Insights from a cross-sector review on how to conceptualise the quality of use of research evidence

Over the past two decades, multiple sectors have invested in improving the generation and use of research evidence. While extensive debates have established ways to assess the quality of evidence itself, there has been comparatively little dialogue about what constitutes quality in the use of that evidence. This gap risks emphasizing access and dissemination over the intelligent uptake and application of research in decision-making and implementation. This paper addresses the research question of how to conceptualise the quality of research evidence use, drawing on a cross-sector synthesis of literature from health, social care, education, and policy. The work is part of the Monash Q Project, which seeks to develop a framework for quality use of research evidence in education, and aims to stimulate broader conceptual and empirical work on this under-researched topic.

The review found very few publications that explicitly defined or described the quality of research evidence use in any sector. However, sector-specific bodies of work provided insights with implications for conceptualising quality use. In health, evidence use is framed as a dynamic, multi-stage process integrating clinical judgement, tacit knowledge, and contextual factors, supported by individual and organisational capacity-building frameworks. In social care, models emphasize balancing research evidence with practitioner expertise, context, and client needs, and distinguish process- and outcome-oriented approaches, though there is inconsistency about what constitutes effective evidence use and required capabilities. In education, evidence use is commonly framed as evidence-informed practice that values practitioner knowledge in context, with enablers spanning leadership, professional learning, mindsets, research literacy, and collaboration. In policy, literature recognises tensions between best available evidence and democratic legitimacy, with a strong focus on governance processes (transparency, accountability, contestability) rather than outcomes. Cross-sector themes include: the need to draw on broad evidence sources; the central role of practitioner expertise and practice-based knowledge; the availability and value of evaluation and self-assessment tools for improving evidence use over time; and systems perspectives that acknowledge multilevel actors and continuous change.

The study reports on Strand 1 of the Monash Q Project: a cross-sector review guided by systematic reviewing principles and a narrative synthesis approach to accommodate methodological diversity. The guiding question was how 'quality of evidence use' has been described and conceptualised across health, social care, and education, with policy added as an emergent sector. Searches (April–July 2019) combined database and informal strategies. Databases included ERIC (education), Medline (health), Social Services Abstracts (social care), and PsychInfo (interdisciplinary). Search strings combined terms for evidence/research use (e.g., evidence use, evidence-informed, research utilisation, implementation) with terms related to quality and capability (e.g., effective, expertise, competence, intelligent, quality). Inclusion criteria encompassed research (journal articles, reports, syntheses, books/chapters) and professional publications (policy documents, practice guides, frameworks), in English, with emphasis on Australia, New Zealand, Canada, USA, and UK, without date limits. Exclusions covered data use (as distinct from research use), awareness rather than use, and appraisals of evidence quality rather than quality of use. From databases, 10,813 records were identified; 179 duplicates were removed; 10,634 records were screened; 797 full texts were assessed; and 268 were included (per PRISMA). Informal searches (internet, personal contacts, reference checks) added 175 documents. Following moderation and relevance ranking focused on fit for examining quality of use, 112 publications were selected for in-depth analysis: 30 health, 29 social care, 31 education, and 22 policy. Four narrative syntheses (one per sector) were produced and non-education narratives were reviewed by sector experts. Thematic analysis across narratives informed the development of initial principles for conceptualising quality use.

Across sectors, explicit definitions of quality of research evidence use were rare. Nonetheless, the synthesis yielded six initial principles for conceptualising quality use: (1) account for practice-based expertise and evidence in context; (2) identify sector-specific conditions that support evidence use; (3) consider how quality use develops, improves, and can be evaluated over time; (4) determine the salient stages of the evidence use process; (5) consider whether to focus on processes and/or outcomes of evidence use; and (6) consider the scale or level of evidence use within a system. Sector insights: Health literature presents dynamic, multi-stage models integrating practitioner judgement, tacit knowledge, context, and organisational supports. Social care highlights balancing research, practitioner expertise, context, and client needs, and contends with tensions between process- and outcome-focused approaches. Education emphasizes evidence-informed practice, practitioner knowledge, and enablers at individual, organizational, and system levels (leadership, professional learning, networks, standards). Policy prioritizes transparency, accountability, and contestability in decision-making processes over outcomes. Cross-sector themes include the breadth of valid evidence sources, the importance of practitioner expertise and co-production, the role of evaluation/self-assessment tools (e.g., novice–expert progressions, governance transparency frameworks) to support improvement over time, and systems perspectives acknowledging multilevel actors and continuous change. Corpus statistics: 112 publications analysed in-depth (30 health, 29 social care, 31 education, 22 policy).

The findings address the central question of how to conceptualise quality in the use of research evidence by synthesising sector-specific and cross-sector insights into six guiding principles. They underscore that quality use is contextually situated, practice-mediated, and dynamic over time, requiring attention to both the stages of use (from problem identification through implementation and evaluation) and the broader systems in which use occurs. The results highlight that in some sectors (e.g., policy) quality is better assessed through process integrity (transparency, accountability), while in others (e.g., education) there is interest in outcomes though causal links are difficult to establish due to contextual complexity. Recognising sector-specific enablers (e.g., leadership and professional learning in education; practitioner participation in knowledge generation in health and social care; governance mechanisms in policy) is crucial for building capacity for quality use. Overall, the principles provide a scaffold for designing frameworks, assessments, and interventions tailored to sector contexts, and for shifting efforts from simply providing access to evidence toward supporting its intelligent and effective application.

The cross-sector review reveals a lack of explicit articulations of what constitutes quality in research evidence use, yet identifies consistent insights that can guide conceptual development. The paper proposes six initial principles encompassing practitioner expertise in context, sector-specific enabling conditions, developmental and evaluative dimensions over time, stage-specific considerations within the evidence use process, process versus outcome emphases, and system scale and influence. These principles informed the authors’ development of a framework for education and are offered as a foundation for broader conceptual and empirical work across sectors. Future research should operationalise and test these principles, develop robust measures and developmental progressions for individuals and organisations, and examine how system-level interventions and governance arrangements influence quality use across diverse contexts.

Policy was added as an additional sector post hoc, so included policy papers reflect the general search strategy rather than a sector-representative sample. Very few publications explicitly addressed the quality of use, requiring interpretive inclusion decisions about implicit treatment of quality. The review was limited to English-language sources with emphasis on Australia, New Zealand, Canada, USA, and UK, potentially omitting relevant work elsewhere. Informal search strategies, while broadening coverage, may introduce selection bias. The six proposed principles have not been operationalised or empirically tested beyond the authors’ own framework development work.