Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T15:17:21.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DIFFERENCES IN EVALUATING HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT KNOWLEDGE TRANSLATION BY RESEARCHERS AND POLICY MAKERS IN CHINA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2015

Wenbin Liu ,
Lizheng Shi ,
Raymond W. Pong ,
Hengjin Dong ,
Yiwei Mao ,
Meng Tang  and
Yingyao Chen
Wenbin Liu
Affiliation:
Key Lab of Health Technology Assessment (Ministry of Health), School of Public Health, Fudan University
Lizheng Shi
Affiliation:
School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University
Raymond W. Pong
Affiliation:
Centre for Rural and Northern Health Research and Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Laurentian University
Hengjin Dong
Affiliation:
Center for Health Policy Studies, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University
Yiwei Mao
Affiliation:
Key Lab of Health Technology Assessment (Ministry of Health), School of Public Health, Fudan University
Meng Tang
Affiliation:
Key Lab of Health Technology Assessment (Ministry of Health), School of Public Health, Fudan University
Yingyao Chen
Affiliation:
Key Lab of Health Technology Assessment (Ministry of Health), Collaborative Innovation Center of Social Risks Governance in Health, School of Public Health, Fudan University, yychen@shmu.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine the gaps between researchers and policy makers in perceptions and influencing factors of knowledge translation (KT) of health technology assessment (HTA) in China.

Methods: A sample of 382 HTA researchers and 112 policy makers in China were surveyed using structured questionnaires. The questionnaires contained two sections: perceptions of HTA research and assessments of six-stage KT activities. Wilcoxon rank sum test was applied to compare the differences in these two sections between HTA researchers and policy makers. Multivariate linear regression was performed to explore KT determinants of HTA for researchers and policy makers separately.

Results: Policy makers and researchers differed in their perceptions of HTA research in all items except collaboration in research development and presentation of evidence in easy-to-understand language. Significant differences in KT activities existed in all the six stages except academic translation. Regarding KT determinants, close contact between research unit and policy-making department, relevance of HTA to policy making, and importance of HTA on policy making were considered facilitators by both groups. For researchers, practicality of HTA report and presentation of evidence in easy-to-understand language can facilitate KT. Policy makers, on the other hand, considered an overly pedantic nature of HTA research as an obstacle to effective KT.

Conclusions: Substantial gaps existed between HTA researchers and policy makers regarding the perceptions of HTA research and KT activities. There are also some differences in KT determinants by these two groups. Enhancing collaboration, promoting practicality and policy relevance of HTA research, and making HTA findings easily understood are likely to further the KT of HTA evidence.

Keywords

Health technology assessmentKnowledge translationPolicy makingChina
Type
Policies
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 30 , Issue 6 , December 2014 , pp. 612 - 620
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Chen, Y, Banta, D, Tang, Z. Health technology assessment development in China. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 1):S202–S209.Google Scholar
2. Chen, Y, Qian, X, Tang, Z, et al. Situation analysis of prenatal diagnosis technology utilization in China: Current situation, main issues, and policy implications. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:524–530.Google Scholar
3. Straus, SE, Tetroe, J, Graham, I. Defining knowledge translation. CMAJ. 2009;181:165–8.Google Scholar
4. Larsen, JK. Information utilization and non-utilization and executive summary. American Institutes for Research in the Behavioral Sciences, Palo Alto, CA; 1982 Aug. Report No: AIR-64200-72300-79100-84300-FR. Contract No: NIMH-MH-25121. Sponsored by the National Inst. of Mental Health (DHHS), Rockville, MD.Google Scholar
5. Estabrooks, CA. The conceptual structure of research utilization. Res Nurs Health. 1999;22:203–216.Google Scholar
6. Landry, R, Amara, N, Lamari, M. Climbing the ladder of research utilization - Evidence from social science research. Sci Commun. 2001;22:396–422.Google Scholar
7. Landry, R, Lamari, M, Amara, N. The extent and determinants of the utilization of university research in government agencies. Public Admin Rev. 2003;63:192–205.Google Scholar
8. Landry, R, Amara, N, Lamari, M. Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada. Res Policy. 2001;30:333–349.Google Scholar
9. Dobbins, M, Cockerill, R, Barnsley, J. Factors affecting the utilization of systematic reviews. A study of public health decision makers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17:203–214.Google Scholar
10. Dobrow, MJ, Goel, V, Upshur, RE. Evidence-based health policy: Context and utilisation. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58:207–217.Google Scholar
11. Squires, JE, Estabrooks, CA, Gustavsson, P, Wallin, L. Individual determinants of research utilization by nurses: A systematic review update. Implement Sci. 2011;6:1.Google Scholar
12. McIntyre, D. Bridging the gap between research and practice. Cambridge J Educ. 2005;35:357–382.Google Scholar
13. Almeida, C, Báscolo, E. Use of research results in policy decision-making, formulation, and implementation: A review of the literature. Cad Saude Pública. 2006;22:7–19.Google Scholar
14. Lavis, JN, Robertson, D, Woodside, JM, McLeod, CB, Abelson, J. How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? Milbank Q. 2003;81:221–248.Google Scholar
15. Jacobson, N, Butterill, D, Goering, P. Development of a framework for knowledge translation: Understanding user context. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003;8:94–99.Google Scholar
16. Hancock, HC, Easen, PR. Evidence-based practice–an incomplete model of the relationship between theory and professional work. J Eval Clin Pract. 2004;10:187–196.Google Scholar
17. Belkhodja, O, Amara, N, Landry, R, Ouimet, M. The extent and organizational determinants of research utilization in Canadian health services organizations. Sci Commun. 2007;28:377–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Amara, N, Ouimet, M, Landry, R. New evidence on instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic utilization of university research in government agencies. Sci Commun. 2004;26:75–106.Google Scholar
19. Ross, S, Lavis, J, Rodriguez, C, Woodside, J, Denis, JL. Partnership experiences: Involving decision-makers in the research process. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003;8 (Suppl 2):S26–S34.Google Scholar
20. Kennedy, P. A guide to econometrics. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2003.Google Scholar
21. Lavis, JN. Research, public policymaking, and knowledge-translation processes: Canadian efforts to build bridges. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26:37–45.Google Scholar
22. Hanney, S, Buxton, M, Green, C, Coulson, D, Raftery, J. An assessment of the impact of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11:iii–iv, ix-xi, 1–180.Google Scholar
23. Thompson, C, Cullum, N, McCaughan, D, Sheldon, T, Raynor, P. Nurses, information use, and clinical decision making—the real world potential for evidence-based decisions in nursing. Evid Based Nurs. 2004;7: 68–72.Google Scholar
24. Dobbins, M, Rosenbaum, P, Plews, N, Law, M, Fysh, A. Information transfer: What do decision makers want and need from researchers? Implement Sci. 2007;2:12.Google Scholar
25. Sheps, S, Pong, RW, Lavoie-Tremblay, M, MacLellan, D. “Between two worlds”: Healthcare decision-maker engagement with regional training centres. Healthc Policy. 2008;3:58–67.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Liu and Shi supplementary material

Table S1

Download Liu and Shi supplementary material(File)
File 49.2 KB