Table 2.
Baseline questionnaire results for assessing the climate for the use of evidence for policymaking in the region
| |
Never |
Very Rarely/Rarely |
Occasionally |
Frequently/Very Frequently |
Always |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | |
|
1. How often was relevant research evidence about high-priority policy issues easily available to policymakers? | |||||
|
a) Copies of articles or reports about primary research on high-priority policy issues were widely disseminated to policymakers working on these issues. |
0 (0.0%) |
14 (51.9%) |
4 (14.8%) |
8 (29.6%) |
1 (3.7%) |
|
b)Systematic reviews of the research literature on high-priority policy issues were widely disseminated to policymakers working on these issues. |
7 (26.9%) |
10 (38.5%) |
6 (23.1%) |
2 (7.7%) |
1 (3.8%) |
|
c) Policy briefs that described research evidence about a high-priority problem, options for addressing the problem, and key implementation considerations were widely disseminated to policymakers working on these issues. |
2 (7.7%) |
17 (65.4%) |
3 (11.5%) |
4 (15.4%) |
0 (0.0%) |
|
d) Policymakers had access to a personal computer with a functional internet connection. |
0 (0.0%) |
0 (0.0%) |
3 (11.5%) |
7 (26.9%) |
16 (61.5%) |
|
e) Policymakers had access to research evidence on high-priority policy issues through a searchable database focused on these issues. |
2 (7.4%) |
12 (44.4%) |
4 (14.8%) |
8 (29.6%) |
1 (3.7%) |
|
f) Policymakers had access to research evidence on high-priority policy issues through a service operated by researchers and designed to respond in a timely way to questions about these issues. |
5 (18.5%) |
11 (40.7%) |
4 (14.8%) |
6 (22.2%) |
1 (3.7%) |
|
g) Research evidence concerning high-priority policy issues was available to policymakers. |
1 (3.7%) |
10 (37%) |
9 (33.3%) |
7 (25.9%) |
0 (0.0%) |
|
2. How often did policymakers and researchers interact in the following ways? | |||||
|
a) Policymakers interacted with researchers as part of a priority-setting process to identify high-priority policy issues for which primary research and systematic reviews were needed. |
1 (3.7%) |
15 (55.6%) |
6 (22.2%) |
5 (18.5%) |
0 (0.0%) |
|
b) Policymakers interacted with researchers as part of the process of conducting primary research or systematic reviews about high-priority policy issues. |
0 (0.0%) |
12 (46.2%) |
7 (26.9%) |
7 (26.9%) |
0 (0.0%) |
|
c) Policymakers interacted with researchers to obtain assistance with finding and using research evidence about high-priority policy issues. |
2 (7.7%) |
8 (30.8%) |
7 (26.9%) |
9 (34.6%) |
0 (0.0%) |
|
d) Policymakers interacted with researchers through targeted efforts to support research use in policymaking (i.e., a rapid-response service or policy dialogues). |
2 (8.3%) |
17 (70.8%) |
1 (4.2%) |
4 (16.7%) |
0 (0.0%) |
|
e) Policymakers interacted with researchers on an informal basis (i.e., through membership on committees, attendance at meetings, personal conversations). |
0 (0.0%) |
6 (22.2%) |
9 (33.3%) |
8 (29.6%) |
4 (14.8%) |
|
3. How often did policymakers develop and demonstrate their capacity to find and use health research evidence in health systems policymaking? | |||||
|
a) Policymakers participated in training to develop their capacity to find and use research evidence about high-priority policy issues. |
4 (15.4%) |
11 (42.3%) |
6 (23.1%) |
5 (19.2%) |
0 (0.0%) |
|
b) Policymakers acquired research evidence on high-priority policy issues. |
1 (3.8%) |
12 (46.2%) |
6 (23.1%) |
7 (26.9%) |
0 (0.0%) |
|
c) Policymakers assessed the quality and local applicability of research evidence on high-priority policy issues. |
6 (23.1%) |
11 (42.3%) |
5 (19.2%) |
4 (15.4%) |
0 (0.0%) |
| d) Policymakers identified or created places for research evidence in decision-making processes. | 2 (7.7%) | 14 (53.8%) | 6 (23.1%) | 4 (15.4%) | 0 (0.0%) |