Skip to main content

Table 6 Comparison of ranking of 14 strategies by percentage in favor of each strategy as current vs. future ideal ways to bridge the gap between science and policy in the China-Canada survey 2012 (derived from Tables 4 and 5)

From: Bridging the gap between science and policy: an international survey of scientists and policy makers in China and Canada

  China and Canada n = 207 (100 %) China n = 121 (100 %) Canada n = 86 (100 %)
Strategy Current Ideal p value (current vs. ideal) Current Ideal p value (current vs. ideal) Current Ideal p value (current vs. ideal)
a. Collaboration in study design No. 7, 77 (37 %) No. 4, 95 (46 %) n.s. No. 7, 51 (42 %) No. 6, 53 (44 %) n.s. No. 9, 26 (30 %) No. 4, 42 (49 %) p < 0.05*
b. Focus on policy No. 1, 117 (57 %) No. 1, 123 (59 %) n.s. No. 1, 73 (60 %) No. 2, 68 (56 %) n.s. No. 2, 44 (51 %) No. 1, 55 (64 %) n.s.
c. Policy briefs No. 3, 97 (47 %) No. 3, 109 (53 %) n.s. No. 3, 61 (50 %) No. 3, 57 (47 %) n.s. No. 5, 36 (42 %) No. 2, 52 (60 %) p < 0.05*
d. Web-based portals No. 11, 46 (22 %) No. 11, 42 (20 %) n.s. No. 11, 20 (17 %) No. 11, 19 (16 %) n.s. No. 9, 26 (30 %) No. 9, 23 (27 %) n.s.
e. Email updates No. 13, 33 (16 %) No. 12, 28 (14 %) n.s. No. 13, 16 (13 %) No. 14, 9 (7 %) n.s. No. 13, 17 (20 %) No. 10, 19 (22 %) n.s.
f. Journal publications No. 9, 65 (31 %) No. 13, 24 (12 %) p < 0.01** No. 10, 28 (23 %) No. 12, 18 (15 %) n.s. No. 4, 37 (43 %) No. 14, 6 (7 %) p < 0.01**
g. Conferences No. 3, 97 (47 %) No. 9, 59 (29 %) p < 0.01** No. 4, 59 (49 %) No. 7, 47 (39 %) n.s. No. 3, 38 (44 %) No. 12, 12 (14 %) p < 0.01**
h. Policy recommendations No. 5, 85 (41 %) No. 5, 83 (40 %) n.s. No. 6, 56 (46 %) No. 4, 55 (45 %) n.s. No. 7, 29 (34 %) No. 8, 28 (33 %) n.s.
i. Science-policy forums No. 2, 112 (54 %) No. 2, 120 (58 %) n.s. No. 2, 65 (54 %) No. 1, 73 (60 %) n.s. No. 1, 47 (55 %) No. 3, 47 (55 %) n.s.
j. Joint research projects No. 5, 85 (41 %) No. 5, 83 (40 %) n.s. No. 5, 58 (48 %) No. 4, 54 (45 %) n.s. No. 8, 27 (31 %) No. 7, 29 (34 %) n.s.
k. Personal contact No. 8, 70 (34 %) No. 8, 65 (31 %) n.s. No. 9, 35 (29 %) No. 9, 33 (27 %) n.s. No. 6, 35 (41 %) No. 6, 32 (37 %) n.s.
l. Knowledge brokers No. 12, 41 (20 %) No. 10, 45 (22 %) n.s. No. 12, 19 (16 %) No. 10, 26 (21 %) n.s. No. 11, 22 (26 %) No. 10, 19 (22 %) n.s.
m. Collaboration in analysis No. 10, 61 (29 %) No. 7, 71 (34 %) n.s. No. 8, 40 (33 %) No. 8, 36 (30 %) n.s. No. 12, 21 (24 %) No. 5, 35 (41 %) p < 0.05*
n. Co-authorship No. 14, 8 (4 %) No. 14, 22 (11 %) n.s. No. 14, 3 (2 %) No. 13, 12 (10 %) n.s. No. 14, 5 (6 %) No. 12, 10 (12 %) n.s.
No opinion 9 (4 %) 13 (6 %) n.s. 5 (4 %) 9 (7 %) n.s. 4 (5 %) 4 (5 %) n.s.
  1. n.s. non-significant
  2. *p < 0.05 (two-sided) **p < 0.01 (two-sided)