APPROACHES
n Policy makers to understand value of evidence, more informed about research, gain access to it, be able to critically appraise it (Davies, 2004)
n To arrive at an agreement of what research means by policy makers and researchers
n Ministers and senior officials to own the evidence and gain commitment from it
n Commitment to use findings in non-hierarchical, open and democratic environment
n Provide incentives to establish evidence of effectiveness and efficiency ( Eg: UK – Treasury).
n Allocating incentives to summon and use sound evidence in devolution of budgets to frontline agencies and decision making bodies
n Systematic reviews of what is known, increased use of routine assessments and audits
n There is a need for ongoing evaluation of health systems and policies in Sri Lanka ( Hornby and Perera – 1997)
n Increased communication between the research and policy worlds to strengthen integration of policy and evidence.
n Using in-house and outside researchers in policy process
n Integrated teams to understand the questions to answer (Eg: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) demonstration project (Davies: 2004)
n Setting up of intermediary bodies.
n UK has new set of institutions to organize and create knowledge in health.
n Co-location of policy makers and internal analysts, if required to have sustained interaction
n Use of secondments to exchange of staff between government departments and universities.
n Learning each others languages, more fora for discussion, joint training and professional development opportunities for policy makers and researchers (Davies, 2004)
