Making Research Matter; Comment on “Public Spending on Health Service and Policy Research in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States: A Modest Proposal”

Document Type : Commentary


1 Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK

2 Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK


We offer a UK-based commentary on the recent “Perspective” published in IJHPM by Thakkar and Sullivan. We are sympathetic to the authors’ call for increased funding for health service and policy research (HSPR). However, we point out that increasing that investment – in any of the three countries they compare: Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom– will ipso facto not necessarily lead to any better use of research by health system decision-makers in these settings. We cite previous authors’ descriptions of the many factors that tend to make the worlds of researchers and decision-makers into “two solitudes.” And we call for changes in the structure and funding of HSPR, particularly the incentives now in place for purely academic publishing, to tackle a widespread reality: most published research in HSPR, as in other applied fields of science, is never read or used by the vast majority of decision-makers, working out in the “real world.”


Main Subjects

  1. Thakkar V, Sullivan T. Public spending on health service and policy research in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States: A modest proposal. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017; Forthcoming. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2017.45
  2. Naylor CD et al. (Advisory Panel for the Review of Federal Support for Fundamental Science). Investing In Canada’s Future: Strengthening the Foundations of Canadian Research. Ottawa: Government of Canada, 2017.$file/ScienceReview_April2017-rv.pdf
  3. Berwick D, NolanTW, Whittington J. The Triple Aim: Care, health and cost. Health Affairs. 2008;27(3):759-769. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.27.3.759
  4. World Health Organization. Health System Transformation: Making it Happen. Expert Meeting, Madrid, Spain, 17-18 December 2015. Copenhagen: WHO; 2016.
  5. Rushmer RR, Shucksmith J. AskFuse origins: system barriers to providing the research that public heallth practice and policy partners say they need. Evid Policy. 2016. doi:10.1332/174426416X14829329957024
  6. Pawson R, Tilley N. Realistic Evaluation. London: Sage; 1997
  7. Barber M, Kihn P, Moffit A. Deliverology: from idea to implementation. McKinsey on Government. 2011;6:32-39.
  8. Frost H, Geddes R, Haw S, et al. Experiences of knowledge brokering for evidence-informed public health, policy and practice: three years of the Scottish Collaboration for Public Health Research and Policy. Evid Policy. 2012;8(3):347-359.
  9. Holmes BJ, Best A, Davies H, et al. Mobilising knowledge in complex health systems: a call to action. Evid Policy. 2016. doi:10.1332/174426416X14712553750311