Cargando…

Which health research gets used and why? An empirical analysis of 30 cases

BACKGROUND: While health research is considered essential for improving health worldwide, it remains unclear how it is best organized to contribute to health. This study examined research that was part of a Ghanaian-Dutch research program that aimed to increase the likelihood that results would be u...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kok, Maarten Olivier, Gyapong, John Owusu, Wolffers, Ivan, Ofori-Adjei, David, Ruitenberg, Joost
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4869365/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27188305
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0107-2
_version_ 1782432306811633664
author Kok, Maarten Olivier
Gyapong, John Owusu
Wolffers, Ivan
Ofori-Adjei, David
Ruitenberg, Joost
author_facet Kok, Maarten Olivier
Gyapong, John Owusu
Wolffers, Ivan
Ofori-Adjei, David
Ruitenberg, Joost
author_sort Kok, Maarten Olivier
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: While health research is considered essential for improving health worldwide, it remains unclear how it is best organized to contribute to health. This study examined research that was part of a Ghanaian-Dutch research program that aimed to increase the likelihood that results would be used by funding research that focused on national research priorities and was led by local researchers. The aim of this study was to map the contribution of this research to action and examine which features of research and translation processes were associated with the use of the results. METHODS: Using Contribution Mapping, we systematically examined how 30 studies evolved and how results were used to contribute to action. We combined interviews with 113 purposively selected key informants, document analysis and triangulation to map how research and translation processes evolved and contributions to action were realized. After each case was analysed separately, a cross-case analysis was conducted to identify patterns in the association between features of research processes and the use of research. RESULTS: The results of 20 of the 30 studies were used to contribute to action within 12 months. The priority setting and proposal selection process led to the funding of studies which were from the outset closely aligned with health sector priorities. Research was most likely to be used when it was initiated and conducted by people who were in a position to use their results in their own work. The results of 17 out of 18 of these user-initiated studies were translated into action. Other features of research that appeared to contribute to its use were involving potential key users in formulating proposals and developing recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Our study underlines the importance of supporting research that meets locally-expressed needs and that is led by people embedded in the contexts in which results can be used. Supporting the involvement of health sector professionals in the design, conduct and interpretation of research appears to be an especially worthwhile investment.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4869365
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48693652016-05-18 Which health research gets used and why? An empirical analysis of 30 cases Kok, Maarten Olivier Gyapong, John Owusu Wolffers, Ivan Ofori-Adjei, David Ruitenberg, Joost Health Res Policy Syst Research BACKGROUND: While health research is considered essential for improving health worldwide, it remains unclear how it is best organized to contribute to health. This study examined research that was part of a Ghanaian-Dutch research program that aimed to increase the likelihood that results would be used by funding research that focused on national research priorities and was led by local researchers. The aim of this study was to map the contribution of this research to action and examine which features of research and translation processes were associated with the use of the results. METHODS: Using Contribution Mapping, we systematically examined how 30 studies evolved and how results were used to contribute to action. We combined interviews with 113 purposively selected key informants, document analysis and triangulation to map how research and translation processes evolved and contributions to action were realized. After each case was analysed separately, a cross-case analysis was conducted to identify patterns in the association between features of research processes and the use of research. RESULTS: The results of 20 of the 30 studies were used to contribute to action within 12 months. The priority setting and proposal selection process led to the funding of studies which were from the outset closely aligned with health sector priorities. Research was most likely to be used when it was initiated and conducted by people who were in a position to use their results in their own work. The results of 17 out of 18 of these user-initiated studies were translated into action. Other features of research that appeared to contribute to its use were involving potential key users in formulating proposals and developing recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Our study underlines the importance of supporting research that meets locally-expressed needs and that is led by people embedded in the contexts in which results can be used. Supporting the involvement of health sector professionals in the design, conduct and interpretation of research appears to be an especially worthwhile investment. BioMed Central 2016-05-17 /pmc/articles/PMC4869365/ /pubmed/27188305 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0107-2 Text en © Kok et al. 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Kok, Maarten Olivier
Gyapong, John Owusu
Wolffers, Ivan
Ofori-Adjei, David
Ruitenberg, Joost
Which health research gets used and why? An empirical analysis of 30 cases
title Which health research gets used and why? An empirical analysis of 30 cases
title_full Which health research gets used and why? An empirical analysis of 30 cases
title_fullStr Which health research gets used and why? An empirical analysis of 30 cases
title_full_unstemmed Which health research gets used and why? An empirical analysis of 30 cases
title_short Which health research gets used and why? An empirical analysis of 30 cases
title_sort which health research gets used and why? an empirical analysis of 30 cases
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4869365/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27188305
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0107-2
work_keys_str_mv AT kokmaartenolivier whichhealthresearchgetsusedandwhyanempiricalanalysisof30cases
AT gyapongjohnowusu whichhealthresearchgetsusedandwhyanempiricalanalysisof30cases
AT wolffersivan whichhealthresearchgetsusedandwhyanempiricalanalysisof30cases
AT oforiadjeidavid whichhealthresearchgetsusedandwhyanempiricalanalysisof30cases
AT ruitenbergjoost whichhealthresearchgetsusedandwhyanempiricalanalysisof30cases