Reducing the gap between Public Health Researchers and Health Managers: Determinants of Collaborative Research

1
Reducing the gap between Public Health
Researchers and Health Managers Determinants of
Collaborative Research

• Jalila Jbilou MD, MSc, PhD candidate
• Réjean Landry PhD, Professor
• Nabil Amara PhD, Associate Professor
• Chaire FCRSS/IRSC sur le transfert des
  connaissances et linnovation, Université Laval,
  Québec

2
Acknowledgements
Authors are thankful for the financial support
provided to Jalila Jbilou bythe Public Health
Agency of Canada and the Institute of Public and
Population Health from the Canadian Institute of
Health Research to make it possible for her to
attend the 5th Nordic Health Promotion Research
Conference 2006
3
Presentation

• Introduction
• Methodology
• Findings
• Implications
• Research perspectives

4
Introduction

• EBDM remains the best option that would ensure
  the most effective decision
• Collaborative Research (CR) is an activity of
  knowledge (explicit, implicit, experiential,
  popular) and evidence sharing, creation and
  transfer
• CR impacts on KU and EBDM are explored since the
  70ties

5
Introduction

• CR strategy of links between research and action
  in health (decision-making and practice) ? PAR
• CR opportunity to make applied research more
  realistic
• What is CR? A systematic review of the literature

6
Introduction

• Collaborative Research (CR) implies
• mechanisms of links
• shared interests or at least not rival
• a favourable organizational environment and
• a bilateral motivation
• Besides, it involves different communities of
  practice
• Researchers and
• Managers, professionals, or

7
Introduction

• Barriers to Knowledge and/or evidence utilization
• Health organization bureaucratization
• Decision-making centralization
• Conflict of evidences
• Nature of evidence and knowledge
• Managers capacities, skills and resources
• And a wide gap between researchers and health
  managers

8
Introduction

• The gap could be reduced through CR
• Few is known about determinants of CR among PH
  Researchers
• Few is known about strategies to implement so as
  to improve PH Researchers involvement for CR

9
Research question

• What determines PH researchers involvement for
  CR with managers in governmental health
  organizations?

10
Methodology

• Quantitative methodology based on data from a
  survey, elaborated for the purpose of an inquiry
  on KT in Canada, administered in 2001
• Having concerned a representative sample (domains
  and provinces) of researchers from Canadian
  health schools and faculties
• 117 respondents were PHR

11
Methodology

• A systematic review of the literature
• PHRCR is a structural phenomenon (organizational
  and individual) and a relational phenomenon
• Determinants of PHRCR are
• Networks (governmental or private organizations)
• Domain of research (health services, health
  policy, population health)
• Self perceptions (efficacy, credibility)
• Motivations (knowledge advancement, users needs,
  population informing, adapting research results)
• Extra-research activities (group participation,
  presentation)
• Health managers receptive capacities
• Individual characteristics (gender, age,
  education)

12
Findings

• DETERMINANTS OF CR among Public Health
  Researchers (CRPHR) are estimated by a Logistic
  Regression
• CRPHR ß0 ß1 INNOVRE ß2 ADMNET ß3
  INDPRINET ß4 ADAPRES ß5 PERCRED
  ß6 RECCAP ß7 GENDER ß8 PUBORIEN ß9
  COMPART ß10 GROUPRES ß11
  PERSEEFPOL ß12 USENEED ß13 TVRAD
  ß14 HESERRES ß15 POLRES ß16 POPHEARES e
• Where,
• ßi (i 0.16) are the coefficients to estimate.

13
Variables Items Min. Max. Mean SD Cronbachs a
Continuous variable
Receptive capacity 3 1 5 3.01 0.89 0.7559
Governmental network 2 1 5 2.57 0.83 0.4656
Private sector network 3 1 5 2.25 0.86 0.6924
Adapting research results 5 1 5 2.91 0.84 0.8425
Innovativeness of results 5 1 5 3.20 0.72 0.6636
Binary variables
Perceived credibility 82.6 (YES) 82.6 (YES) 82.6 (YES) 82.6 (YES) 82.6 (YES) 82.6 (YES)
Publication oriented 28.6 (YES) 28.6 (YES) 28.6 (YES) 28.6 (YES) 28.6 (YES) 28.6 (YES)
TVRadio 31.6 (YES) 31.6 (YES) 31.6 (YES) 31.6 (YES) 31.6 (YES) 31.6 (YES)
Expert group 70.1 (YES) 70.1 (YES) 70.1 (YES) 70.1 (YES) 70.1 (YES) 70.1 (YES)
Perceived efficacy on policy 13.7 (YES) 13.7 (YES) 13.7 (YES) 13.7 (YES) 13.7 (YES) 13.7 (YES)
Presentation to users 80.3 (YES) 80.3 (YES) 80.3 (YES) 80.3 (YES) 80.3 (YES) 80.3 (YES)
Users needs oriented 70.1 (YES) 70.1 (YES) 70.1 (YES) 70.1 (YES) 70.1 (YES) 70.1 (YES)
Gender 72.6 (Male) 72.6 (Male) 72.6 (Male) 72.6 (Male) 72.6 (Male) 72.6 (Male)
Health services research 59.8 (YES) 59.8 (YES) 59.8 (YES) 59.8 (YES) 59.8 (YES) 59.8 (YES)
Health policy research 39.3 (YES) 39.3 (YES) 39.3 (YES) 39.3 (YES) 39.3 (YES) 39.3 (YES)
Population health research 57.3 (YES) 57.3 (YES) 57.3 (YES) 57.3 (YES) 57.3 (YES) 57.3 (YES)
14
Indexes

• Health managers receptive capacities (Research
  results dissemination events creation,
  Educational activities organizing, Material
  and/or finance investment in KT)
• Adapting research results (Basic, Dialogic,
  Tactic, Didactic, Thematic)
• Administrative Network (Government, RHA, Local
  Organizations)
• Private Network (Private firms, Health
  Associations and Foundations)
• Innovativeness of research results
  (Customization, New technology, Financial
  investment, Human resources training,
  Organizational changes)

15
Findings
-2 Log likelihood Cox Snell R2 Nagelkerke R2
99,745 ,312 ,423
Observed Observed Predicted Predicted Predicted
CRPHR CRPHR Percentage Correct
,00 1,00
CRPHR ,00 25 15 62,5
1,00 8 56 87,5
Overall Percentage Overall Percentage 77,9
16
Findings
Determinants of PHRCR Determinants of PHRCR ß Sig.
1 Innovativeness of Research ,670 ,015
2 Administrative network ,618 ,071
3 Industry and private network -,172 ,306
4 Adaptation of results 1,624 ,001
5 Perceived credibility ,315 ,350
6 Receptive capacities of users -,194 ,318
7 Gender -,455 ,245
8 Publication oriented -1,311 ,015
9 Expert groups and committees participation ,204 ,375
10 Presentation to groups who could make direct use -,515 ,245
11 Perceived self efficacy on policy ,228 ,392
12 Users needs oriented ,297 ,327
13 Invited to TV Radio (population informing) -,898 ,059
14 Health services research -,325 ,323
15 Health policy research -1,593 ,025
16 Population Health research -,023 ,486
Constant -5,051 ,002
17
Findings
Determinants of PHRCR Determinants of PHRCR ß Sig.
1 Innovativeness of Research ,670 ,015
2 Administrative network ,618 ,071
3 Industry and private network -,172 ,306
4 Adaptation of results 1,624 ,001
5 Perceived credibility ,315 ,350
6 Receptive capacity of users -,194 ,318
7 Gender -,455 ,245
8 Publication oriented -1,311 ,015
9 Expert groups and committees participation ,204 ,375
10 Presentation to groups who could make direct use -,515 ,245
11 Perceived self efficacy on policies ,228 ,392
12 Users needs oriented ,297 ,327
13 Invited to TV Radio (population informing) -,898 ,059
14 Health services research -,325 ,323
15 Health policy research -1,593 ,025
16 Population Health research -,023 ,486
Constant -5,051 ,002
18
Implications

• A range of changes has to be implemented among
  PHR to improve involvement for CR
• Culture of collaboration
• Networking with decision makers and politics
• Adapting research results awareness
• Awards or academic recognition for collaboration
• PH research results advocacy (marketing)

19
Future research

• Develop a model for CR among Canadian health
  managers (in progress)
• Compare results from both studies and identify
  joint strategies to implement a functional CR
  interface

20
Take home messages

• CR among PH Researchers is tightly linked to
  culture and organizational structures
• Intrinsic effort for CR promotion has to be built
  and to be disseminated among PH Researchers
  community
• New system of awards has to be developed to value
  CR among PHR

21
Thank you for your attention

• For further information, would you please
  contact
• jalila.jbilou_at_fsa.ulaval.ca