Output-orientated policy engagement: a model for advancing the use of epidemiological evidence in health policy.

Background: Use of epidemiological research in policy and practice is suboptimal, contributing to significant preventable morbidity and mortality. Barriers to the use of research evidence in policy include lack of research-policy engagement, lack of policy-relevant research, differences in policymaker and researcher practice norms, time constraints, difficulties in coordination, and divergent languages and reward systems.

Approach And Outcomes: In order to increase policy-relevant research and research uptake, we developed the output-orientated policy engagement (OOPE) model, in Australia. It integrates a foundational approach to engagement with cycles of specific activity focused around selected research outputs. Foundational elements include measures to increase recognition and valuing of policymaker expertise, emphasis on policy uptake, policy awareness of the research group's work, regular policy engagement and policy-relevant capacity-building. Specific activities include (i) identification of an "output"-usually at draft stage-and program of work which are likely to be of interest to policymakers; (ii) initial engagement focusing on sharing "preview" evidence from this output, with an invitation to provide input into this and to advise on the broader program of work; and (iii) if there is sufficient interest, formation of a researcher-policy-maker partnership to shape and release the output, as well as inform the program of work. This cycle is repeated as the relationship continues and is deepened. As well as supporting policy-informed evidence generation and research-aware policymakers, the output-orientated model has been found to be beneficial in fostering the following: a pragmatic starting place for researchers, in often large and complex policy environments; purposeful and specific engagement, encouraging shared expectations; non-transactional engagement around common evidence needs, whereby researchers are not meeting with policymakers with the expectation of receiving funding; built-in translation; time and resource efficiency; relationship-building; mutual learning; policy-invested researchers and research-invested policy-makers; and tangible policy impacts. A case study outlines how the output-orientated approach supported researcher-policymaker collaboration to generate new evidence regarding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cardiovascular disease risk and to apply this to national guidelines.

Conclusion: Output-orientated policy engagement provides a potentially useful pragmatic model to catalyse and support partnerships between researchers and policymakers, to increase the policy-relevance and application of epidemiological evidence.