13:40
Discussion with a focus on links with policy makers
What does it mean to make links with policy makers? We should make ourselves clearer, say it
more loudly, policy makers might not come to research meetings. We should find ways to reach
policy makers. We have resources here to translate good research into a format that can be
heard. Within INRICH, we can help each other. One of the prob is how to start? We are
addressing research in many countries, so how do we proceed from here on?
• A range of different activities to outline evidence to actions should be taken.
• In UK, the problem is that you need to change policy makers’ mind, but need also to take the message from research to practice.
• Once you got a policy, there is a pathway of taking it into practice.
• We can research why policy is not enacted, but we need to get the ear of policy makers,
as an organization, creating policy partnership. Proximity to government, in Wales and in
Australia is good, relative to UK.
• There is study that was just completed in the UK, where we had to have an advisory
committee involving NGO representatives and policy makers.
• Suggestions for 3 ways: 1st way is informal who has links with government or IGO. 2nd
way: the group has a single topic. 3rd way: skill building across context. Upscaling
research capacities.
• The government asks for evidence, more evidence, across countries, to strengthen the
point, not just in one country.
• W e are just beginning to do collective work, we are starting, but can we have one
message that collectively we agree on, that we can transfer? In our next meeting, we
could open a few sessions to the public, not all, to make sure to maintain depth in
discussion.
• It is difficult to provide the time for face-to-face interactions with policy makers, but we
can put together a publication to release to the press.
• We have to adapt to priorities of politicians, so we need to think about what information
to get during data collection, to make a stronger case. One way is to target the media.
Focus the message and send to pressure group and advocacy.
• W e need to see who wants to do what and to send a clear single message to the
politician. We need to describe what is achievable and what isn’t, this will be more
specific and we will be able to work more quickly.
• With good communication, there will be best to ensure that this group is coherent (not
unified), in the approach and that the address to social policy is comprehensive. In the
US, many findings presented during this workshop will go against actions. E.g. they will
interpret a trend to devaluate clinical care. We want to focus our activities on our own.
Many of the findings shown can cause more mischief on public health in US. We have to
ensure that methods are constructive.
• On the practical level, let people know that this 2nd workshop was ongoing, with the
publicity and central theme of CHI.
page 13/17
INRICH – Second Workshop – November 6-7, 2009 – FINAL REPORT
• We should create partnerships with policy makers, to form a trusted relationship. How to
maximize and include them in building projects.
• W hen you work that closely, you are more aware of what is coming up in the agenda. It
will open window not present in regular relationship.
• Within the umbrella of this Network, if there are members working on policy, they are
welcome to feed in, working with NGOs, advocacy organizations who are set up to
advocate on particular issues. E.g. in UK, the anti-poverty coalition. We can use the
Network to bounce off ideas.
14:15
Discussion of collaborative projects
There were 2 collaborative projects we could work on.
1. Collaborative work on perinatal outcomes
2. The systematic review will be put out for further discussion. We will try to nuance the
points in the presentation of the systematic review on paper, addressing the issues on
limitations of evidence.
• Are we looking from the right lens, equity? Is it appropriate for childhood?
• Looking at progress and produce recommendations from studies already done, look for
the best measures to use, we could inform on what the measures differ, or adapt to
adolescent.
• We could look at parenting interventions
• We can make intervention and policy research attractive
• Do similar work to Kate Pickett’s, but on the 26 states of Brazil, known to have many
disparities.
• W e have gone straight down to the data, but we need to get our head together for one
collaborative project.
• The fundamental challenge that we face in the US is the need to ensure that
communication on key issues is very central. Take advantages of communication, blogs,
to engage on regular basis to maintain momentum, instead of a few times per year, by
email, to have a collaboration that will be more constructive. We have created a type of
forum and we need to stabilize it.
• Small groups can take over specific projects together. This is a transdisciplinary group,
which has a richer role in the INRICH workshops, with more constructive dialogues,
greater analytical coherence, to make it strong enough to be heard
• The UNICEF meeting is coming up soon: we can come up with a collaborative project to
develop more real time impact on global recession and child’s well-being. UNICEF is
mounting a rapid survey and could be complementary with this group.
• The reason to monitor and do surveillance is to better understand and take better
actions. E.g. neonatal mortality.
15:25