Over the past two decades, there have been significant efforts to improve the generation and use of research evidence across various sectors. While considerable attention has been given to assessing the quality of the evidence itself, there has been limited discussion on how to define and measure the quality of its use. This is problematic because it tends to prioritize the communication and synthesis of research findings over the actual application of that evidence in decision-making and implementation. This paper addresses this gap by focusing on how to conceptualize the quality of research evidence use, drawing on a cross-sector review conducted as part of the Monash Q Project, an initiative aimed at improving research evidence use in Australian schools. The cross-sector review, encompassing health, social care, education, and policy sectors, analyzed 112 publications to identify themes and develop initial principles for understanding quality evidence use. The paper aims to share these insights to foster future conceptual and empirical work in this critical yet under-researched area.

The paper draws on a systematic review and narrative synthesis of 112 publications from four sectors: health, social care, education, and policy. The review used a multi-stage process involving database searches (ERIC, Medline, Social Services Abstracts, PsychInfo), informal searches (personal contacts, reference checks), and a rigorous screening and selection process. The publications included research papers, policy documents, practice guides, and professional frameworks. The analysis revealed a lack of explicit definitions of 'quality of evidence use' across all sectors. However, the review unearthed valuable insights into the nature of evidence use within each sector, which formed the basis for the six proposed principles.

The research employed a systematic review and narrative synthesis methodology. The process began with a comprehensive search across four databases (ERIC, Medline, Social Services Abstracts, and PsychInfo) using keywords related to 'evidence use,' 'research use,' and 'quality of use.' Informal searches, including personal contacts and reference checks, supplemented the database searches to capture potentially relevant sources missed by traditional methods. The initial search yielded 10,813 publications. After removing duplicates and screening for relevance, 268 full-text papers were assessed for eligibility. Ultimately, 112 publications were included in the analysis (30 from health, 29 from social care, 31 from education, and 22 from policy). Thematic analysis was used to identify key insights and themes related to the conceptualization of quality research evidence use within and across sectors. Moderation processes involving the research team and sector experts were implemented to ensure the rigor and validity of the synthesis.

The analysis revealed several key insights. First, there was a notable absence of explicit definitions or descriptions of 'quality of evidence use' across all four sectors. Second, the review highlighted sector-specific insights into evidence use. In health, the focus was on the dynamic interplay between practitioner expertise, evidence, and context, with numerous frameworks illustrating the complexity of evidence use across all process stages. The social care sector emphasized balancing evidence with practitioner expertise, contextual factors, and client needs. The education sector highlighted the preference for 'evidence-informed practice' to acknowledge the role of practitioner knowledge, while also pointing out several enablers of evidence use at practitioner and organizational levels. Finally, the policy sector recognized the need for nuanced approaches balancing evidence with broader policy contexts and diverse stakeholder views, suggesting a stronger link between quality use and policy processes rather than outcomes. Third, cross-sector insights emerged, including the need for a broad range of evidence sources, the importance of practice-based expertise, the role of evaluation and self-assessment tools in improving evidence use, and the value of systems perspectives in understanding evidence use as a complex, multilevel process involving continuous change. These findings informed the development of six initial principles for conceptualizing quality research evidence use.

The six principles developed in this paper offer a valuable framework for understanding and improving the quality of research evidence use across various sectors. The emphasis on practice-based expertise highlights the importance of considering the complex interplay between evidence and professional judgment in context. The acknowledgement of sector-specific conditions underscores the need for tailored approaches to support evidence use. The focus on development and evaluation over time reflects the dynamic nature of evidence use. The identification of key stages of the process helps pinpoint areas for improvement. The consideration of processes and/or outcomes provides a balanced perspective on assessing quality. Finally, the inclusion of system-level considerations ensures that the broader context is taken into account. These principles provide a foundation for further research and the development of practical tools and strategies to improve how research evidence is used in policy and practice.

This study significantly contributes to the field by highlighting the critical need for clearer conceptualizations of quality research evidence use. The six principles provide a valuable starting point for future research, guiding the development of frameworks and tools to improve evidence use across different sectors. Future research should focus on operationalizing and testing these principles in diverse contexts, exploring their applicability in various settings and examining the interplay between the principles. Further investigation into sector-specific nuances and the development of robust methods for evaluating the quality of evidence use are vital next steps.

The review primarily focused on publications in English from a limited number of countries, potentially limiting the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the lack of explicit focus on 'quality of use' in the literature presented challenges in defining and assessing quality. The principles presented are still in their initial stages and require further operationalization and testing. Future work should also address the methodological limitations associated with narrative synthesis, potentially exploring the inclusion of more diverse methodological approaches to enrich the findings.