108233766 hasBestOaLocation W21082337661 @default.
• W2108233766 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2108233766 hasConcept C2522767166 @default.
• W2108233766 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W2108233766 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2108233766 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2108233766 hasConceptScore W2108233766C17744445 @default.
• W2108233766 hasConceptScore W2108233766C2522767166 @default.
• W2108233766 hasConceptScore W2108233766C39549134 @default.
• W2108233766 hasConceptScore W2108233766C41008148 @default.
• W2108233766 hasConceptScore W2108233766C71924100 @default.
• W2108233766 hasLocation W21082337661 @default.
• W2108233766 hasLocation W21082337662 @default.
• W2108233766 hasLocation W21082337663 @default.
• W2108233766 hasLocation W21082337664 @default.
• W2108233766 hasOpenAccess W2108233766 @default.
• W2108233766 hasPrimaryLocation W21082337661 @default.
• W2108233766 hasRelatedWork W1506200166 @default.
• W2108233766 hasRelatedWork W1995515455 @default.
• W2108233766 hasRelatedWork W2048182022 @default.
• W2108233766 hasRelatedWork W2080531066 @default.
• W2108233766 hasRelatedWork W2604872355 @default.
• W2108233766 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2108233766 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2108233766 hasRelatedWork W3031052312 @default.
• W2108233766 hasRelatedWork W3032375762 @default.
• W2108233766 hasRelatedWork W3108674512 @default.
• W2108233766 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2108233766 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2108233766 magId "2108233766" @default.
• W2108233766 workType "article" @default.