Strategies for engaging policy stakeholders to translate research knowledge into practice more effectively: Lessons learned from the Canadian Alcohol Policy Evaluation project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Evidence-based alcohol policies have the potential to reduce a wide range of related harms. Yet, barriers to adoption and implementation within governments often exist. Engaging relevant stakeholders may be an effective way to identify and address potential challenges thereby increasing reach and uptake of policy evaluation research and strengthening jurisdictional responses to alcohol harms. METHODS: As part of the 2019 Canadian Alcohol Policy Evaluation project, we conducted interviews with government stakeholders across alcohol-related sectors prior to a second round of researcher-led policy assessments in Canada's 13 provinces and territories. Stakeholders were asked for feedback on the design and impact of an earlier policy assessment in 2013 and for recommendations to improve the design and dissemination strategy for the next iteration. Content analysis was used to identify ways of improving stakeholder engagement. RESULTS: We interviewed 25 stakeholders across 12 of Canada's 13 jurisdictions, including representatives from government health ministries and from alcohol regulation, distribution and finance departments. In providing feedback on our stakeholder engagement strategy, participants highlighted the importance of maintaining ongoing contact; presenting results in accessible online formats; providing advance notice of results; and offering jurisdiction-specific webinars. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: This study offers important insight into the engagement preferences of government stakeholders involved in the health, regulation, distribution and financial aspects of alcohol control policy. Findings suggest that seeking input from stakeholders as part of conducting evaluation research is warranted; increasing the relevance, reach and uptake of results. Specific stakeholder engagement strategies are outlined.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".