Abstract
Objectives
This paper reflects on experiences of Australian public health researchers and members of research policy advisory groups (PAGs) in working with PAGs. It considers their benefits and challenges for building researcher and policy actor collaboration and ensuring policy relevance of research.
Methods
Four research projects conducted between 2015 and 2020 were selected for analysis. 68 PAG members from Australian federal, state and local governments, NGOs and academics participated in providing feedback. Thematic analysis of participant feedback and researchers’ critical reflections on the effectiveness and capacity of PAGs to support research translation was undertaken.
Results
PAGs benefit the research process and can facilitate knowledge translation. PAG membership changes, differing researcher and policy actor agendas, and researchers’ need to balance policy relevance and research independence are challenges when working with PAGs. Strategies to improve the function of health policy research PAGs are identified.
Conclusions
The paper suggests a broader adapted approach for gaining the benefits and addressing the challenges of working with PAGs. It opens theoretical and practical discussion of PAGs’ role and how they can increase research translation into policy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Change history
10 November 2020
Article note updated.
References
Bacchi C (2008) The politics of research management: reflections on the gap between what we 'know' (about SDH) and what we do. Health Sociol Rev 17:165–176. https://doi.org/10.5172/hesr.451.17.2.165
Baum F, Friel S (2017) Politics, policies and processes: a multidisciplinary and multimethods research programme on policies on the social determinants of health inequity in Australia. BMJ Open 7(12):e017772
Baum F, Lawless A, Delany T, MacDougall C, Williams C, Broderick D, Wildgoose D, Harris E, McDermott D, Kickbusch I, Popay J, Marmot M, (2014) Evaluation of Health in All Policies: concept, theory and application. Health Promotion Int 29(suppl 1):i130–i142
Baum F, Delany-Crowe T, Fisher M, MacDougall C, Harris P, McDermott D, Marinova D (2018) Qualitative protocol for understanding the contribution of Australian policy in the urban planning, justice, energy and environment sectors to promoting health and health equity. BMJ Open 8(9):e025358
Bowen S, Botting I, Graham ID, Huebner L-A (2017) Beyond “two cultures”: guidance for establishing effective researcher health system partnerships. Int J Health Policy Manag 6:27–42. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2016.71
Cairney P, Oliver K (2017) Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy? Health Res Policy Syst 15:35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-017-0192-x
Caplan N (1979) The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. Am Behav Sci 22:459–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276427902200308
Choi BCK, Pang T, Lin V, Puska P, Sherman G, Goddard M, Ackland MJ, Sainsbury P, Stachenko S, Morrison H, Clottey C (2005) Can scientists and policy makers work together? J Epidemiol Commun Health 59:632–637. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2004.031765
Delany‐Crowe T, Popay J, Lawless A, Baum F, MacDougall C, van Eyk H, Williams C (2019) The role of trust in joined‐up government activities: experiences from health in all policies in South Australia. Australian Journal of Public Administration
Frenk J (1992) Balancing relevance and excellence: organizational responses to link research with decision making. Soc Sci Med 35:1397–1404. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(92)90043-P
Greenhalgh T, Jackson C, Shaw S, Janamian T (2016) Achieving research impact through co-creation in community-based health services: literature review and case study. Milbank Q 94:392–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12197
Haynes A, Rowbotham SJ, Redman S, Brennan S, Williamson A, Moore G (2018) What can we learn from interventions that aim to increase policy-makers’ capacity to use research? A realist scoping review. Health Res Policy Syst 16:31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0277-1
Innvaer S, Vist G, Trommald M, Oxman A (2002) Health policy-makers' perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy 7:239–244. https://doi.org/10.1258/135581902320432778
Lavis JN, Robertson D, Woodside JM, McLeod CB, Abelson J (2003) How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? Milbank Q 81:221–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.t01-1-00052
Lawrence R (2006) Research dissemination: actively bringing the research and policy worlds together. Evid Policy J Res Debate Pract 2:373–384. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426406778023694
Lomas J (2000) Essay: using ‘linkage and exchange’ to move research into policy at a Canadian Foundation. Health Aff 19:236–240. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.19.3.236
Lomas J (2007) The in-between world of knowledge brokering. BMJ 334:129–132. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39038.593380.AE
Mackenzie C, Bacchi C (2010) University-public sector research collaboration: mine the space, never mind the gap. In: Bacchi C, Eveline J (eds) Mainstreaming politics: gendering practices and feminist theory. University of Adelaide Press, Adelaide, pp 263–281
Milio N (1987) Making healthy public policy; developing the science by learning the art: an ecological framework for policy studies. Health Promot Int 2:263–274. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/2.3.263
Oliver K, Kothari A, Mays N (2019) The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research? Health Res Policy Syst 17:33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-019-0432-3
Wehrens R (2014) Beyond two communities—from research utilization and knowledge translation to co-production? Public Health 128:545–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2014.02.004
Weiss CH (1983) Ideology, interests, and information. In: Callahan D, Jennings B (eds) Ethics, the social sciences, and policy analysis. Springer, Boston, pp 213–245
Funding
This paper analyses the experience of research project advisory groups from 4 research projects that received funding from: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (GNT 1078046)—Centre for Research Excellence in the Social Determinants of Health Equity. Australian Research Council Discovery Grant (DP160100244)—Understanding how the policies of Australian governments can promote health through action on the social determinants of health and health equity. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (GNT1027561)—Does a Health in All Policies approach improve health, well-being and equity? Rapid Applied Research Translation for Health Impact Grant Scheme through funding allocation from the Australian Medical Research Future Fund—Healthy South: Testing the feasibility of the rapid translation of Health in All Policies ideas to create healthy urban environments, create health promoting health services and stem the non-communicable disease epidemic in the southern area of Adelaide.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All the research projects on which this paper was based received ethical approval. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committees (see details below) and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards: NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence in the Social Determinants of Health Equity: Social and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee Flinders University Project no 6786, ANU Human Research Ethics approval protocol 2015/243, GV Health (Goulburn Valley Health Victoria) no GVH 39/16, Aboriginal Health Research Ethics Committee a sub-committee of the Aboriginal Health Council of SA Approval Protocol no 04–16-697. ARC Discovery Grant project: Social and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee Flinders University Project no 7176, Department of Justice and Regulation Human Research Ethics Committee Victoria no CF/18/8744. NHMRC Health in All Policies project: Social and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee Flinders University Project no 5518, SA Health Human Research Ethics Committee no HREC/12/SAH/74, Medical Research Future Fund Rapid Applied Research Translation for Health Impact Grant Healthy South project: Southern Adelaide Clinical Research Ethics Committee, Southern Adelaide Local Health Network HREC/19/SAC/91, Aboriginal Health Research Ethics Committee a sub-committee of the Aboriginal Health Council of SA Approval Protocol no 04-19-819.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the studies.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This article is part of the section “Knowledge synthesis, translation and exchange”.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
van Eyk, H., Friel, S., Sainsbury, P. et al. How do advisory groups contribute to healthy public policy research?. Int J Public Health 65, 1581–1591 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-020-01504-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-020-01504-1