4
Building a Population Health Research Agenda: Views from the Field1
In preparation for the workshop, and to inform the small group breakout discussions, the planning committee chair, Paula Lantz, conducted a brief survey of population health research needs and priorities, as well as of how research was being used. The results of the survey were presented by Phyllis Meadows, associate dean for practice at the University of Michigan School of Public Health and a senior fellow at The Kresge Foundation.
The survey was coordinated by the University of Michigan, under the leadership of Lantz, with approval from the University of Michigan institutional review board. The survey employed a snowball sampling technique, Meadows explained, with members of the planning committee listing at least 10 people they thought would respond to the survey. A total of 203 individuals were sent an invitation and link to the survey, and 110 responded (response rate of 54 percent).
Survey questions were designed to be brief and require minimum response time. Respondents were asked about their organization type, the role of the person responding, and the importance of research to the types of activities being done at their organizations. Respondents were then asked to identify the top three research priorities in each of three specific areas:
___________________
1 This section is based on the presentation by Phyllis Meadows, associate dean for practice, clinical professor of health management and policy, University of Michigan School of Public Health, senior fellow, The Kresge Foundation, and the statements have not been endorsed or verified by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
- Research that helps identify the root causes of a problem or issue, and the implications for a community or population
- Research that helps to design and evaluate effective programs, policies, and other interventions
- Research that helps to improve the translation, dissemination, and use of research findings and evidence
More than 450 unique ideas for research priorities were submitted as research questions or issues. Responses in the three research areas were then sorted into main theme areas. Meadows noted that, organizationally, respondents were primarily from academia, but there were responses from local, state, and federal governments; the private sector; trade or membership associations; health systems; nonprofit organizations; and others. The individuals responding were primarily in executive leadership and in research and evaluation. Other respondents were in service delivery, government relations or advocacy, and other areas. Meadows noted that one of the limitations to the snowball sampling approach is that it tends to draw representation from similar circles (e.g., there was a high representation from academia). Lantz pointed out, however, that response rates differ among different populations, and the response rate was highest among the researchers who received the survey. Other methods may need to be implemented to elicit the views of different groups interested in the topic.
Respondents were also asked how important published research and scientific evidence was, in general, to their organizational activities (see Table 4-1). A large percentage of respondents said that research was
TABLE 4-1 Importance of Published Research/Scientific Evidence to Organizational Activities
| Types of Activities | % Very Important | % Somewhat Important |
|---|---|---|
| Vision and mission | 46 | 44 |
| Priority/agenda setting | 67 | 32 |
| Setting our own research agenda | 67 | 22 |
| Public education activities | 62 | 29 |
| External policy interests and goals | 60 | 35 |
| Communication and outreach | 58 | 38 |
| Strategic planning activities | 56 | 41 |
| Lobbying (if applicable) | 47 | 43 |
| Resource allocation | 36 | 52 |
| Government relations | 35 | 55 |
| Internal organizational policy | 35 | 49 |
| Budget process | 19 | 54 |
SOURCE: Meadows presentation, September 30, 2015.
very important for priority and agenda setting, for their public education activities, for external policy interests and goals, and for setting their own research agendas.
Meadows listed some of the themes that emerged across the three research areas and provided examples of some of the research questions provided by respondents. Themes and examples are provided in Box 4-1; see Appendix D for more detailed survey results, including examples for each of the themes in each of the three research areas. In summary,
Meadows said, more analysis needs to be done; however, the information resulting from this short survey provides a significant number of ideas for research needs and priorities across research areas that can inform the discussion of a population health research agenda.
