Abstract
Study design: Case study.
Setting: Norway.
Participants: Two researchers from the National Institute of Public Health and four representatives from respectively the National Insurance Administration, Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions, Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry, and Norwegian Medical Association.
Intervention: Structured discussions of the research, including the objectives, interventions, design, and interpretation of the results.
Results: The participants succeeded in designing and completing a cluster randomised controlled trial through the participatory process. Intermediary results from the trial have been used in practical planning within the National Insurance Administration, but there are few indications that the main results of the trial have been used.
Conclusions: This approach of involving policy makers in the research planning process when political or organisational values are at stake did not succeed in this case. The salient explanations for this are conflicting interests of the organisations involved in the process and the research findings were in conflict with those interests.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (95.3 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Bero L. A., Grilli R., Grimshaw J. M., Harvey E., Oxman A. D., Thomson M. A. Closing the gap between research and practice: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings. The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Review Group. BMJ. 1998 Aug 15;317(7156):465–468. doi: 10.1136/bmj.317.7156.465. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Brugha R., Varvasovszky Z. Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health Policy Plan. 2000 Sep;15(3):239–246. doi: 10.1093/heapol/15.3.239. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Granados A., Jonsson E., Banta H. D., Bero L., Bonair A., Cochet C., Freemantle N., Grilli R., Grimshaw J., Harvey E. EUR-ASSESS Project Subgroup Report on Dissemination and Impact. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997 Spring;13(2):220–286. doi: 10.1017/s0266462300010370. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Innvaer Simon, Vist Gunn, Trommald Mari, Oxman Andrew. Health policy-makers' perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002 Oct;7(4):239–244. doi: 10.1258/135581902320432778. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Oakley A. Experimentation and social interventions: a forgotten but important history. BMJ. 1998 Oct 31;317(7167):1239–1242. doi: 10.1136/bmj.317.7167.1239. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Scheel Inger B., Hagen Kåre Birger, Herrin Jeph, Carling Cheryl, Oxman Andrew D. Blind faith? The effects of promoting active sick leave for back pain patients: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002 Dec 1;27(23):2734–2740. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200212010-00014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Scheel Inger B., Hagen Kåre Birger, Herrin Jeph, Oxman Andrew D. A randomized controlled trial of two strategies to implement active sick leave for patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002 Mar 15;27(6):561–566. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200203150-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Scheel Inger B., Hagen Kåre Birger, Oxman Andrew D. Active sick leave for patients with back pain: all the players onside, but still no action. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002 Mar 15;27(6):654–659. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200203150-00016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ware J. E., Jr, Sherbourne C. D. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992 Jun;30(6):473–483. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]