Table 6.
Comparison of ranking of 14 strategies by percentage in favor of each strategy as current vs. future ideal ways to bridge the gap between science and policy in the China-Canada survey 2012 (derived from Tables 4 and 5)
| China and Canada n = 207 (100 %) | China n = 121 (100 %) | Canada n = 86 (100 %) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strategy | Current | Ideal | p value (current vs. ideal) | Current | Ideal | p value (current vs. ideal) | Current | Ideal | p value (current vs. ideal) |
| a. Collaboration in study design | No. 7, 77 (37 %) | No. 4, 95 (46 %) | n.s. | No. 7, 51 (42 %) | No. 6, 53 (44 %) | n.s. | No. 9, 26 (30 %) | No. 4, 42 (49 %) | p < 0.05* |
| b. Focus on policy | No. 1, 117 (57 %) | No. 1, 123 (59 %) | n.s. | No. 1, 73 (60 %) | No. 2, 68 (56 %) | n.s. | No. 2, 44 (51 %) | No. 1, 55 (64 %) | n.s. |
| c. Policy briefs | No. 3, 97 (47 %) | No. 3, 109 (53 %) | n.s. | No. 3, 61 (50 %) | No. 3, 57 (47 %) | n.s. | No. 5, 36 (42 %) | No. 2, 52 (60 %) | p < 0.05* |
| d. Web-based portals | No. 11, 46 (22 %) | No. 11, 42 (20 %) | n.s. | No. 11, 20 (17 %) | No. 11, 19 (16 %) | n.s. | No. 9, 26 (30 %) | No. 9, 23 (27 %) | n.s. |
| e. Email updates | No. 13, 33 (16 %) | No. 12, 28 (14 %) | n.s. | No. 13, 16 (13 %) | No. 14, 9 (7 %) | n.s. | No. 13, 17 (20 %) | No. 10, 19 (22 %) | n.s. |
| f. Journal publications | No. 9, 65 (31 %) | No. 13, 24 (12 %) | p < 0.01** | No. 10, 28 (23 %) | No. 12, 18 (15 %) | n.s. | No. 4, 37 (43 %) | No. 14, 6 (7 %) | p < 0.01** |
| g. Conferences | No. 3, 97 (47 %) | No. 9, 59 (29 %) | p < 0.01** | No. 4, 59 (49 %) | No. 7, 47 (39 %) | n.s. | No. 3, 38 (44 %) | No. 12, 12 (14 %) | p < 0.01** |
| h. Policy recommendations | No. 5, 85 (41 %) | No. 5, 83 (40 %) | n.s. | No. 6, 56 (46 %) | No. 4, 55 (45 %) | n.s. | No. 7, 29 (34 %) | No. 8, 28 (33 %) | n.s. |
| i. Science-policy forums | No. 2, 112 (54 %) | No. 2, 120 (58 %) | n.s. | No. 2, 65 (54 %) | No. 1, 73 (60 %) | n.s. | No. 1, 47 (55 %) | No. 3, 47 (55 %) | n.s. |
| j. Joint research projects | No. 5, 85 (41 %) | No. 5, 83 (40 %) | n.s. | No. 5, 58 (48 %) | No. 4, 54 (45 %) | n.s. | No. 8, 27 (31 %) | No. 7, 29 (34 %) | n.s. |
| k. Personal contact | No. 8, 70 (34 %) | No. 8, 65 (31 %) | n.s. | No. 9, 35 (29 %) | No. 9, 33 (27 %) | n.s. | No. 6, 35 (41 %) | No. 6, 32 (37 %) | n.s. |
| l. Knowledge brokers | No. 12, 41 (20 %) | No. 10, 45 (22 %) | n.s. | No. 12, 19 (16 %) | No. 10, 26 (21 %) | n.s. | No. 11, 22 (26 %) | No. 10, 19 (22 %) | n.s. |
| m. Collaboration in analysis | No. 10, 61 (29 %) | No. 7, 71 (34 %) | n.s. | No. 8, 40 (33 %) | No. 8, 36 (30 %) | n.s. | No. 12, 21 (24 %) | No. 5, 35 (41 %) | p < 0.05* |
| n. Co-authorship | No. 14, 8 (4 %) | No. 14, 22 (11 %) | n.s. | No. 14, 3 (2 %) | No. 13, 12 (10 %) | n.s. | No. 14, 5 (6 %) | No. 12, 10 (12 %) | n.s. |
| No opinion | 9 (4 %) | 13 (6 %) | n.s. | 5 (4 %) | 9 (7 %) | n.s. | 4 (5 %) | 4 (5 %) | n.s. |
n.s. non-significant
*p < 0.05 (two-sided) **p < 0.01 (two-sided)