Development and validation of SEER (Seeking, Engaging with and Evaluating Research): a measure of policymakers' capacity to engage with and use research

被引:45
作者
Brennan, Sue E. [1 ]
McKenzie, Joanne E. [1 ]
Turner, Tari [1 ]
Redman, Sally [2 ]
Makkar, Steve [2 ]
Williamson, Anna [2 ]
Haynes, Abby [2 ,3 ]
Green, Sally E. [1 ]
机构
[1] Monash Univ, Sch Publ Hlth & Prevent Med, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[2] Sax Inst, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[3] Univ Sydney, Sch Publ Hlth, Sydney, NSW, Australia
基金
澳大利亚国家健康与医学研究理事会; 英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
Evidence-informed policy; Research utilisation; Knowledge translation; Knowledge exchange; Capacity to use research; Capacity building; Measurement instrument; Questionnaire; Conceptual framework; Health policy; INFORMED DECISION-MAKING; HEALTH-POLICY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS; PUBLIC-HEALTH; RELIABILITY; TOOL; STRATEGIES; SUPPORT; ORGANIZATIONS; PRACTITIONERS;
D O I
10.1186/s12961-016-0162-8
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Capacity building strategies are widely used to increase the use of research in policy development. However, a lack of well-validated measures for policy contexts has hampered efforts to identify priorities for capacity building and to evaluate the impact of strategies. We aimed to address this gap by developing SEER (Seeking, Engaging with and Evaluating Research), a self-report measure of individual policymakers' capacity to engage with and use research. Methods: We used the SPIRIT Action Framework to identify pertinent domains and guide development of items for measuring each domain. Scales covered (1) individual capacity to use research (confidence in using research, value placed on research, individual perceptions of the value their organisation places on research, supporting tools and systems), (2) actions taken to engage with research and researchers, and (3) use of research to inform policy (extent and type of research use). A sample of policymakers engaged in health policy development provided data to examine scale reliability (internal consistency, test-retest) and validity (relation to measures of similar concepts, relation to a measure of intention to use research, internal structure of the individual capacity scales). Results: Response rates were 55% (150/272 people, 12 agencies) for the validity and internal consistency analyses, and 54% (57/105 people, 9 agencies) for test-retest reliability. The individual capacity scales demonstrated adequate internal consistency reliability (alpha coefficients > 0.7, all four scales) and test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficients > 0.7 for three scales and 0.59 for fourth scale). Scores on individual capacity scales converged as predicted with measures of similar concepts (moderate correlations of > 0.4), and confirmatory factor analysis provided evidence that the scales measured related but distinct concepts. Items in each of these four scales related as predicted to concepts in the measurement model derived from the SPIRIT Action Framework. Evidence about the reliability and validity of the research engagement actions and research use scales was equivocal. Conclusions: Initial testing of SEER suggests that the four individual capacity scales may be used in policy settings to examine current capacity and identify areas for capacity building. The relation between capacity, research engagement actions and research use requires further investigation.
引用
收藏
页数:19
相关论文
共 55 条
[1]   Sample size tables for correlation analysis with applications in partial correlation and multiple regression analysis [J].
Algina, J ;
Olejnik, S .
MULTIVARIATE BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH, 2003, 38 (03) :309-323
[2]  
*ALL HLTH POL SYST, 2007, SOUND CHOIC ENH CAP
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2016, PRINCIPLES PRACTICE
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2014, STAND ED PSYCH TEST
[5]   Sample size requirements for estimating intraclass correlations with desired precision [J].
Bonett, DG .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2002, 21 (09) :1331-1335
[6]   Reliability of a tool for measuring theory of planned behaviour constructs for use in evaluating research use in policymaking [J].
Boyko, Jennifer A. ;
Lavis, John N. ;
Dobbins, Maureen ;
Souza, Nathan M. .
HEALTH RESEARCH POLICY AND SYSTEMS, 2011, 9
[7]   Design and formative evaluation of the Policy Liaison Initiative: a long-term knowledge translation strategy to encourage and support the use of Cochrane systematic reviews for informing health policy [J].
Brennan, Sue E. ;
Cumpston, Miranda ;
Misso, Marie L. ;
McDonald, Steve ;
Murphy, Matthew J. ;
Green, Sally E. .
EVIDENCE & POLICY, 2016, 12 (01) :25-52
[8]   Strategies to promote the impact of systematic reviews on healthcare policy: a systematic review of the literature [J].
Bunn, Frances ;
Sworn, Katie .
EVIDENCE & POLICY, 2011, 7 (04) :403-428
[9]   BIAS, PREVALENCE AND KAPPA [J].
BYRT, T ;
BISHOP, J ;
CARLIN, JB .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1993, 46 (05) :423-429
[10]  
Campbell Danielle M, 2009, Aust New Zealand Health Policy, V6, P21, DOI 10.1186/1743-8462-6-21