Presentation given by the Sax Institute's Gai Moore and Jo-An Atkinson as part of a McMaster Health Forum webinar.

1. Gai Moore – The Sax Institute
Jo-An Atkinson – The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre
25 November 2016
Knowledge synthesis for policy
and practice: Top 10 things
we’ve learned

2. Sax Institute
• Independent, not for profit
• 80+ policy and program
agencies
• Public health and health service
research groups
• Systems and services developed
and tested
• Government, non government,
and research organisations
2
To improve health and wellbeing by driving the use of
research in policies, programs and services
‘The bridge in curve’ Grace Cossington Smith, 1930

3. Driving the use of research
• Work with agencies to define their research needs
• Build agency capacity to use research
• Strengthen partnerships to undertake research
• Manage infrastructure and data linkage
• Develop and test new services and programs

4. Why synthesis?
• Policymakers seeking research
• Researchers keen to engage with policymakers
• Detailed needs assessment
• Evidence Check established
• Range of services developed to increase use
Campbell DM, Redman S, Jorm L, Cooke M, Zwi AB, Rychetnik L. Increasing the use of evidence in health policy: practice and
views of policy makers and researchers. Australia and New Zealand Health Policy. 2009 Aug 24;6(1):1.
http://www.saxinstitute.org.au/category/publications/evidence-check-library/

5. Evidence Check
• Established in 2006
• Standardised review process
• 10-12 weeks
• 200+ reviews commissioned
• Policy and practice agencies
• External review teams
• Knowledge brokers
• Liaison team
Campbell D, Donald B, Moore G, Frew D. Evidence Check: knowledge brokering to commission research reviews for
policy. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice. 2011: 1;7(1):97-107.

6. http://www.saxinstitute.org.au/category/publications/evidence-check-library/

7. Things we’ve learned
1. Policymakers value
research
2. Agencies use research in
different ways
3. The right evidence isn’t
always available
4. Getting the question
right is key
5. Knowledge brokering
makes a difference
6. You need the right team
7. And the right supports
in place
8. You can increase use
9. Impact is hard to
measure
10. Trust is the essential
ingredient

8. Strongly agree/
agree (N=151)
Research is valuable to understand how to think about
issues
89%
Research is valuable to decide about content or
direction of a policy or program
95%
1. Policymakers value research
CIPHER, the Centre for Informing Policy in Health with Evidence from Research https://www.saxinstitute.org.au/our-
work/cipher/

9. Multi
portfolio
Single
portfolio
Non
government
Determine priorities for future investment 31% 21% 14%
Identify and evaluate alternative actions or
solutions
30% 6% 14%
2. Agencies use research … in different ways
Moore G, Redman S, Turner T, Haines M: Rapid reviews in health policy: a study of intended use in the New South Wales'
Evidence Check program. Evid Policy 2016:12:46, 505-519

10. 3. The right evidence isn’t always available
• Lack of timely, relevant research
• Can be difficult to apply to local
context
• Policy makers said they need…
– Syntheses and summaries
– User friendly formats
– Messages that prompt action
Campbell DM, Redman S, Jorm L, Cooke M, Zwi AB, Rychetnik L. Increasing the use of evidence in health policy: practice
and views of policy makers and researchers. Australia and New Zealand Health Policy. 2009 Aug 24;6(1):1.

11. 4. Getting the question right is key
• To get the right answers, you need the right questions
Campbell D, Donald B, Moore G, Frew D. Evidence Check: knowledge brokering to commission research reviews for
policy. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice. 2011: 1;7(1):97-107.
• Agency questions may not:
– Adequately reflect the agency’s
research needs
– Be sufficiently specific to carry
out a review
– Be answerable by research

12. 5. Knowledge brokering makes a difference
• Unpack the review
questions with the policy
agency
• Clarify what’s needed and
define key terms
• Reconstruct the questions
and refine
• Check the ‘fit’ with the
purpose and context

13. 5. Knowledge brokering makes a difference
• “What the knowledge brokering session did for us was
tease out specifically what those questions were. It gave us
an opportunity… to really work out what we really wanted,
and maybe to push away some of the extraneous stuff…
that perhaps wasn’t particularly pertinent or relevant.”
• Following knowledge brokering:
– questions were clearer
– reviewers were more confident they could meet needs
Moore G, Redman S, D’Este C, Makkar S. Does knowledge brokering improve the quality of rapid review proposals? A
before and after study. (Under review).

14. 6. You need the right team
• Team should have:
– Content expertise
– Experience conducting literature reviews
– Ability to synthesise multiple types of evidence
– Understanding of policy environments and needs
– Skills in writing well for a policy (or other) audience

15. 7. … and the right supports in place
• Overall management of the work
– Ensuring process is clear
– Facilitating interaction at key decision points
– Reviewing the quality of the work
– Coaching in policy friendly writing
• Common issues:
– Contracting
– Intellectual property
– Publication

16. 8. You can increase use by…..
• Stakeholder presentations
• Targeted summaries
• Policy dialogues
• Consensus building
• Workshops and forums
Makkar SR, Gilham F, Williamson A, Bisset K. Usage of an online tool to help policymakers better engage with research: Web
CIPHER. Implementation Science. 2015 Apr 23;10(1):1.

17. 9. Impact is hard to measure because…
• Policy contexts are
complex
• Change is incremental
and takes time
• Syntheses are just one
input
• Examples
– Setting priorities for funding interventions
– Promoting best practice in generating and using research
– Aligning social marketing messages with the latest findings
Redman, S., et al. (2015). "The SPIRIT Action Framework: A structured approach to selecting and testing strategies to
increase the use of research in policy." Social Science & Medicine 136: 147-155. 136-137:147-155

18. 10. Trust is the essential ingredient
• Respect and understanding
• Shared commitment to the policy goal
• Credible and trusted intermediaries
• Open communication throughout
• High degree of responsiveness
• Partnerships that thrive and are sustained
Haynes AS, Derrick GE, Redman S, Hall WD, Gillespie JA, Chapman S, Sturk H. Identifying trustworthy experts: how do
policymakers find and assess public health researchers worth consulting or collaborating with?. PloS one. 2012 Mar
5;7(3):e32665.

19. New methods for evidence synthesis
and knowledge exchange
• The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre – focus on systems
methods and approaches to tackle ‘wicked problems’
• Using dynamic simulation modelling as a platform for
synthesizing diverse evidence sources
• The product is a ‘what if’ tool to test likely impacts of policies and
interventions before they are implemented in the real world
• Embedding stakeholder engagement, participation and
consensus building processes into the development of these tools
to support knowledge exchange
• For more information / link to publications go to:
http://preventioncentre.org.au/our-work/standing-
capacities/synthesis-capacity/; or contact Jo-An
Atkinson@saxinstitute.org.au

20. Things we’ve learned
1. Policymakers value
research
2. Agencies use research in
different ways
3. The right evidence isn’t
always available
4. Getting the question
right is key
5. Knowledge brokering
makes a difference
6. You need the right team
7. And the right supports
in place
8. You can increase use
9. Impact is hard to
measure
10. Trust is the essential
ingredient

21. Acknowledgements
Ms Sian Rudge, Head Knowledge Exchange Division
Professor Sally Redman, CEO
Professor Fiona Blyth, Senior Adviser
Contact: gabriel.moore@saxinstitute.org.au