Table 5 Differences in evidence-related characteristics and needs among audiences
From: Revisiting concepts of evidence in implementation science
Characteristic | Researcher | Practitioner (clinical, public health) | Policy makera |
|---|---|---|---|
Time in position | Longer | Middle to longer | Shorter |
Training | Specialized | Specialized for some, but generalized for others | Generalized |
Personal connection to constituents | Low | Moderate to high | Moderate to high |
Knowledge span | Deeper knowledge on a small number of issues | Moderate knowledge on wide set of issues (often more specialized in larger agencies) | Less depth, wider breadth |
Decisio-making based on external factorsb | Low | Moderate | High |
Time spent on a particular issue | Longer | Moderate | Shorter |
Role in the evidence development process | Generation, synthesis, publication, implementation, dissemination | Planning, evaluation, implementation, dissemination, sustainment | Adoption, implementation, dissemination, sustainment, funding |
Primary types of evidence relied upon | Science, evidence reviews, experimental experience from the field, general evidence | Science, evidence reviews, real-world experience from the field, personal experience, local evidence | Real-world stories, constituents, gatekeepers, party priorities, media, science, policy briefs |
Barriers to the use of evidence | Time, predominant focus on RCTs, lack of attention to context, slow speed of research | Time, lack of access to peer-reviewed evidence, lack of incentives, low priority of leadership, perceived lack of relevance, competing demands | Time, lack of interest, complexity of evidence, new demands, rapidly changing context |