Research into Policy

Failure to translate research findings into policy and practice prevents research from achieving maximum public health benefit. Despite substantial investment in clinical research in HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, the exploitation and use of research results beyond academia is often limited.
Limited opportunities for engagement between researchers and policy-makers, lack of experience in exploiting research results beyond academia, and structural and cultural differences between research and policy-making are some of the barriers to an efficient uptake of research results.
Health managers and policy-makers can also face challenges in dealing with a large volume of research evidence and difficulties in adapting evidence from systematic reviews to make it locally relevant.
This Research into Policy Toolkit guides researchers through the process of taking research findings into policy: describing the overall key steps and exploring the main themes through the lens of key frameworks.
We have also collated an extensive collection of resources linked to taking research findings into policy which can be searched and filtered depending on their type. Are you looking for a guide, a framework or model, or want to watch a few short videos? Or maybe you are interested in learning materials? Click on 'Resources' to explore.
This toolkit is continually being worked on and this version is being piloted to allow The EDCTP Knowledge Hub community to contribute to its development. If you would like to suggest resources or give constructive feedback, please fill out the short questionnaire available by selecting the speech bubble button above.
Explore the main themes of taking research findings into policy or navigate the extensive collection of open-access resources by selecting a button below
Steps in the Research to Policy process
Evidence generation & gathering, advocacy and collaboration
Resources
Evidence generation & gathering, advocacy and collaboration
The evidence generation and collaboration of knowledge translation frameworks into policy is fundamental for research influence on policy decisions. Despite substantial progress in evidence generation and gathering, there is a need to strengthen the generation and use of research evidence in health policy and practice decision-making and implementation. We need strategies and frameworks that can foster the use of research evidence in health policy and practice. This section presents a selection of frameworks that have been reviewed and with a focus on strengthening research use through communities of practice, stakeholder mapping, advocacy, bridging research and practice, and addressing the lack of systematic organization in knowledge translation. These resources will provide you with skills to influence health-related decisions and a checklist that can improve policy impact from a research project.
WANEL Strategies →
There are different strategies and interventions to strengthen the generation and use of research evidence in health policy and practice decision-making and implementation. These include developing a Community of Practice, a repository of health policy and systems research (HPSR) evidence, stakeholder mapping, and engagement for action, advocacy, and partnership.
Knowledge to Action →
The Knowledge to Action (K2A) Framework outlines three phases - research, translation, and institutionalization and the decision points, interactions, and support structures within the phases that are necessary to move knowledge into sustainable action. It is designed for facilitators, practitioners and researchers, providing a structured approach to bridging research and practice, and control of chronic diseases.
Translating Research for Impact →
A free online course to learn how to influence decisions made by elected officials, government agencies, non-government organizations, and health systems that impact the health of populations. A solid foundation of skills for effectively translating and disseminating research.
Research for Policy tool →
Effective knowledge utilization in policy making requires proper alignment between researchers and policymakers. This tool serves as a checklist for both researchers and policymakers, helping them address key alignment areas throughout a research project. Maintaining alignment between these two groups during the research process can be challenging, making this tool particularly valuable for all researchers seeking to align their work with policy needs.
The SPIRIT Action Framework →
The SPIRIT (Supporting Policy In Health with Research: an Intervention Trial) Action Framework was designed to enhance the integration of research into policy by providing a structured method for selecting and evaluating strategies that support research utilization. This framework was developed in response to the proliferation of knowledge translation strategies, which, despite their increasing prevalence, often lack systematic organization and empirical validation.
SAGE (Staff Assessment of enGagement with Evidence) →
This includes a trial evaluating the effectiveness of a multifaceted program to improve the capacity of health policy agencies to use research in the development of policies and programs, entitled SPIRIT (Supporting Policy in Health with Research: an Intervention Trial. SAGE is based on the SPIRIT Action Framework which describes the steps, barriers, facilitators, and contextual influences along the pathway to research use in policymaking.
Top
Monitoring & Evaluation
In this section, you will find reviews of frameworks and tools for integrating research evidence into health policy and practice, emphasizing Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) for effective data collection, analysis, and learning. The tools will cover evidence implementation in healthcare, emphasizing the complex role of context in successful outcomes. You will be able to evaluate a program to enhance health policy agencies’ use of research in policy/program development, focusing on steps, barriers, and facilitators. These tools will assist you in structuring research translation and measuring research use in health policy making while stressing the importance of monitoring and scaling interventions.
i-PARIHS Framework →
The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework, introduced in 1998, has been widely used to explain and predict the success of evidence implementation in healthcare settings. It highlights the complex and multi-dimensional nature of implementation, with a strong emphasis on context.
SAGE (Staff Assessment of enGagement with Evidence) →
This includes a trial evaluating the effectiveness of a multifaceted program to improve the capacity of health policy agencies to use research in the development of policies and programs, entitled SPIRIT (Supporting Policy in Health with Research: an Intervention Trial. SAGE is based on the SPIRIT Action Framework which describes the steps, barriers, facilitators, and contextual influences along the pathway to research use in policymaking.
Knowledge to Action →
The Knowledge to Action (K2A) Framework outlines three phases - research, translation, and institutionalization and the decision points, interactions, and support structures within the phases that are necessary to move knowledge into sustainable action. It is designed for facilitators, practitioners and researchers, providing a structured approach to bridging research and practice, and control of chronic diseases.
Scoring policymakers’ use of research →
This study focuses on monitoring and evaluating (M&E) research use in health policymaking by developing a standardized measurement and scoring tool.
Review of frameworks for translating research evidence into policy and practice →
The need to find unified approach for research translation: importance of a common language across disciplines, implementation of frameworks yes, but also monitoring scaling interventions.
Top
Implementation
The implementation of knowledge translation frameworks into policy is imperative for addressing the discrepancy between research and decision-making. Despite substantial progress in evidence generation, numerous research findings fail to influence policy due to barriers such as misalignment of research priorities, inadequate communication between researchers and policymakers, and the intricacy of policy processes. Various frameworks have been developed to enhance the integration of research into policy, emphasizing factors such as acceptability, feasibility, scalability, and sustainability. These frameworks aspire to guarantee that research findings are not only generated but also effectively implemented to enhance healthcare outcomes and public health strategies.
The SPIRIT Action Framework →
The SPIRIT (Supporting Policy In health with Research: an Intervention Trial) Action Framework was designed to enhance the integration of research into policy by providing a structured method for selecting and evaluating strategies that support research use. The framework was developed in response to the proliferation of knowledge translation strategies, which, despite their increasing prevalence, often lack systematic organization and empirical validation.
Implementability of Healthcare Interventions →
The paper explores the concept of implementability, defined as the likelihood that a healthcare intervention will be successfully adopted and sustained in real-world settings. Despite a growing body of research on implementation science, many interventions fail to achieve long-term uptake due to a lack of planning for scalability and sustainability.
Research for Policy tool →
Effective knowledge utilization in policy making requires proper alignment between researchers and policymakers. This tool serves as a checklist for both researchers and policymakers, helping them address key alignment areas throughout a research project. Maintaining alignment between these two groups during the research process can be challenging, making this tool particularly valuable for all researchers seeking to align their work with policy needs.
Knowledge to Action →
The Knowledge to Action (K2A) Framework outlines three phases - research, translation, and institutionalization and the decision points, interactions, and support structures within the phases that are necessary to move knowledge into sustainable action. It is designed for facilitators, practitioners and researchers, providing a structured approach to bridging research and practice, and control of chronic diseases.
Lost in Knowledge Translation →
This article addresses the challenge of translating research findings into real-world healthcare practice. It highlights the confusion surrounding terms like knowledge translation, transfer, and exchange, and proposes a conceptual framework to clarify the process of moving knowledge into action.
Model for Value-Based Policy-Making in Health Systems →
This article examines the role of values in health policy-making. It argues that while values are central to discussions about health systems and their reform, the concept of "value" itself remains vague, and policy-making processes often neglect values. The study aims to provide a model for value-based policy-making to clarify the concept of value and how it affects policy decisions.
JBI's Approach to Evidence Implementation →
In the ever-evolving field of healthcare, the seamless integration of evidence into practice remains a persistent challenge. While various theoretical models and frameworks exist to guide implementation efforts, healthcare professionals often grapple with the practicalities of translating research into real-world clinical and policy settings. This paper introduces and describes the JBI's approach to evidence implementation, outlining a pragmatic and structured seven-phase process model designed to bridge the gap between evidence and practice.
Review of Frameworks for Translating Research Evidence into Policy and Practice →
The need to find unified approach for research translation: importance of a common language across disciplines, implementation of frameworks yes, but also monitoring scaling interventions.
Top
All phases
This section brings together a set of key frameworks and tools that are relevant to all phases of research into policy.
One Health Research Translation Framework →
The One Health approach emphasizes the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health, requiring cross-sector collaboration to effectively address health threats at their interface. Within this context, research translation plays a critical role in ensuring that scientific evidence informs the development of evidence-based policies and programs for the prevention and control of infectious diseases and other emerging threats.
Lost in Knowledge Translation →
This article addresses the challenge of translating research findings into real-world healthcare practice. It highlights the confusion surrounding terms like knowledge translation, transfer, and exchange, and proposes a conceptual framework to clarify the process of moving knowledge into action.
Contextualized Health Research Synthesis Program (CHRSP) →
The program provides timely, relevant, and easy-to-understand scientific evidence; optimizes evidence uptake; and, most importantly, attunes research questions and evidence to the specific context in which knowledge users must apply the findings. CHRSP was established with the goal of increasing the use of health evidence by decision makers.
Evidence-informed Decision Making in Public Health →
This article examines the role of values in health policy-making. It argues that while values are central to discussions about health systems and their reform, the concept of "value" itself remains vague, and policy-making processes often neglect values. The study aims to provide a model for value-based policy-making to clarify the concept of value and how it affects policy decisions.
CEBHA + IKT: Evidence-based Healthcare and Public Health in Africa →
The long term goal of the network is to set up a long term capacity and infrastructure for evidence based healthcare and public health in sub Saharan Africa. The consortium seeks to strengthen African research institutions and promote competence in understanding and fast uptake of evidence in health system institutions.
Translation Science to Population Impact (TSci Impact) Framework →
This framework addresses two core challenges to the advancement of T2 translation research: (1) building infrastructure and capacity to support systems-oriented scaling up of evidence-based interventions, with well-integrated practice-oriented T2 research, and (2) developing an agenda and improving research methods for advancing T2 translation science.
Top