This report was developed as part of the 'Safe Passages to Adulthood,' a five-year Department for International Development (DfID) funded programme of research into young people’s sexual and reproductive health in poorer country settings. It is the summary of a two-day meeting of researchers and policy-makers that focused on the process of getting research on reproductive health issues into practice. The goal of the meeting was to provide a forum for exchanging experiences relevant to these issues so that researchers, as well as those involved in policymaking and in funding research, could gain a better understanding of key issues involved. In addition, the meeting also provided the opportunity for those directly involved with such research programmes to consider strategies for strengthening the communication, utilisation and evaluation of their own research programmes, as well as for increasing communication and collaboration between research programmes. This was achieved by examining the dynamics of knowledge transfer and by identifying key actors that are involved and their roles in the dissemination and utilisation of research results.



The report explains that getting research findings into policy development could involve researchers liasing directly with macro level decision makers, such as directors of public health or the heads of private, NGO or religious based health service programmes. Alternatively, this liaison may be necessary at the micro level, or if the expertise of communicating with decision makers is not available within research organisations, researchers may need to use others, for example journalists or specialist communications organisations, to communicate research results to decision makers. The extent to which these decision makers will in turn utilise this research varies, including how credible the policy makers perceive the research evidence to be. According to the report, experience shows that engaging the decision makers in identifying and defining the research problem, and enabling their participation in as much of the ensuing research as are appropriate, greatly increases the likelihood that the study results will be used on completion.

How research results are communicated to identified actors is another issue discussed in the report. The traditional outputs of research projects, such as final reports and peer reviewed papers, are often inaccessible to the key decision makers, either due to constraints in accessing them or the language in which they are written. However, over-condensing and the simplification of the results in an effort to improve the effectiveness of their communication, often denies the decision maker sufficient information with which to design coherent policies and practical programmes.

The report identified the following suggestions for effective communication of research findings:

• Communicate research results to a wide range of audiences including those
  who influence policy as well as to decision makers themselves;
• Barriers exist to using research on both the research side and the decision makers
  side;
• Bridging this gap requires understanding the decision making process and
  information needs of different audiences, involving decision makers early in
  the research process, and interpreting and distilling the findings so they are
  relevant and useable;
• Communicating to decision makers requires strategic planning in advance,
  using multiple channels, and is a continuous process;
• Communication requires a team effort because the variety of skills needed
  have to be marshalled by the research programme;
• Strategic planning for communicating research results begins at the design
  stage and involves:




• Being specific about the objectives;
• Considering multiple channels and formats (documents, presentations,
  briefings, etc.);
• Tailoring messages and format to each audience;
• Pre-testing to ascertain appropriateness and effect of message;
• Taking into consideration timing, so that the message has its full effect;
• Forging alliances with other researchers and with decision makers;

The report also suggests that the evaluation of the utilisation of policy- and
programme-orientated research is also important, though difficult to evaluate. Through this evaluation the need for such research can be communicated to donors. Some methodologies for evaluating the quality and impact of research suggested in the report are as follows.

• Case study: appropriate for learning about good practices
  and for generating details of lessons learned
• Systematic review: a portfolio of projects are assessed on
  a common set of indicators through interviews with
  stakeholders and document review
• Occasional assessment: external team of experts reviews
  published material, interviews stakeholders, and makes site
  visits to selected countries
• Bibliometric assessment: number, type of publications
  and citations
• Continuous reporting of activities and results: monitors
  process of research programme
• Peer review: donor staff, senior research programme staff
  and invited experts critically appraise research documents
  and procedures

It is proposed that if donor organisations are to make greater use themselves, and to promote greater use by others, of the research that they fund, there
needs to be greater emphasis on communicating results as well as on supporting other ways for maximising the likelihood that large-scale programmes of research into reproductive health issues and services are now well established by most of the larger donor organisations. Because these programmes form a component within the
organisations’ overall health and population
assistance efforts, increasing attention is being
paid to structuring the programmes so that
the information generated through the research can inform the donor organisations’ resource allocation and programme planning decision making processes as well as those of the poorer countries for which the assistance is intended.