Identify high priority issues in given context

Understand the policy context and engage stakeholders to define relevant high priority issues

The results of the identification exercise do not always directly match the final decisions that governments or organizations make as to what research to conduct, but they can be useful for guiding such decisions[1].

Research is the detailed study of a subject with the intention of discovering information or reaching a new understanding[2].

Evidence is “the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid” [2].

In (Health emergency and disaster risk management) HEDRM, priority setting could be done at the level of the research group trying to develop a specific research question, or at an organizational level - such as within a non-governmental or governmental organization or United Nations (UN) agency that is trying to develop a broader research area, which might then be refined to one or more specific research questions[1].

When defining the research question, it is important to identify if the tool selected will provide both reliable and valid results. Study design, population and sampling methods, study aims, and research questions should all guide the selection of a data collection tool [3].

Conduct/identify policy-relevant research

Use appropriate methodologies to collect and analyze data, ensuring research quality and credibility; design solutions

A level of flexibility may be needed to be responsive to important political issues that arise, meaning that pre-set priorities may be amended to take account of the situation[1].

The objective of a research prioritization exercise depends on the context in which it is conducted, the political, social and organizational processes that led to its initiation and the managers, professionals, practitioners, policymakers and ultimate beneficiaries of the process (often referred to as stakeholders)[1].

There is no universal standard for the scope or depth of a research priority. However, there is consensus about various elements that are likely to support a quality research prioritization exercise. These elements can be grouped into three steps: things to do before the priority setting exercise (preparation before the exercise), things to do during the exercise, and things to do after the exercise[1].

Qualitative research explores individuals’ subjective experiences and meanings, using observation, interviews and related methods [4]. Unlike quantitative research, which focuses on measurable variables, qualitative research relies on data gathered through observation, interviews, and other methods to provide insight into complex human phenomena. Nonetheless, the credibility of qualitative research may be questioned unless the researcher establishes its trustworthiness[4].

To enhance credibility, qualitative researchers commonly employ strategies such as triangulation, member checking, peer debriefing, thick description, reflexivity, saturation, and external audits[4].

Translate research findings

Identify key findings and develop actionable policy recommendations

Credibility refers to the extent to which research findings can be considered trustworthy and accurate. Establishing credibility helps guard against the influence of subjective experiences, emotions, and perspectives that may obscure the true nature of a research subject[4].

Reliable information is essential for valid inference, and both reliability and validity depend on an appropriate study design and sound measurement, regardless of whether the approach is qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods. Flawed study designs that lack demonstrated reliability and validity inevitably compromise results[3].

When translating findings into recommendations, each claim should be clearly linked to supporting evidence; where opinion rather than evidence is presented, this should be stated explicitly. Finally, the practical viability of each recommendation should be appraised, taking into account feasibility and implementation considerations[5].

Disseminate research results

Defining the goals and objectives of the dissemination/translation initiative

Determine what content will be disseminated

Consider different communication options or mechanisms

Understanding context is essential for translating evidence and research into practice. This can be achieved by:

1. Tailoring the mode of delivery to the intended users of the evidence.
2. Adapting the application of the findings to local needs, resources and constraints[2].

By understanding the importance of credibility, you can ensure that data are trustworthy, results are reliable, and conclusions are valid[4].

Reliability refers to the consistency of results over time[3]. For instance,, a rain gauge measures precipitation, rain and a barometer measures atmospheric air pressure, which informs weather prediction. Faulty instruments will yield unreliable readings. The same principle also applies to research: if data collection tools lack reliability, they cannot provide information needed. Study design and data collection methods should therefore produce accurate and consistent results when repeated over time under comparable conditions[3].

Policy briefs require careful consideration to yield actionable results. They should be written in good professional language with minimal technical jargon, concise, informative, and tailored to a pre-identified and targeted audience[5].

Well-crafted policy briefs foster evidence-informed decision-making policies and remain among the most important tools supporting policymakers[5].

Implement, monitor, evaluate and adjust

Identify and categorise stakeholders

Evaluate and improve dissemination/translation strategies

"Practice will be defined as “the actual application or use of an idea, belief, or method, as opposed to theories relating to it."[2]

Establishing credibility early in qualitative research is essential to ensure that findings are considered valuable[4].

• Addressing potential issues such as bias, poor clarity, or lack of diversity in qualitative research strengthens both credibility and the overall quality of the research process[4].

Credibility can be achieved by using appropriate data collection and analysis methods, ensuring transparency and clarity in the research process, and employing rigorous strategies for evaluating the quality of the research[4].

Engage policymakers

Build relationships with policymakers, facilitate dialogue, and advocate for evidence-based decisions

Ensure that you have identified your target audience beforehand[5].

State clearly which current policy you aim to change is[5].

Set the scene by identifying the shortfalls of the current policy. Where and why is it failing? How do your recommendations improve the status quo?[5]

Be aware of how policies are made: government policy actors prioritize options that are practical, cost-effective and socially acceptable[5].

If you are suggesting a change, specify exactly what should change, how the change will occur, what resources are needed, where those resources will come from, and the benefits for both the policymakers and society in general. If your recommendations include these components, they are much more likely to garner the required change[5].

The word "actionable" suggests that your recommendations should be active. Try using active rather than passive language, with words such as use, engage, incorporate, etc.[5].

Keep policy recommendations short. Identify three recommendations and elaborate on these. Pick the three that are most practical and relevant for your target audience, then focus on presenting these in the most clear, actionable detail[5].

Support policy implementation

Assist in implementing policies and monitor their impact

Anticipate and mitigate potential barriers

It is important to understand the levels of context that will impact the evidence being implemented in each specific case. The implementation of the same set of research or evidence may produce different outcomes at the micro-, meso-, or macro levels [2].

The microlevel addresses the needs, capacities, and workflows of individual healthcare practitioners or trainees. The meso level focuses on understanding the needs and applications of systems or teams, while the macro level involves understanding the roles of large or national players[2].

The policy briefs are designed to inform decision makers of policy options that are robust, evidence-based, and will achieve the desired result in various scenarios. For the most effective results, it is most efficient to identify the policy maker’s problems and provide specific, actionable policy recommendations[5].

The systematic and timely delivery of information, accompanied by supporting Continuing Professional Development (CPD), is essential in the application of practice guidelines to current practice[2]. A strong understanding of the context is essential to achieve this systematic and timely delivery of information to those who require it. Specific health-care professions or trainees are more likely to adopt seriously considered approaches if they know they have representation in the process[2].

Evaluate and adapt

Continuously evaluate the policy's impact and make necessary adjustments based on feedback and new evidence

It is important to understand the assumptions related to specific research methodologies and how these assumptions influence the data collection, analysis and representation that follow their use[2].

There are four major paradigms that currently exist in medical education research. Paradigms are "sets of beliefs and practices, shared by communities of researchers, which regulate inquiry within disciplines." The four paradigms are positivism, post-positivism, interpretivism, and critical theory. Each paradigm generates valuable information, and none is inherently superior to the others[2].

Many factors influence the translation of evidence into practice. Key among these are a clear definition of terms, understanding the underlying paradigms of the research conducted, understanding the role of context, matching approaches to context, adopting a team approach, and gaining stakeholder buy-in[2].