Table 4.

Research engagement action subactions and their importance values

Research engagement action	Subaction	Importance† (%)
1. Searching for research	a. Policymaker searched academic literature databases and/or physical libraries	31.45
	b. Policymaker searched grey literature sources	15.82
	c. Policymaker obtained research by chance, research that was on-hand, or provided by colleagues	12.04
	d. Policymaker requested experts (researchers, working groups, librarians, or other research experts) to identify research	17.32
	e. Policymaker searched generic databases or search engines	9.80
	f. Policymaker examined reference lists, citation indices, or databases of references	13.56
2. Research obtained	a. Policymaker found systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses	36.50
	b. Policymaker found books and/or technical monographs	6.42
	c. Policymaker found primary research and/or theoretical research	18.61
	d. Policymaker found unpublished research and/or conference resources	9.16
	e. Policymaker found internal policies, evaluations, or data	4.28
	f. Policymaker found policies, evaluations, or data from external organisations or registries	11.27
	g. Policymaker obtained recent (up-to-date) research from the above categories	13.75
3. Appraising relevance	a. Policymaker assessed whether the research was applicable to the policy context or policy issue	22.84
	b. Policymaker assessed whether research recommendations were actionable and/or feasible	20.50
	c. Policymaker assessed whether the research was consistent with previous research on the issue	13.70
	d. Policymaker assessed if research was compatible with his/her OR the organisation's values, knowledge, or experience	13.05
	e. Policymaker consulted experts to assess the relevance of research	14.35
	f. Policymaker undertook these actions as part of a pre-specified strategy	15.56
4. Appraising quality	a. Policymaker assessed whether the design or conclusions of the research were valid	22.17
	b. Policymaker evaluated whether the design or conclusions of the research were described clearly and comprehensively	12.98
	c. Policymaker assessed whether the source of the research was credible	12.17
	d. Checked if the research cited, or was referenced in other high-quality research or policy documents	8.60
	e. Policymaker consulted experts to assess quality	14.51
	f. Policymaker assessed the level of evidence of the research	16.77
	g. Policymaker undertook these actions as part of a pre-specified strategy	12.79
5. Generating new researcher	a. The level of intention of the policymaker to generate or commission new research (to follow-up the current policy)	38.79
	b. Policymaker mentioned thorough research generation activities	32.17
	c. Policymaker mentioned less intensive research activities	17.85
	d. Policymaker advocated for future research to be undertaken	11.19
6. Interacting with researchers	a. Policymaker engaged in thorough collaborative activities with researchers	41.78
	b. Policymaker engaged in less intensive interactions with (other) researchers	14.09
	c. Policymaker engaged in sporadic contact with (other) researchers?	11.03
	d. Policymaker actively initiated these interaction activities	33.10

† Importance values were calculated by dividing a subaction’s range (i.e., highest utility minus the lowest utility) by the sum of ranges across all subactions.