Perceived effectiveness of factors and intervention strategies for promoting evidence-based policymaking in Japan: A cross-sectional survey among policymakers, researchers, and knowledge brokers

Perceived effectiveness of factors and intervention strategies for promoting evidence-based policymaking in Japan: A cross-sectional survey among policymakers, researchers, and knowledge brokers | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Perceived effectiveness of factors and intervention strategies for promoting evidence-based policymaking in Japan: A cross-sectional survey among policymakers, researchers, and knowledge brokers Yuko Arimura, Yuko Yanagawa, Shota Kiuchi, Chikoto Suzuki, Haruka Matsuyama, and 4 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7692237/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background: Evidence-based policymaking (EBPM) improves the quality of decision-making and ensures that necessary policies reach the populations who need them. Although EBPM-promoting factors have been conceptually explored, interventions that comprehensively address these factors remain under-investigated. Through qualitative research, we previously identified 25 factors that promote EBPM. Thus, this study aimed to (1) evaluate the perceived effectiveness of factors that promote EBPM and (2) assess the perceived effectiveness of interventions designed to address these factors. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted with three stakeholders: policymakers, researchers, and knowledge brokers (KBs). Participants assessed the perceived effectiveness of the 25 factors and 75 corresponding intervention strategies. The mean scores were calculated for each factor, and the proportion of respondents who considered each intervention effective within its respective factor was determined. Results: Of the 154 invited participants, 55 completed the survey, including policymakers (n = 78), researchers (n = 49), and KBs (n = 27). The highest-rated factor was ‘organising and disseminating leverageable evidence and data’ (mean = 4.53), which included the intervention ‘development of data infrastructure easily utilisable by researchers while ensuring personal information protection’, selected as effective by 78.2% of the respondents. The second highest-rated factor was ‘enhancing the knowledge and skills of policymakers and researchers in policymaking processes, EBPM, and research’ (mean = 4.37). Within this factor, two interventions shared the highest selection rate (72.3%): ‘establishment of an in-ministry training system enabling policymakers to acquire essential skills regardless of department’ and ‘development and provision of EBPM-related educational content for professional organisations (academic societies) and policymakers’. Conclusions: This study identified the perceived effectiveness of 25 EBPM-promoting factors and 75 related interventions based on input from policymakers, researchers, and KBs. These findings provide a foundation for the implementation of strategies by outlining practical interventions. The differences in perceived effectiveness across stakeholders suggest that implementation should reflect each group’s priorities, roles, and constraints. This study contributes to EBPM literature by systematically linking factors with interventions and demonstrating how stakeholder perspectives differ, thereby strengthening the basis for promoting EBPM in practice. Evidence-based policymaking Policymaker Researcher Knowledge brokers Background Evidence-based policymaking (EBPM) is an approach that improves the quality of decision-making [ 1 – 3 ]. In decision-making, external factors, such as political pressure and legal constraints, can influence outcomes, in addition to evidence. EBPM can support higher-quality decision-making and help ensure that the necessary policies reach the populations who need them. Several EBPM-related factors influence the implementation of EBPM [ 1 ]. These factors include contact and collaboration, organisation and resources, and research and researcher, policymaker, and policy characteristics [ 1 , 4 , 5 ]. Promoting EBPM requires increasing the number of facilitators while reducing barriers. Various interventions have been implemented to address the individual factors that promote EBPM [ 6 ]. For example, knowledge brokering has been explored as an intervention to enhance contact and collaboration between stakeholders [ 7 ]. Arimura et al. comprehensively identified the factors that facilitate the promotion of EBPM [ 8 ]. However, interventions that consider these factors to account have not yet been investigated. To address this gap, this study developed 75 interventions linked to 25 previously identified factors, [ 8 ] designed to support their implementation efficiently within existing resource constraints. Establishing priorities and implementing appropriate interventions are essential. To maximise the use of limited resources, interventions should be implemented based on priority. Health policy frameworks highlight the critical role of priority setting in effective decision-making. In line with this, the Evidence-Informed Policy Network, established by the World Health Organisation, assists countries in systematically integrating research evidence into policy decisions and recommends prioritising evidence-based implementation [ 9 ]. Moreover, various criteria for priority setting have been identified. The Value- and Evidence-Based decision making and Practice framework is another example. It assesses the value of evidence, such as efficacy, acceptability, cost-effectiveness, and political will. This highlights the importance of balancing the empirical strength and policy feasibility [ 10 ]. Hence, in this study, we prioritised factors and interventions by estimating their value based on the stakeholders’ perceived effectiveness of each intervention. Therefore, this study aimed to (1) evaluate the perceived effectiveness of factors that promote EBPM and (2) assess the perceived effectiveness of interventions designed to address these factors. Methods Study design This study builds on a previous study that identified 25 factors that promote EBPM in Japan [ 8 ]. This study further examined the perceived effectiveness of 25 factors and their corresponding intervention strategies. A cross-sectional survey using an anonymous, self-administered web-based questionnaire was conducted between 1 October 2024 and 15 November 2024. The target population included individuals involved in implementing EBPM in the field of maternal and child healthcare policies in Japan, including policymakers, researchers, and knowledge brokers (KBs). KBs function as human agents who facilitate the transfer of knowledge and bridge the gap between research evidence and policymaking, and thereby could promote EBPM [ 11 – 13 ]. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Statement for cross-sectional studies was used [ 14 ]. Developing the questionnaire A questionnaire was developed based on a semi-structured interview conducted previously [ 8 ]. The interview identified five categories and 25 factors that promoted EBPM. These factors were used to assess the perceived effectiveness. Intervention strategies were developed for each of the 25 factors through a literature review and discussion by YA, SK, YY, HM, KT, and SS. After finalising the intervention strategies within the research team, multiple researchers outside the team were consulted to verify the completeness and appropriateness of the content. Ultimately, 75 intervention strategies were included to assess perceived effectiveness. Selecting and recruiting the participants Because this study aimed to examine the perceived effectiveness of factors and interventions that could advance EBPM, participants with a certain level of experience were recruited. Potential participants of each stakeholder were identified and recruited based on the following criteria: Study participants could be policymakers currently or formerly affiliated with governmental authorities within the past 5 years, with ministries related to child and maternal health policies. Policymakers commonly rotate across departments every 2–33 years. Throughout these rotations, they are tasked with setting policy agendas, identifying emerging policy needs, and formulating and evaluating policy measures. YA, YY, HT, HM, and SS approached the relevant departments of each ministry to explain the purpose of the study and asked them to support the recruitment process. The target participants were invited to participate via emails sent by their respective departments. Study participants could be researchers who, within the past 5 years, have served as principal investigators of the Health Labour Sciences Research Grant funded by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Policymakers are also involved in generating evidence by commissioning research projects, including those supported by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. In addition, some researchers are appointed as external experts to national councils and advisory committees, where they contribute academic perspectives on specific policy areas. However, such appointments remain limited and not widely accessible to the broader research community. SK compiled a list based on publicly available information from the Health Labour Sciences Research Grant databases. For individuals whose contact information was not publicly available, we first obtained their consent to provide personal information and then acquired their contact details through the research team’s network. After obtaining personal information, SS contacted them to explain the purpose of the study and requested their cooperation in the survey via email or postal mail. Study participants could be KBs who have previously worked as technical officers through personnel exchanges within ministries related to child and maternal health policies. Japan operates a personnel exchange system in which professionals from private and healthcare sectors, including hospitals, are seconded to ministries, research institutes, or clinical settings. These individuals are expected to act as KBs, facilitating connections between health policies, practice settings, such as local governments and clinical fields, and scientific evidence. These secondments typically last for 2 years, although extensions are possible. YA, YY, HT, HM, and SS approached the relevant departments of each ministry to explain the purpose of the study. The target participants were invited to participate via emails sent by their respective departments. For individuals who had previously participated in personnel exchanges and were currently affiliated with other institutions, we first obtained their consent to provide personal information and acquired their contact details on Microsoft Forms. Then, SS contacted them to explain the purpose of the study and requested their cooperation in the survey via email. Data collection An anonymous, self-administered survey collected the following data: (1) basic attributes of the respondents, including current affiliation, years of working experience in government agencies, research institutions, and personnel exchanges; (2) perceived effectiveness of each 25 factors on a five-point Likert scale (very effective, effective, neutral, not effective, not effective at all) (for who does not understand the question, they chose ‘do not understand’); and (3) perceived effectiveness of 75 interventions strategies, with participants selecting all strategies they consider effective within each category. The survey was administered using Microsoft Forms, which does not require respondents to provide personal information, including names. Data analysis Descriptive analyses were performed to summarise the basic attributes of the respondents. The mean scores were calculated for the perceived effectiveness of each factor. Additionally, the proportion of respondents who considered each intervention to be effective within its respective factors was calculated. Results In total, 154 participants, including policymakers (n = 78), researchers (n = 49), and KBs (n = 27), were invited to participate in this study. Of the 154 participants, 55 completed the survey. Response rates varied across stakeholders: 51.0% among researchers, 55.6% among KBs, and 19.2% among policymakers. The average years of experiences for policymakers was 9.1 (range, 2–19) years, whereas for researchers, it was 23.5 (range, 5–41) years. The average duration of personnel exchange for KBs was 3.2 (range, 0.5–7) years (Table 1 ). Table 1 Demographics of the study participants Policymaker Researcher Knowledge brokers n, mean (%, range) n, mean (%, range) n, mean (%, range) Number of target participants 78 - 49 - 27 - Number of respondents 15 (19.2) 25 (51.0) 15 (55.6) Years of experience (range) * 9.1 (2–19) 23.6 (5–41) 3.2 (0.5- 7) *The years of experience for KB indicate the total number of personnel exchanges. Perceived effectiveness of factors Among the 25 factors identified through the preceding qualitative study [ 8 ], the mean perceived effectiveness scores ranged from 3.91 to 4.53, with an overall average of 4.22 (Table 2 ). Twelve factors had mean scores higher than the overall average. Among them, the relatively high averaged factors included the following: ‘organising and disseminating leverageable evidence and data’ (mean score = 4.53); ‘enhancing the knowledge and skills of policymakers and researchers in policymaking processes, EBPM, and research’ (4.37); ‘securing sufficient budgets, personnel, and time within ministries’ (4.36); ‘evaluating the current situation based on accurate data and qualitatively collected field insights’ (4.35); and ‘developing flexible frameworks for adjustment policy trajectory’ (4.35). Table 2 Factors and average scores related to EBPM promotion, ordered based on average scores in descending order Ranking Factors All 1 Organising and disseminating leverageable evidence and data 4.53 2 Enhancing the knowledge and skills of policymakers and researchers in policymaking processes, EBPM, and research 4.37 3 Ensuring appropriate allocation of budgetary, personnel, and time resources within the government 4.36 4 Evaluating the current situation based on accurate data and qualitatively collected field insights 4.35 4 Developing flexible frameworks for adjustment policy trajectory 4.35 6 Continuing involvement in policymaking from external organisations with specialised knowledge and field expertise 4.29 7 Creating support systems to provide technical and psychological assistance to personnel exchange participants 4.28 8 Establishing systems that can fairly reference evidence and expert opinions 4.27 9 Improving the research environment in academia to encourage research that contributes to policies 4.26 10 Generating personnel exchange participants by providing lectures and hands-on experience and establishing human resource development systems 4.23 11 Introducing schemes to strengthen implementation capabilities at the local government level 4.22 11 Providing organisational support to utilise the experiences of personnel exchange participants 4.22 11 Promoting shared inter-organisational awareness throughout the entire EBPM and at each stage 4.22 14 Setting agendas from a comprehensive perspective 4.21 15 Implementing administrative procedures that reflect not only central government ministries and agencies but also external organisational perspectives in policy evaluation and effectively utilise the outcomes 4.20 15 Introducing career opportunities for personnel exchange participants after their exchange programmes 4.20 15 Ensuring the thorough dissemination of policies and information to local governments and policy beneficiaries 4.20 18 Establishing and utilising think tanks to provide scientifically reliable information 4.19 19 Creating platforms for active exchange of opinions and relationships building across organisational boundaries 4.18 19 Generating flexible evidence by researchers meeting the policy needs and establishing administrative mechanisms to leverage them 4.18 21 Citizen participatory policy formation 4.15 21 Increasing awareness and establishing evaluation systems for policies within the government 4.15 23 Constructing personnel evaluation systems considering their impact on policies in academia 4.00 24 Instituting administrative personnel systems that enable long-term engagement in policies 3.98 25 Establishing personnel evaluation systems considering the policy implementation performance of policymakers and policy evaluations 3.91 Average 4.22 The following three factors had mean scores equal to the overall average (4.22): ‘introducing schemes to strengthen implementation capabilities at the local government level’, ‘providing organisational support to utilise the experiences of personnel exchange participants’, and ‘promoting shared inter-organisational awareness throughout the entire EBPM and at each stage’. Conversely, 12 factors had mean scores below the overall average. Among them, the relatively lower scored factors were as follows: ‘constructing personnel evaluation systems considering their impact on policies in academia’ (4.00); ‘instituting administrative personnel systems that enable long-term engagement in policies’ (3.98); and ‘establishing personnel evaluation systems considering the policy implementation performance of policymakers and policy evaluations’ (3.91). Corresponding interventions and stakeholder rankings Table 3 presents all the interventions corresponding to factors scored above the overall average. In the main text, the intervention with the highest average selection rate for each factor is described below. Table 3 Factors with average scores above the mean and their corresponding interventions Average Ranking Average Rank Factors All Policymaker Researcher KBs Intervention strategies All 1 Organising and disseminating leverageable evidence and data 4.53 1 1 5 Development of data infrastructure that researchers can easily utilise while ensuring considerations for personal information 79.6 Creation and dissemination of data by researchers that consider policy needs 68.5 Establishment of standardised policy evaluation indicators for local governments and corresponding data collection frameworks 61.1 Development of a data collection and publication system by ministries to enable policy impact evaluations by external organisations 51.9 2 Enhancing the knowledge and skills of policymakers and researchers in policymaking processes, EBPM, and research 4.37 2 11 5 Development and provision of EBPM-related educational content for professional organisations and policymakers 75.5 Establishment of an in-ministry training system that enables policymakers to acquire essential skills regardless of their assigned department 75.5 Provision of training materials to new members of ministry committees to facilitate an understanding of administrative systems and policy processes 56.6 3 Ensuring appropriate allocation of budgetary, personnel, and time resources within the government 4.36 4 19 1 Implementation of operational efficiency improvements through IT tools 75.5 Public disclosure of parliamentarians responsible for delayed parliamentary question notices 58.5 Relaxation of recruitment criteria to increase mid-career hires 43.4 4 Evaluating the current situation based on accurate data and qualitatively collected field insights 4.35 5 3 15 Establishment of forums for policy research experts and policymakers to regularly monitor domestic and international trends and practical realities 77.8 Establishment of a system within ministries to conduct high-quality research 68.5 Establishment of external organisations capable of promptly collecting input from children, stakeholders, and frontline professionals 51.9 4 Developing flexible frameworks for adjustment policy trajectory 4.35 8 2 15 Establishment of platforms where policymakers and local government officials can discuss policies 88.7 6 Continuing involvement in policymaking from external organisations with specialised knowledge and field expertise 4.29 10 5 11 Creation of a system that allows personnel exchange participants to remain engaged with the policies they worked on during their exchange period 63.6 Placement of researchers within ministries to conduct research on confidential administrative data 50.9 Public communication by external organisations on issues difficult for ministries to directly address 40.0 7 Creating support systems to provide technical and psychological assistance to personnel exchange participants 4.28 11 16 2 Creating a guide to provide personnel exchange candidates and host organisations with the necessary knowledge prior to commencement 87.0 8 Establishing systems that can fairly reference evidence and expert opinions 4.27 2 21 8 Development of a system enabling policymakers to refer to scientific knowledge and academic research when assessing current conditions and setting policy agendas 83.3 Creation of a system allowing policymakers to consult experts when necessary 81.5 9 Improving the research environment in academia to encourage research that contributes to policies 4.26 6 8 18 Enhancement of public statistical information infrastructure to facilitate its utilisation by academia 86.3 Expansion of research funding 80.4 Establishment of networks among researchers 62.7 Establishment of a researcher evaluation system that recognises publications related to policy impact assessment 41.2 10 Generating personnel exchange participants by providing lectures and hands-on experience and establishing human resource development systems 4.23 14 20 4 Development of a system allowing personnel exchange participants to engage in bidirectional interactions with government agencies, academia, and clinical settings to learn from diverse perspectives and roles 82.7 Strengthening of public health workforce development through the enhancement of healthcare policy and public health curricula in public health graduate schools and medical education 73.1 Provision of practical support for personnel exchange participants by external organisations 42.3 11 Introducing schemes to strengthen implementation capabilities at the local government level 4.22 6 12 21 Strengthening of systems enabling local governments to share and reference best practices 73.1 Development of training materials by external organisations to enhance EBPM-related skills among professionals, such as public health nurses and midwives 51.9 Facilitation by external organisations to connect local governments with private sector and academic institutions based on their policy needs 51.9 Design and implementation of model projects 50.0 Support for effective and efficient policy implementation by external organisations 46.2 Implementation of industry–government–academia–civil society collaboration support programmes 36.5 Government support for the establishment of EBPM Promotion Offices within local governments 34.6 11 Providing organisational support to utilise the experiences of personnel exchange participants 4.22 15 23 2 Establishment of a personnel system in the dispatching organisations to enable personnel exchange participants to leverage their administrative experience post-exchange 75.9 Establishment of platforms where personnel exchange participants can act as bridges between academia and policy 72.2 Provision of posts where personnel exchange participants can apply their experiences 70.4 Development of a system where personnel exchange participants can provide insights to researchers during policy-related research agenda setting 55.6 11 Promoting shared inter-organisational awareness throughout the entire EBPM and at each stage 4.22 11 9 18 Distribution of training materials by external organisations to facilitate learning on EBPM, policy processes, and research fundamentals for both policymakers and researchers 71.7 The factor with the highest mean score, ‘organising and disseminating leverageable evidence and data’, included the intervention ‘development of data infrastructure that researchers can easily utilise while ensuring considerations for personal information’, which had the highest selection rate at 78.2%. For the factor ‘enhancing the knowledge and skills of policymakers and researchers in policymaking processes, EBPM, and research’, two interventions shared the highest selection rate of 72.3%: ‘establishment of an in-ministry training system that enables policymakers to acquire essential skills regardless of their assigned department’ and ‘development and provision of EBPM-related educational content for professional organisations (academic societies) and policymakers’. In the third-ranked factor, ‘securing sufficient budgets, personnel, and time within ministries’, the intervention with the highest selection rate was the ‘implementation of operational efficiency improvements through Information Technology (IT) tools’, selected by 72.7% of the respondents. For the factor ‘evaluating the current situation based on accurate data and qualitatively collected field insights’, the most highly rated intervention was the ‘establishment of forums for policy research experts and policymakers to regularly monitor domestic and international trends and practical realities’, with a selection rate of 76.4%. For the factor ‘developing flexible frameworks for adjusting policy trajectory’, the intervention with the highest selection rate was ‘establishment of platforms where policymakers and local government officials can discuss policies’, which was selected by 85.5% of the respondents. In the factor ‘continuing involvement in policymaking from external organisations with specialised knowledge and field expertise’, the most selected intervention was ‘creation of a system that allows personnel exchange participants to remain engaged with the policies they worked on during their exchange period’ (63.6%). For the factor ‘creating support systems to provide technical and psychological assistance to personnel exchange participants’, the intervention ‘creating a guide to provide personnel exchange candidates and host organisations with the necessary knowledge prior to commencement’ received a high selection rate of 87.0%. In the eighth-ranked factor, ‘establishing systems that can fairly reference evidence and expert opinions’, the intervention ‘development of a system enabling policymakers to refer to scientific knowledge and academic research when assessing current conditions and setting policy agendas’, had a selection rate of 81.8%. For the factor ‘improving the research environment in academia to encourage research that contributes to policies’, the highest-rated intervention was ‘enhancement of public statistical information infrastructure to facilitate its utilisation by academia’, which was supported by 80.0% of the respondents. Regarding the factor ‘generating personnel exchange participants by providing lectures and hands-on experience and establishing human resource development systems’, 80.0% of the respondents selected ‘development of a system allowing personnel exchange participants to engage in bidirectional interactions with government agencies, academia, and clinical settings to learn from diverse perspectives and roles’. For the factor ranked eleventh, ‘introducing schemes to strengthen implementation capabilities at the local government level’, the highest-rated intervention was ‘strengthening systems enabling local governments to share and reference best practices’, with a selection rate of 67.3%. In the equally ranked factor ‘providing organisational support to utilise the experiences of personnel exchange participants’, the intervention ‘establishment of a personnel system in the dispatching organisations to enable personnel exchange participants to leverage their administrative experience post-exchange’ received the highest selection rate (75.8%). Finally, in the factor ‘promoting shared inter-organisational awareness throughout the entire EBPM and at each stage’, the highest-rated intervention was ‘distribution of training materials by external organisations to facilitate learning on EBPM, policy processes, and research fundamentals for both policymakers and researchers’, with a selection rate of 69.1%. Discussion Summary of findings Building on a previous qualitative study [8] that identified five categories and 25 factors critical for promoting EBPM among policymakers, researchers, and KBs in Japan, this study quantitatively assessed the perceived effectiveness of each factor. It further evaluated the perceived effectiveness of specific, implementable interventions aligned with each factor, thereby offering practical implications for the development and implementation of strategies to advance EBPM. Key features of factors perceived as effective for promoting evidence-based policymaking Among the top five highest-rated factors, relatively a few were related to ‘assessing the current situations’ and ‘policy evaluation’, which are key phases of the EBPM cycle [15, 16] (Table 2). This underscores the importance of grounding policy decisions in terms of accuracy, understanding the field and maintaining institutional mechanisms for ongoing policy evaluation. Previous qualitative findings [8] have pointed out that the challenges and needs on the ground are often recognised through public opinion or petitions, rather than scientific evidence. Therefore, it is essential to combine quantitative and qualitative approaches to capture field reality. Additionally, the lack of policy evaluation is a recognised issue not only in Japan but also in many other countries. Even in the UK, which is often regarded as an advanced country in EBPM, the implementation of policy evaluations remains limited, despite the availability of toolkits, such as the Magenta Book to guide practices [17]. Furthermore, factors related to securing organisational resources, including personnel, time, and budget, and improving individual EBPM-related competencies within ministries were among the top five factors. These findings reaffirm that advancing EBPM requires both institutional capacity in ministries and human capital development responsible for EBPM execution. Key features of interventions perceived as effective for promoting EBPM We categorised the intervention strategies into four major groups, which were perceived as effective by >70% of the respondents across all stakeholders. Although this study did not use the Delphi method, a threshold of 70% was adopted with reference to the consensus criteria commonly used in Delphi research [18]. The four major categories are as follows: (1) creating an environment that fosters innovation and evidence generation, (2) establishing sustainable cross-sectoral partnerships, (3) enhancing EBPM-related skills across stakeholders, and (4) providing structured support for KBs. These domains represent the strategic priorities that can effectively promote the advancement of EBPM. The following paragraphs provide detailed discussions of each item: 1. Creating an environment that supports commitment to evidence generation This domain encompasses the development of systems and resources that support the generation, accessibility, and utilisation of evidence. The suggested approaches include developing data and statistical systems that are accessible to researchers, considering personal information, promoting administrative operations by utilising information technology (IT) tools, and expanding financial support for research activities. Prior research [1] highlighted challenges, such as limited access to structured public data and persistent resource constraints within government agencies. In line with this, respondents emphasised the need to enhance the accessibility of well-organised public data and utilise IT tools to address ongoing shortages in capacity. These findings are consistent with the current national efforts toward medical and administrative digital transformation in Japan [19]. 2. Establishing sustainable stakeholder partnerships This domain involves establishing mechanisms that facilitate sustained collaboration among policymakers, local government officials, researchers, and other relevant stakeholders. These include efforts to create platforms for intergovernmental dialogue, strengthen systems that enable EBPM through access to expert knowledge and scientific evidence, promote mutual learning through the exchange of best practices and local innovations among municipalities, and strengthen the use of scientific knowledge for problem identification and policymaking. Previous literature [20] argued that there was a fragmentation between academic and policy communities, highlighting the need for structures that enable regular interaction. In Japan’s health sector, particularly in maternal and child health, local governments play a central role in policy implementation. However, qualitative findings from our previous study [8] suggest that the experiences and challenges of municipalities are often insufficiently shared with ministries, resulting in policies that lack practical adaptability. Establishing platforms for continuous, bidirectional dialogue can foster shared understanding by enabling mutual learning and diffusion of effective practices. 3. Enhancing EBPM-related individual skills This area encompasses the development and dissemination of educational resources that enhance stakeholders’ competencies related to EBPM. It includes the provision of EBPM-related training content, the distribution of accessible learning materials by external organisations to support the understanding of public policy processes and scientific research, the establishment of internal training systems within ministries to ensure consistent skill development regardless of departmental rotations, and the strengthening of academic curricula in schools of public health and medical schools in the fields of health policy and public health to enhance the development of human resources in public health. Prior studies [1, 5, 8, 21] have shown that both researchers and policymakers are often aware of their own knowledge gaps in relation to the policymaking process and evidence generation. Our previous work [8] highlighted that researchers’ lack of familiarity with the policymaking process often prevented them from supplying timely and actionable research evidence. Therefore, the development and dissemination of accessible learning opportunities and foundational resources designed to support EBPM is not only beneficial but also essential to addressing this gap. 4. Providing support for knowledge brokers This component encompasses the development of institutional frameworks and practical resources to support KBs in their role as a bridge between evidence and policies. Potential approaches include establishing systems that facilitate cross-sectoral personnel exchanges; providing opportunities for KBs to acquire diverse perspectives through interactions with government, academia, and clinical settings; ensuring that home institutions recognise and make use of skills acquired through secondments; and developing preparatory guidance materials to assist both secondary and host organisations in navigating the transition process. The importance of KBs in facilitating evidence has been demonstrated in previous studies [12, 13, 22]. Nevertheless, our previous study [8] revealed insufficient institutional mechanisms in Japan to support KBs effectively throughout the personnel exchange process. Among the proposed measures, the development of practical orientation manuals with clear and accessible content emerged as one of the most frequently endorsed strategies. These materials require relatively limited institutional investment, are adaptable to diverse organisational contexts, and appear to be readily disseminated across institutions. Although personnel exchanges are typically conducted over a period of 2 years, implementing them over a shorter duration may also prove beneficial. Even relatively brief exchanges can enable KBs to develop a deeper understanding of the different perspectives and operational conditions across sectors. A notable international example is the US Intergovernmental Personnel Act, which provides a formal legal framework for facilitating exchanges between federal and non-federal entities [23]. This suggests that adopting similarly structured exchange mechanisms in other contexts can enhance knowledge transfer and strengthen the collaborative capacity among stakeholders in EBPM. Stakeholder differences Their analysis revealed discrepancies in how stakeholders ranked the effectiveness of certain factors. For instance, the factor ‘continuing involvement in policymaking from external organisations with specialised knowledge and field expertise’ ranked 5th among researchers, but only 10th and 11th among policymakers and KBs, respectively. These findings highlight the importance of considering stakeholder-specific perspectives when designing and implementing EBPM. Strengths and limitations This study has some limitations. First, the response rates differed across stakeholders: approximately 50% of researchers and KBs participated, whereas only 20% of policymakers responded. This low response rate among policymakers may reflect limited availability or lower engagement with EBPM. Second, this study assessed perceived rather than empirical effectiveness and did not conduct inferential statistical testing. This approach was adopted because the interventions had not yet been implemented in real-world settings, and the primary aim was to explore the respondents’ perceptions. Therefore, perceived effectiveness was used as a proxy for practical value. Despite these limitations, this study has several strengths. Notably, the clustering of perceived effectiveness scores between 3.91 and 4.53 indicates broad agreement on the relevance of the factors qualitatively identified in a previous study [8], thereby supporting both their validity and practical significance. Furthermore, this study uniquely integrates qualitative factors with specific implementable interventions and systematically evaluates their perceived effectiveness. The prioritised interventions reflect practical considerations derived from stakeholder input rather than theoretical assumptions, providing actionable insights for decision-makers seeking to allocate limited administrative, human, and financial resources effectively to promote EBPM. Abbreviations EBPM Evidence-Based Policy Making KBs Knowledge Brokers UK United Kingdom US United States Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate Informed consent was obtained electronically from the participants at the beginning of the web-based survey, and they were not required to sign a document. Before conducting the survey, this study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the National Center for Child Health and Development (approval number 2024-080). Consent for publication Not applicable Funding This study was supported by the JST RISTEX, Japan (grant number: JPMJRS22B3). Author Contribution YA, YY, SK, HM, KT, and SS conceptualised the study. YA, YY, SK, HM, HW, KT, and SS developed the questionnaire. YA, YY, HM, HT, and SS collected the data. YA, YY, and CS analysed the data. YA and SK drafted the main manuscript, and YA prepared Tables 1–3 with support from YY and KT. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript. Acknowledgement The authors gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of the survey participants. This work was supported by the JST RISTEX, Japan (grant number: JPMJRS22B3). Data Availability The anonymised dataset supporting the findings of this study is available from the corresponding author, SS, upon reasonable request. References Oliver K IS, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:1–12. Head BW. Reconsidering evidence-based policy: key issues and challenges. Policy Soc. 2010;29:77–94. Williams DR, Lawrence JA, BA D. Racism and health: evidence and needed research. Annu Rev Public Health. 2019;40:105–25. Liverani M, Hawkins B, Parkhurst JO. Political and institutional influences on the use of evidence in public health policy. a systematic review. PLoS One. 2013;8:e77404. Gollust SE, Seymour JW, Pany MJ, Goss A, Meisel ZF, Grande D. Mutual distrust: perspectives from researchers and policy makers on the research to policy gap in 2013 and recommendations for the future. Inquiry. 2017;54:46958017705465. Armstrong R, Waters E, Dobbins M, Anderson L, Moore L, Petticrew M, et al. Knowledge translation strategies to improve the use of evidence in public health decision making in local government: intervention design and implementation plan. Implement Sci 2013;8:1–10. Waqa G, Mavoa H, Snowdon Wendy, Moodie Marj, Nadakuitavuki Rigieta, Mc Cabe Marita, et al. Participants' perceptions of a knowledge-brokering strategy to facilitate evidence-informed policy-making in Fiji. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:1–9. Arimura Y, Yanagawa Y, Kiuchi S, Matsuyama H, Uehata H, Suto M, et al. Identifying factors for promoting evidence-based policymaking in Japan with the perspective of policymakers, researchers and knowledge brokers: a semistructured interview. Health Res Policy Syst. 2025;23:48. Julia Scarlett KK, Reinap M, Ciobanu A, Tirdea M, Koikov V, Yegeubayeva S, et al. Evidence-informed Policy Network (EVIPNet) Europe: success stories in knowledge translation. Public Health Panorama. 2018;4:161–71. Mfutso-Bengo J, Nkungula N, Mnjowe E, Ng'ambi W, Jeremiah F, Kasende-Chinguwo F. Proposing the “Value- and Evidence-Based decision making and Practice” (VEDMAP) framework for priority-setting and knowledge translation in low and middle-income countries: a novel framework for decision-making in low-and middle income countries like Malawi. Health Policy Open. 2023;4:100094. Newman K, DeForge R, Van Eerd D, Mok YW, Cornelissen E. A mixed methods examination of knowledge brokers and their use of theoretical frameworks and evaluative practices. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):34. Glegg SM, Hoens A. Role domains of knowledge brokering. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2016;40:115–23. Dobbins M, Robeson P, Ciliska D, Hanna S, Cameron R, O’Mara L. A description of a knowledge broker role implemented as part of a randomized controlled trial evaluating three knowledge translation strategies. Implement Sci. 2009;4:23. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:344–9. Jansen MW, De Vries NK, Kok G, Van Oers HA. Collaboration between practice, policy and research in local public health in the Netherlands. Health Policy. 2008;86:295–307. Werner Jann KW. Theories of the policy cycle. In: In: Frank Fischer GJM SM, editors, editor. Handbook of public policy analysis: theory, politics, and methods2007. p. 43–69. Uchiyama Toru, Kobayashi Yohei, Taguchi Sosuke, Koike Takahide. EBPM (Evidence-Based Policy Making) in the UK and Its Implications for Japan: An Analysis Focusing on the "Demand" and "Supply" of Evidence. Research Institute of Economy, Trade & Industry; 2018. Shang Z. Use of Delphi in health sciences research: a narrative review. Medicine (Baltimore). 2023;102:e32829. Secretariat C. Roadmap for the Promotion of Medical DX. Cabinet Secretariat; 2022. Boswell C, Smith K. Rethinking policy ‘impact’: four models of research-policy relations. Palgrave Commun. 2017;3. Verboom B, Baumann A. Mapping the qualitative evidence base on the use of research evidence in health policy-making: a systematic review. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022;11:883–98. Foundation CHSR. The Theory and Practice of Knowledge Brokering in Canada's Health System. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation; 2003. Kobayashi Y. The practice of evidence-based policymaking in the US federal government.: Research Institute of Economy, Trade & Industry; 2024. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Supplementarymaterial20250923.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 09 Mar, 2026 Reviews received at journal 13 Feb, 2026 Reviews received at journal 13 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 10 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 27 Jan, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 21 Oct, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 23 Sep, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 23 Sep, 2025 First submitted to journal 23 Sep, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7692237","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":532884317,"identity":"60316876-370c-4958-b2dd-5cac9fdaad39","order_by":0,"name":"Yuko Arimura","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Center for Child Health and Development","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yuko","middleName":"","lastName":"Arimura","suffix":""},{"id":532884318,"identity":"dbb09c03-d292-4ea0-9da4-4381b6c54728","order_by":1,"name":"Yuko Yanagawa","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Center for Child Health and Development","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yuko","middleName":"","lastName":"Yanagawa","suffix":""},{"id":532884319,"identity":"5ccdbff5-b5fa-43fd-8390-232e60277fdf","order_by":2,"name":"Shota Kiuchi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Center for Child Health and Development","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Shota","middleName":"","lastName":"Kiuchi","suffix":""},{"id":532884320,"identity":"fec17b2c-9768-4f6f-a269-6705f122723b","order_by":3,"name":"Chikoto Suzuki","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Center for Child Health and Development","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Chikoto","middleName":"","lastName":"Suzuki","suffix":""},{"id":532884321,"identity":"e3e4f244-0531-4eb8-910a-46e797c4357a","order_by":4,"name":"Haruka Matsuyama","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Center for Child Health and Development","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Haruka","middleName":"","lastName":"Matsuyama","suffix":""},{"id":532884323,"identity":"2545f053-e23d-4d04-99a8-49b20c23363a","order_by":5,"name":"Hinako Wakabayashi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Center for Child Health and Development","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hinako","middleName":"","lastName":"Wakabayashi","suffix":""},{"id":532884325,"identity":"8304be7a-e200-4a20-9f8d-4cbe57cfe31b","order_by":6,"name":"Hisaya Tomori","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Center for Child Health and Development","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hisaya","middleName":"","lastName":"Tomori","suffix":""},{"id":532884326,"identity":"8cb47cb3-25ec-448e-b52b-6bbc9eb3edd0","order_by":7,"name":"Kenji Takehara","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Center for Child Health and Development","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kenji","middleName":"","lastName":"Takehara","suffix":""},{"id":532884327,"identity":"cfa3fa40-7fa7-4152-9698-9f355c436497","order_by":8,"name":"Sonoko Sensaki","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Center for Child Health and Development","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sonoko","middleName":"","lastName":"Sensaki","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-09-23 09:08:37","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7692237/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7692237/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":94986131,"identity":"bdf09f72-b461-447c-9daf-dddba624a4ee","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-03 06:59:51","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":81520,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Manuscript20250923.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7692237/v1/9ec0a571ebbfa9fd6be98516.docx"},{"id":94986301,"identity":"2232b26e-51f2-4744-af5c-9baabb33cc6c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-03 07:00:10","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":11002,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"cb47b368345846f7a62bae298556561a.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7692237/v1/3cf184ec2bf6caf3b6140c7d.json"},{"id":94854580,"identity":"cc45b701-87da-404d-abe6-f4bc1818ca6f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-31 11:55:10","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":37259,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Supplementarymaterial20250923.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7692237/v1/eb26586780174590e6cad216.docx"},{"id":94854583,"identity":"ab68ee84-8d22-4fb8-8fe0-580ac2160d5c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-31 11:55:11","extension":"xml","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":109917,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"cb47b368345846f7a62bae298556561a1enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7692237/v1/16069a5ad55a9e4a24e78b99.xml"},{"id":94985438,"identity":"0ec4351f-a4e2-41db-8ffd-b4bba1b70980","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-03 06:58:10","extension":"xml","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":110257,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"cb47b368345846f7a62bae298556561a1structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7692237/v1/dbc2db140e52cb3529cdf4d4.xml"},{"id":94854585,"identity":"6f909e0d-79ad-4384-be65-e67725697ae5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-31 11:55:11","extension":"html","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":118006,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7692237/v1/f54fd2f4ed6b2f2f62a65127.html"},{"id":94990409,"identity":"b2c3cb33-f61a-4c8f-983d-b94ce5b349d1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-03 07:16:55","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1047810,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7692237/v1/726c04bf-127f-4164-92e3-20a6e6b72a35.pdf"},{"id":94985538,"identity":"c3c977bd-e348-4b53-a31f-b549b73cd186","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-03 06:58:21","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":37259,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Supplementarymaterial20250923.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7692237/v1/3d143e22e10fe25f71f0f3ec.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Perceived effectiveness of factors and intervention strategies for promoting evidence-based policymaking in Japan: A cross-sectional survey among policymakers, researchers, and knowledge brokers","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eEvidence-based policymaking (EBPM) is an approach that improves the quality of decision-making [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR2\" citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. In decision-making, external factors, such as political pressure and legal constraints, can influence outcomes, in addition to evidence. EBPM can support higher-quality decision-making and help ensure that the necessary policies reach the populations who need them. Several EBPM-related factors influence the implementation of EBPM [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. These factors include contact and collaboration, organisation and resources, and research and researcher, policymaker, and policy characteristics [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. Promoting EBPM requires increasing the number of facilitators while reducing barriers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eVarious interventions have been implemented to address the individual factors that promote EBPM [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. For example, knowledge brokering has been explored as an intervention to enhance contact and collaboration between stakeholders [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. Arimura et al. comprehensively identified the factors that facilitate the promotion of EBPM [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. However, interventions that consider these factors to account have not yet been investigated. To address this gap, this study developed 75 interventions linked to 25 previously identified factors, [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e] designed to support their implementation efficiently within existing resource constraints. Establishing priorities and implementing appropriate interventions are essential.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo maximise the use of limited resources, interventions should be implemented based on priority. Health policy frameworks highlight the critical role of priority setting in effective decision-making. In line with this, the Evidence-Informed Policy Network, established by the World Health Organisation, assists countries in systematically integrating research evidence into policy decisions and recommends prioritising evidence-based implementation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. Moreover, various criteria for priority setting have been identified. The Value- and Evidence-Based decision making and Practice framework is another example. It assesses the value of evidence, such as efficacy, acceptability, cost-effectiveness, and political will. This highlights the importance of balancing the empirical strength and policy feasibility [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. Hence, in this study, we prioritised factors and interventions by estimating their value based on the stakeholders\u0026rsquo; perceived effectiveness of each intervention.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTherefore, this study aimed to (1) evaluate the perceived effectiveness of factors that promote EBPM and (2) assess the perceived effectiveness of interventions designed to address these factors.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eStudy design\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study builds on a previous study that identified 25 factors that promote EBPM in Japan [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. This study further examined the perceived effectiveness of 25 factors and their corresponding intervention strategies. A cross-sectional survey using an anonymous, self-administered web-based questionnaire was conducted between 1 October 2024 and 15 November 2024. The target population included individuals involved in implementing EBPM in the field of maternal and child healthcare policies in Japan, including policymakers, researchers, and knowledge brokers (KBs). KBs function as human agents who facilitate the transfer of knowledge and bridge the gap between research evidence and policymaking, and thereby could promote EBPM [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR12\" citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Statement for cross-sectional studies was used [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eDeveloping the questionnaire\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA questionnaire was developed based on a semi-structured interview conducted previously [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. The interview identified five categories and 25 factors that promoted EBPM. These factors were used to assess the perceived effectiveness. Intervention strategies were developed for each of the 25 factors through a literature review and discussion by YA, SK, YY, HM, KT, and SS. After finalising the intervention strategies within the research team, multiple researchers outside the team were consulted to verify the completeness and appropriateness of the content. Ultimately, 75 intervention strategies were included to assess perceived effectiveness.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSelecting and recruiting the participants\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBecause this study aimed to examine the perceived effectiveness of factors and interventions that could advance EBPM, participants with a certain level of experience were recruited.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePotential participants of each stakeholder were identified and recruited based on the following criteria:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudy participants could be policymakers currently or formerly affiliated with governmental authorities within the past 5 years, with ministries related to child and maternal health policies. Policymakers commonly rotate across departments every 2\u0026ndash;33 years. Throughout these rotations, they are tasked with setting policy agendas, identifying emerging policy needs, and formulating and evaluating policy measures. YA, YY, HT, HM, and SS approached the relevant departments of each ministry to explain the purpose of the study and asked them to support the recruitment process. The target participants were invited to participate via emails sent by their respective departments.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudy participants could be researchers who, within the past 5 years, have served as principal investigators of the Health Labour Sciences Research Grant funded by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Policymakers are also involved in generating evidence by commissioning research projects, including those supported by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. In addition, some researchers are appointed as external experts to national councils and advisory committees, where they contribute academic perspectives on specific policy areas. However, such appointments remain limited and not widely accessible to the broader research community. SK compiled a list based on publicly available information from the Health Labour Sciences Research Grant databases. For individuals whose contact information was not publicly available, we first obtained their consent to provide personal information and then acquired their contact details through the research team\u0026rsquo;s network. After obtaining personal information, SS contacted them to explain the purpose of the study and requested their cooperation in the survey via email or postal mail.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudy participants could be KBs who have previously worked as technical officers through personnel exchanges within ministries related to child and maternal health policies. Japan operates a personnel exchange system in which professionals from private and healthcare sectors, including hospitals, are seconded to ministries, research institutes, or clinical settings. These individuals are expected to act as KBs, facilitating connections between health policies, practice settings, such as local governments and clinical fields, and scientific evidence. These secondments typically last for 2 years, although extensions are possible. YA, YY, HT, HM, and SS approached the relevant departments of each ministry to explain the purpose of the study. The target participants were invited to participate via emails sent by their respective departments. For individuals who had previously participated in personnel exchanges and were currently affiliated with other institutions, we first obtained their consent to provide personal information and acquired their contact details on Microsoft Forms. Then, SS contacted them to explain the purpose of the study and requested their cooperation in the survey via email.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eData collection\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn anonymous, self-administered survey collected the following data: (1) basic attributes of the respondents, including current affiliation, years of working experience in government agencies, research institutions, and personnel exchanges; (2) perceived effectiveness of each 25 factors on a five-point Likert scale (very effective, effective, neutral, not effective, not effective at all) (for who does not understand the question, they chose \u0026lsquo;do not understand\u0026rsquo;); and (3) perceived effectiveness of 75 interventions strategies, with participants selecting all strategies they consider effective within each category. The survey was administered using Microsoft Forms, which does not require respondents to provide personal information, including names.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eDescriptive analyses were performed to summarise the basic attributes of the respondents. The mean scores were calculated for the perceived effectiveness of each factor. Additionally, the proportion of respondents who considered each intervention to be effective within its respective factors was calculated.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e In total, 154 participants, including policymakers (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;78), researchers (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;49), and KBs (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;27), were invited to participate in this study. Of the 154 participants, 55 completed the survey. Response rates varied across stakeholders: 51.0% among researchers, 55.6% among KBs, and 19.2% among policymakers. The average years of experiences for policymakers was 9.1 (range, 2\u0026ndash;19) years, whereas for researchers, it was 23.5 (range, 5\u0026ndash;41) years. The average duration of personnel exchange for KBs was 3.2 (range, 0.5\u0026ndash;7) years (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDemographics of the study participants\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePolicymaker\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResearcher\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKnowledge brokers\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003en, mean\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(%, range)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003en, mean\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(%, range)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003en, mean\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(%, range)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNumber of target participants\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e78\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e49\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNumber of respondents\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(19.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(51.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(55.6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYears of experience (range)\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9.1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(2\u0026ndash;19)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e23.6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(5\u0026ndash;41)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(0.5- 7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"7\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e*The years of experience for KB indicate the total number of personnel exchanges.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePerceived effectiveness of factors\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong the 25 factors identified through the preceding qualitative study [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e], the mean perceived effectiveness scores ranged from 3.91 to 4.53, with an overall average of 4.22 (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Twelve factors had mean scores higher than the overall average. Among them, the relatively high averaged factors included the following: \u0026lsquo;organising and disseminating leverageable evidence and data\u0026rsquo; (mean score\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.53); \u0026lsquo;enhancing the knowledge and skills of policymakers and researchers in policymaking processes, EBPM, and research\u0026rsquo; (4.37); \u0026lsquo;securing sufficient budgets, personnel, and time within ministries\u0026rsquo; (4.36); \u0026lsquo;evaluating the current situation based on accurate data and qualitatively collected field insights\u0026rsquo; (4.35); and \u0026lsquo;developing flexible frameworks for adjustment policy trajectory\u0026rsquo; (4.35).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFactors and average scores related to EBPM promotion, ordered based on average scores in descending order\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRanking\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFactors\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrganising and disseminating leverageable evidence and data\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.53\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEnhancing the knowledge and skills of policymakers and researchers in policymaking processes, EBPM, and research\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.37\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEnsuring appropriate allocation of budgetary, personnel, and time resources within the government\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.36\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEvaluating the current situation based on accurate data and qualitatively collected field insights\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.35\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDeveloping flexible frameworks for adjustment policy trajectory\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.35\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eContinuing involvement in policymaking from external organisations with specialised knowledge and field expertise\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.29\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCreating support systems to provide technical and psychological assistance to personnel exchange participants\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.28\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEstablishing systems that can fairly reference evidence and expert opinions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.27\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eImproving the research environment in academia to encourage research that contributes to policies\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.26\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGenerating personnel exchange participants by providing lectures and hands-on experience and establishing human resource development systems\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.23\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntroducing schemes to strengthen implementation capabilities at the local government level\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.22\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProviding organisational support to utilise the experiences of personnel exchange participants\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.22\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePromoting shared inter-organisational awareness throughout the entire EBPM and at each stage\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.22\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSetting agendas from a comprehensive perspective\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.21\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eImplementing administrative procedures that reflect not only central government ministries and agencies but also external organisational perspectives in policy evaluation and effectively utilise the outcomes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.20\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntroducing career opportunities for personnel exchange participants after their exchange programmes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.20\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEnsuring the thorough dissemination of policies and information to local governments and policy beneficiaries\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.20\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEstablishing and utilising think tanks to provide scientifically reliable information\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.19\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCreating platforms for active exchange of opinions and relationships building across organisational boundaries\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.18\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGenerating flexible evidence by researchers meeting the policy needs and establishing administrative mechanisms to leverage them\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.18\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCitizen participatory policy formation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIncreasing awareness and establishing evaluation systems for policies within the government\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eConstructing personnel evaluation systems considering their impact on policies in academia\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.00\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInstituting administrative personnel systems that enable long-term engagement in policies\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.98\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEstablishing personnel evaluation systems considering the policy implementation performance of policymakers and policy evaluations\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.91\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAverage\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.22\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe following three factors had mean scores equal to the overall average (4.22): \u0026lsquo;introducing schemes to strengthen implementation capabilities at the local government level\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;providing organisational support to utilise the experiences of personnel exchange participants\u0026rsquo;, and \u0026lsquo;promoting shared inter-organisational awareness throughout the entire EBPM and at each stage\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eConversely, 12 factors had mean scores below the overall average. Among them, the relatively lower scored factors were as follows: \u0026lsquo;constructing personnel evaluation systems considering their impact on policies in academia\u0026rsquo; (4.00); \u0026lsquo;instituting administrative personnel systems that enable long-term engagement in policies\u0026rsquo; (3.98); and \u0026lsquo;establishing personnel evaluation systems considering the policy implementation performance of policymakers and policy evaluations\u0026rsquo; (3.91).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eCorresponding interventions and stakeholder rankings\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e presents all the interventions corresponding to factors scored above the overall average. In the main text, the intervention with the highest average selection rate for each factor is described below.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFactors with average scores above the mean and their corresponding interventions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAverage\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRanking\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAverage\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRank\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFactors\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePolicymaker\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResearcher\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKBs\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntervention strategies\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrganising and disseminating leverageable evidence and data\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.53\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDevelopment of data infrastructure that researchers can easily utilise while ensuring considerations for personal information\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e79.6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCreation and dissemination of data by researchers that consider policy needs\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e68.5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEstablishment of standardised policy evaluation indicators for local governments and corresponding data collection frameworks\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e61.1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDevelopment of a data collection and publication system by ministries to enable policy impact evaluations by external organisations\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e51.9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEnhancing the knowledge and skills of policymakers and researchers in policymaking processes, EBPM, and research\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.37\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDevelopment and provision of EBPM-related educational content for professional organisations and policymakers\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e75.5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEstablishment of an in-ministry training system that enables policymakers to acquire essential skills regardless of their assigned department\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e75.5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProvision of training materials to new members of ministry committees to facilitate an understanding of administrative systems and policy processes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e56.6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEnsuring appropriate allocation of budgetary, personnel, and time resources within the government\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.36\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eImplementation of operational efficiency improvements through IT tools\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e75.5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePublic disclosure of parliamentarians responsible for delayed parliamentary question notices\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e58.5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRelaxation of recruitment criteria to increase mid-career hires\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e43.4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEvaluating the current situation based on accurate data and qualitatively collected field insights\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.35\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEstablishment of forums for policy research experts and policymakers to regularly monitor domestic and international trends and practical realities\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e77.8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEstablishment of a system within ministries to conduct high-quality research\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e68.5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEstablishment of external organisations capable of promptly collecting input from children, stakeholders, and frontline professionals\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e51.9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDeveloping flexible frameworks for adjustment policy trajectory\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.35\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEstablishment of platforms where policymakers and local government officials can discuss policies\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e88.7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eContinuing involvement in policymaking from external organisations with specialised knowledge and field expertise\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.29\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCreation of a system that allows personnel exchange participants to remain engaged with the policies they worked on during their exchange period\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e63.6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePlacement of researchers within ministries to conduct research on confidential administrative data\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e50.9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePublic communication by external organisations on issues difficult for ministries to directly address\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCreating support systems to provide technical and psychological assistance to personnel exchange participants\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.28\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCreating a guide to provide personnel exchange candidates and host organisations with the necessary knowledge prior to commencement\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e87.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEstablishing systems that can fairly reference evidence and expert opinions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.27\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDevelopment of a system enabling policymakers to refer to scientific knowledge and academic research when assessing current conditions and setting policy agendas\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e83.3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCreation of a system allowing policymakers to consult experts when necessary\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e81.5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eImproving the research environment in academia to encourage research that contributes to policies\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.26\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEnhancement of public statistical information infrastructure to facilitate its utilisation by academia\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e86.3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpansion of research funding\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e80.4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEstablishment of networks among researchers\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e62.7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEstablishment of a researcher evaluation system that recognises publications related to policy impact assessment\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e41.2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGenerating personnel exchange participants by providing lectures and hands-on experience and establishing human resource development systems\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.23\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDevelopment of a system allowing personnel exchange participants to engage in bidirectional interactions with government agencies, academia, and clinical settings to learn from diverse perspectives and roles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e82.7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStrengthening of public health workforce development through the enhancement of healthcare policy and public health curricula in public health graduate schools and medical education\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e73.1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProvision of practical support for personnel exchange participants by external organisations\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e42.3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntroducing schemes to strengthen implementation capabilities at the local government level\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.22\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStrengthening of systems enabling local governments to share and reference best practices\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e73.1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDevelopment of training materials by external organisations to enhance EBPM-related skills among professionals, such as public health nurses and midwives\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e51.9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFacilitation by external organisations to connect local governments with private sector and academic institutions based on their policy needs\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e51.9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDesign and implementation of model projects\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e50.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSupport for effective and efficient policy implementation by external organisations\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e46.2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eImplementation of industry\u0026ndash;government\u0026ndash;academia\u0026ndash;civil society collaboration support programmes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e36.5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGovernment support for the establishment of EBPM Promotion Offices within local governments\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e34.6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProviding organisational support to utilise the experiences of personnel exchange participants\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.22\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEstablishment of a personnel system in the dispatching organisations to enable personnel exchange participants to leverage their administrative experience post-exchange\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e75.9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEstablishment of platforms where personnel exchange participants can act as bridges between academia and policy\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e72.2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProvision of posts where personnel exchange participants can apply their experiences\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e70.4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDevelopment of a system where personnel exchange participants can provide insights to researchers during policy-related research agenda setting\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e55.6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePromoting shared inter-organisational awareness throughout the entire EBPM and at each stage\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.22\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDistribution of training materials by external organisations to facilitate learning on EBPM, policy processes, and research fundamentals for both policymakers and researchers\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e71.7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe factor with the highest mean score, \u0026lsquo;organising and disseminating leverageable evidence and data\u0026rsquo;, included the intervention \u0026lsquo;development of data infrastructure that researchers can easily utilise while ensuring considerations for personal information\u0026rsquo;, which had the highest selection rate at 78.2%. For the factor \u0026lsquo;enhancing the knowledge and skills of policymakers and researchers in policymaking processes, EBPM, and research\u0026rsquo;, two interventions shared the highest selection rate of 72.3%: \u0026lsquo;establishment of an in-ministry training system that enables policymakers to acquire essential skills regardless of their assigned department\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;development and provision of EBPM-related educational content for professional organisations (academic societies) and policymakers\u0026rsquo;. In the third-ranked factor, \u0026lsquo;securing sufficient budgets, personnel, and time within ministries\u0026rsquo;, the intervention with the highest selection rate was the \u0026lsquo;implementation of operational efficiency improvements through Information Technology (IT) tools\u0026rsquo;, selected by 72.7% of the respondents.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor the factor \u0026lsquo;evaluating the current situation based on accurate data and qualitatively collected field insights\u0026rsquo;, the most highly rated intervention was the \u0026lsquo;establishment of forums for policy research experts and policymakers to regularly monitor domestic and international trends and practical realities\u0026rsquo;, with a selection rate of 76.4%. For the factor \u0026lsquo;developing flexible frameworks for adjusting policy trajectory\u0026rsquo;, the intervention with the highest selection rate was \u0026lsquo;establishment of platforms where policymakers and local government officials can discuss policies\u0026rsquo;, which was selected by 85.5% of the respondents. In the factor \u0026lsquo;continuing involvement in policymaking from external organisations with specialised knowledge and field expertise\u0026rsquo;, the most selected intervention was \u0026lsquo;creation of a system that allows personnel exchange participants to remain engaged with the policies they worked on during their exchange period\u0026rsquo; (63.6%). For the factor \u0026lsquo;creating support systems to provide technical and psychological assistance to personnel exchange participants\u0026rsquo;, the intervention \u0026lsquo;creating a guide to provide personnel exchange candidates and host organisations with the necessary knowledge prior to commencement\u0026rsquo; received a high selection rate of 87.0%.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the eighth-ranked factor, \u0026lsquo;establishing systems that can fairly reference evidence and expert opinions\u0026rsquo;, the intervention \u0026lsquo;development of a system enabling policymakers to refer to scientific knowledge and academic research when assessing current conditions and setting policy agendas\u0026rsquo;, had a selection rate of 81.8%. For the factor \u0026lsquo;improving the research environment in academia to encourage research that contributes to policies\u0026rsquo;, the highest-rated intervention was \u0026lsquo;enhancement of public statistical information infrastructure to facilitate its utilisation by academia\u0026rsquo;, which was supported by 80.0% of the respondents. Regarding the factor \u0026lsquo;generating personnel exchange participants by providing lectures and hands-on experience and establishing human resource development systems\u0026rsquo;, 80.0% of the respondents selected \u0026lsquo;development of a system allowing personnel exchange participants to engage in bidirectional interactions with government agencies, academia, and clinical settings to learn from diverse perspectives and roles\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e For the factor ranked eleventh, \u0026lsquo;introducing schemes to strengthen implementation capabilities at the local government level\u0026rsquo;, the highest-rated intervention was \u0026lsquo;strengthening systems enabling local governments to share and reference best practices\u0026rsquo;, with a selection rate of 67.3%. In the equally ranked factor \u0026lsquo;providing organisational support to utilise the experiences of personnel exchange participants\u0026rsquo;, the intervention \u0026lsquo;establishment of a personnel system in the dispatching organisations to enable personnel exchange participants to leverage their administrative experience post-exchange\u0026rsquo; received the highest selection rate (75.8%). Finally, in the factor \u0026lsquo;promoting shared inter-organisational awareness throughout the entire EBPM and at each stage\u0026rsquo;, the highest-rated intervention was \u0026lsquo;distribution of training materials by external organisations to facilitate learning on EBPM, policy processes, and research fundamentals for both policymakers and researchers\u0026rsquo;, with a selection rate of 69.1%.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary of findings\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBuilding on a previous qualitative study [8] that identified five categories and 25 factors critical for promoting EBPM among policymakers, researchers, and KBs in Japan, this study quantitatively assessed the perceived effectiveness of each factor. It further evaluated the perceived effectiveness of specific, implementable interventions aligned with each factor, thereby offering practical implications for the development and implementation of strategies to advance EBPM.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKey features of factors perceived as effective for promoting evidence-based policymaking\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong the top five highest-rated factors, relatively a few were related to \u0026lsquo;assessing the current situations\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;policy evaluation\u0026rsquo;, which are key phases of the EBPM cycle [15, 16] (Table 2). This underscores the importance of grounding policy decisions in terms of accuracy, understanding the field and maintaining institutional mechanisms for ongoing policy evaluation. Previous qualitative findings [8] have pointed out that the challenges and needs on the ground are often recognised through public opinion or petitions, rather than scientific evidence. Therefore, it is essential to combine quantitative and qualitative approaches to capture field reality. Additionally, the lack of policy evaluation is a recognised issue not only in Japan but also in many other countries. Even in the UK, which is often regarded as an advanced country in EBPM, the implementation of policy evaluations remains limited, despite the availability of toolkits, such as the Magenta Book to guide practices [17]. Furthermore, factors related to securing organisational resources, including personnel, time, and budget, and improving individual EBPM-related competencies within ministries were among the top five factors. These findings reaffirm that advancing EBPM requires both institutional capacity in ministries and human capital development responsible for EBPM execution.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKey features of interventions perceived as effective for promoting EBPM\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe categorised the intervention strategies into four major groups, which were perceived as effective by \u0026gt;70% of the respondents across all stakeholders. Although this study did not use the Delphi method, a threshold of 70% was adopted with reference to the consensus criteria commonly used in Delphi research [18]. The four major categories are as follows: (1) creating an environment that fosters innovation and evidence generation, (2) establishing sustainable cross-sectoral partnerships, (3) enhancing EBPM-related skills across stakeholders, and (4) providing structured support for KBs. These domains represent the strategic priorities that can effectively promote the advancement of EBPM. The following paragraphs provide detailed discussions of each item:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Creating an environment that supports commitment to evidence generation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis domain encompasses the development of systems and resources that support the generation, accessibility, and utilisation of evidence. The suggested approaches include developing data and statistical systems that are accessible to researchers, considering personal information, promoting administrative operations by utilising information technology (IT) tools, and expanding financial support for research activities. Prior research [1] highlighted challenges, such as limited access to structured public data and persistent resource constraints within government agencies. In line with this, respondents emphasised the need to enhance the accessibility of well-organised public data and utilise IT tools to address ongoing shortages in capacity. These findings are consistent with the current national efforts toward medical and administrative digital transformation in Japan [19].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Establishing sustainable stakeholder partnerships\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis domain involves establishing mechanisms that facilitate sustained collaboration among policymakers, local government officials, researchers, and other relevant stakeholders. These include efforts to create platforms for intergovernmental dialogue, strengthen systems that enable EBPM through access to expert knowledge and scientific evidence, promote mutual learning through the exchange of best practices and local innovations among municipalities, and strengthen the use of scientific knowledge for problem identification and policymaking. Previous literature [20] argued that there was a fragmentation between academic and policy communities, highlighting the need for structures that enable regular interaction. In Japan\u0026rsquo;s health sector, particularly in maternal and child health, local governments play a central role in policy implementation. However, qualitative findings from our previous study [8] suggest that the experiences and challenges of municipalities are often insufficiently shared with ministries, resulting in policies that lack practical adaptability. Establishing platforms for continuous, bidirectional dialogue can foster shared understanding by enabling mutual learning and diffusion of effective practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Enhancing EBPM-related individual skills\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis area encompasses the development and dissemination of educational resources that enhance stakeholders\u0026rsquo; competencies related to EBPM. It includes the provision of EBPM-related training content, the distribution of accessible learning materials by external organisations to support the understanding of public policy processes and scientific research, the establishment of internal training systems within ministries to ensure consistent skill development regardless of departmental rotations, and the strengthening of academic curricula in schools of public health and medical schools in the fields of health policy and public health to enhance the development of human resources in public health. Prior studies [1, 5, 8, 21] have shown that both researchers and policymakers are often aware of their own knowledge gaps in relation to the policymaking process and evidence generation. Our previous work [8] highlighted that researchers\u0026rsquo; lack of familiarity with the policymaking process often prevented them from supplying timely and actionable research evidence. Therefore, the development and dissemination of accessible learning opportunities and foundational resources designed to support EBPM is not only beneficial but also essential to addressing this gap.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Providing support for knowledge brokers\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis component encompasses the development of institutional frameworks and practical resources to support KBs in their role as a bridge between evidence and policies. Potential approaches include establishing systems that facilitate cross-sectoral personnel exchanges; providing opportunities for KBs to acquire diverse perspectives through interactions with government, academia, and clinical settings; ensuring that home institutions recognise and make use of skills acquired through secondments; and developing preparatory guidance materials to assist both secondary and host organisations in navigating the transition process. The importance of KBs in facilitating evidence has been demonstrated in previous studies [12, 13, 22]. Nevertheless, our previous study [8] revealed insufficient institutional mechanisms in Japan to support KBs effectively throughout the personnel exchange process. Among the proposed measures, the development of practical orientation manuals with clear and accessible content emerged as one of the most frequently endorsed strategies. These materials require relatively limited institutional investment, are adaptable to diverse organisational contexts, and appear to be readily disseminated across institutions. Although personnel exchanges are typically conducted over a period of 2 years, implementing them over a shorter duration may also prove beneficial. Even relatively brief exchanges can enable KBs to develop a deeper understanding of the different perspectives and operational conditions across sectors. A notable international example is the US Intergovernmental Personnel Act, which provides a formal legal framework for facilitating exchanges between federal and non-federal entities [23]. This suggests that adopting similarly structured exchange mechanisms in other contexts can enhance knowledge transfer and strengthen the collaborative capacity among stakeholders in EBPM.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStakeholder differences\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTheir analysis revealed discrepancies in how stakeholders ranked the effectiveness of certain factors. For instance, the factor \u0026lsquo;continuing involvement in policymaking from external organisations with specialised knowledge and field expertise\u0026rsquo; ranked 5th among researchers, but only 10th and 11th among policymakers and KBs, respectively. These findings highlight the importance of considering stakeholder-specific perspectives when designing and implementing EBPM.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStrengths and limitations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study has some limitations. First, the response rates differed across stakeholders: approximately 50% of researchers and KBs participated, whereas only 20% of policymakers responded. This low response rate among policymakers may reflect limited availability or lower engagement with EBPM. Second, this study assessed perceived rather than empirical effectiveness and did not conduct inferential statistical testing. This approach was adopted because the interventions had not yet been implemented in real-world settings, and the primary aim was to explore the respondents\u0026rsquo; perceptions. Therefore, perceived effectiveness was used as a proxy for practical value.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite these limitations, this study has several strengths. Notably, the clustering of perceived effectiveness scores between 3.91 and 4.53 indicates broad agreement on the relevance of the factors qualitatively identified in a previous study [8], thereby supporting both their validity and practical significance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, this study uniquely integrates qualitative factors with specific implementable interventions and systematically evaluates their perceived effectiveness. The prioritised interventions reflect practical considerations derived from stakeholder input rather than theoretical assumptions, providing actionable insights for decision-makers seeking to allocate limited administrative, human, and financial resources effectively to promote EBPM.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionList\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eEBPM\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEvidence-Based Policy Making\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eKBs\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKnowledge Brokers\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eUK\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnited Kingdom\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eUS\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnited States\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003e Informed consent was obtained electronically from the participants at the beginning of the web-based survey, and they were not required to sign a document. Before conducting the survey, this study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the National Center for Child Health and Development (approval number 2024-080).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study was supported by the JST RISTEX, Japan (grant number: JPMJRS22B3).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eYA, YY, SK, HM, KT, and SS conceptualised the study. YA, YY, SK, HM, HW, KT, and SS developed the questionnaire. YA, YY, HM, HT, and SS collected the data. YA, YY, and CS analysed the data. YA and SK drafted the main manuscript, and YA prepared Tables 1\u0026ndash;3 with support from YY and KT. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of the survey participants. This work was supported by the JST RISTEX, Japan (grant number: JPMJRS22B3).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe anonymised dataset supporting the findings of this study is available from the corresponding author, SS, upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOliver K IS, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:1\u0026ndash;12.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHead BW. Reconsidering evidence-based policy: key issues and challenges. Policy Soc. 2010;29:77\u0026ndash;94.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWilliams DR, Lawrence JA, BA D. Racism and health: evidence and needed research. Annu Rev Public Health. 2019;40:105\u0026ndash;25.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiverani M, Hawkins B, Parkhurst JO. Political and institutional influences on the use of evidence in public health policy. a systematic review. PLoS One. 2013;8:e77404.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGollust SE, Seymour JW, Pany MJ, Goss A, Meisel ZF, Grande D. Mutual distrust: perspectives from researchers and policy makers on the research to policy gap in 2013 and recommendations for the future. Inquiry. 2017;54:46958017705465.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArmstrong R, Waters E, Dobbins M, Anderson L, Moore L, Petticrew M, et al. Knowledge translation strategies to improve the use of evidence in public health decision making in local government: intervention design and implementation plan. Implement Sci 2013;8:1\u0026ndash;10.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWaqa G, Mavoa H, Snowdon Wendy, Moodie Marj, Nadakuitavuki Rigieta, Mc Cabe Marita, et al. Participants' perceptions of a knowledge-brokering strategy to facilitate evidence-informed policy-making in Fiji. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:1\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArimura Y, Yanagawa Y, Kiuchi S, Matsuyama H, Uehata H, Suto M, et al. Identifying factors for promoting evidence-based policymaking in Japan with the perspective of policymakers, researchers and knowledge brokers: a semistructured interview. Health Res Policy Syst. 2025;23:48.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJulia Scarlett KK, Reinap M, Ciobanu A, Tirdea M, Koikov V, Yegeubayeva S, et al. Evidence-informed Policy Network (EVIPNet) Europe: success stories in knowledge translation. Public Health Panorama. 2018;4:161\u0026ndash;71.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMfutso-Bengo J, Nkungula N, Mnjowe E, Ng'ambi W, Jeremiah F, Kasende-Chinguwo F. Proposing the \u0026ldquo;Value- and Evidence-Based decision making and Practice\u0026rdquo; (VEDMAP) framework for priority-setting and knowledge translation in low and middle-income countries: a novel framework for decision-making in low-and middle income countries like Malawi. Health Policy Open. 2023;4:100094.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNewman K, DeForge R, Van Eerd D, Mok YW, Cornelissen E. A mixed methods examination of knowledge brokers and their use of theoretical frameworks and evaluative practices. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):34.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGlegg SM, Hoens A. Role domains of knowledge brokering. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2016;40:115\u0026ndash;23.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDobbins M, Robeson P, Ciliska D, Hanna S, Cameron R, O\u0026rsquo;Mara L. A description of a knowledge broker role implemented as part of a randomized controlled trial evaluating three knowledge translation strategies. Implement Sci. 2009;4:23.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003evon Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, G\u0026oslash;tzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:344\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJansen MW, De Vries NK, Kok G, Van Oers HA. Collaboration between practice, policy and research in local public health in the Netherlands. Health Policy. 2008;86:295\u0026ndash;307.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWerner Jann KW. Theories of the policy cycle. In: In: Frank Fischer GJM SM, editors, editor. Handbook of public policy analysis: theory, politics, and methods2007. p. 43\u0026ndash;69.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUchiyama Toru, Kobayashi Yohei, Taguchi Sosuke, Koike Takahide. EBPM (Evidence-Based Policy Making) in the UK and Its Implications for Japan: An Analysis Focusing on the \"Demand\" and \"Supply\" of Evidence. Research Institute of Economy, Trade \u0026amp; Industry; 2018.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShang Z. Use of Delphi in health sciences research: a narrative review. Medicine (Baltimore). 2023;102:e32829.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSecretariat C. Roadmap for the Promotion of Medical DX. Cabinet Secretariat; 2022.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBoswell C, Smith K. Rethinking policy \u0026lsquo;impact\u0026rsquo;: four models of research-policy relations. Palgrave Commun. 2017;3.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVerboom B, Baumann A. Mapping the qualitative evidence base on the use of research evidence in health policy-making: a systematic review. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022;11:883\u0026ndash;98.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFoundation CHSR. The Theory and Practice of Knowledge Brokering in Canada's Health System. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation; 2003.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKobayashi Y. The practice of evidence-based policymaking in the US federal government.: Research Institute of Economy, Trade \u0026amp; Industry; 2024.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"health-research-policy-and-systems","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"hrps","sideBox":"Learn more about [Health Research Policy and Systems](http://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"12961","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/12961/3","title":"Health Research Policy and Systems","twitterHandle":"@HarpsJournal","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Evidence-based policymaking, Policymaker, Researcher, Knowledge brokers","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7692237/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7692237/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground:\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eEvidence-based policymaking (EBPM) improves the quality of decision-making and ensures that necessary policies reach the populations who need them. Although EBPM-promoting factors have been conceptually explored, interventions that comprehensively address these factors remain under-investigated. Through qualitative research, we previously identified 25 factors that promote EBPM. Thus, this study aimed to (1) evaluate the perceived effectiveness of factors that promote EBPM and (2) assess the perceived effectiveness of interventions designed to address these factors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods:\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA cross-sectional survey was conducted with three stakeholders: policymakers, researchers, and knowledge brokers (KBs). Participants assessed the perceived effectiveness of the 25 factors and 75 corresponding intervention strategies. The mean scores were calculated for each factor, and the proportion of respondents who considered each intervention effective within its respective factor was determined.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults:\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eOf the 154 invited participants, 55 completed the survey, including policymakers (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;78), researchers (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;49), and KBs (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;27). The highest-rated factor was \u0026lsquo;organising and disseminating leverageable evidence and data\u0026rsquo; (mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.53), which included the intervention \u0026lsquo;development of data infrastructure easily utilisable by researchers while ensuring personal information protection\u0026rsquo;, selected as effective by 78.2% of the respondents. The second highest-rated factor was \u0026lsquo;enhancing the knowledge and skills of policymakers and researchers in policymaking processes, EBPM, and research\u0026rsquo; (mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.37). Within this factor, two interventions shared the highest selection rate (72.3%): \u0026lsquo;establishment of an in-ministry training system enabling policymakers to acquire essential skills regardless of department\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;development and provision of EBPM-related educational content for professional organisations (academic societies) and policymakers\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions:\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study identified the perceived effectiveness of 25 EBPM-promoting factors and 75 related interventions based on input from policymakers, researchers, and KBs. These findings provide a foundation for the implementation of strategies by outlining practical interventions. The differences in perceived effectiveness across stakeholders suggest that implementation should reflect each group\u0026rsquo;s priorities, roles, and constraints. This study contributes to EBPM literature by systematically linking factors with interventions and demonstrating how stakeholder perspectives differ, thereby strengthening the basis for promoting EBPM in practice.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Perceived effectiveness of factors and intervention strategies for promoting evidence-based policymaking in Japan: A cross-sectional survey among policymakers, researchers, and knowledge brokers","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-10-31 11:55:06","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7692237/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-03-09T10:45:22+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-02-13T17:14:24+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-02-13T09:36:51+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"327564285388195126606833545564908931149","date":"2026-02-10T12:18:48+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"255620743372438740324745953109393152843","date":"2026-01-27T18:00:55+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-10-21T13:35:44+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-09-23T14:10:16+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-09-23T14:09:26+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Health Research Policy and Systems","date":"2025-09-23T09:03:11+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"health-research-policy-and-systems","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"hrps","sideBox":"Learn more about [Health Research Policy and Systems](http://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"12961","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/12961/3","title":"Health Research Policy and Systems","twitterHandle":"@HarpsJournal","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"2732d468-0815-431c-a63b-cd2401f5efcc","owner":[],"postedDate":"October 31st, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"in-revision","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-18T12:09:48+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-10-31 11:55:06","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7692237","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7692237","identity":"rs-7692237","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}