Designing and Implementing a Communications Strategy: Lessons Learnt from HIV and Sexual and Reproductive Health Research Programme Consortia

"Health researchers and research organisations need to be able to communicate their research effectively to increase the probability that the findings influence policy and practice, and benefit those in greatest need."

This paper reflects on the experience in developing and implementing communications strategies of several Research Programme Consortia (RPC) funded by the Department for International Development (DFID). The consortia include organisations from both developed and developing countries, and often include both academic and civil society organisations, as well as government institutions. DFID requires that at least 10% of the RPC's overall research budget should be spent on communications, which involves mechanisms such as: making it compulsory for research projects to have communications strategies; developing the capacity of researchers to communicate and policymakers to uptake research evidence; encouraging and funding knowledge intermediaries; and making the involvement of stakeholders from the start of the project compulsory.

Reflecting on the RPC's experiences, the author notes that different research topics will require different communications approaches in order to be effective. She stresses that strategic research communications designed to influence policy and practice require different skills and expertise from those required for carrying out research and writing it up for publication in academic journals. One of the ways in which research programme consortia have sought to support researchers in this work is through convening workshops. For example, Evidence for Action held a workshop bringing together the partners to look at how to develop a strategy, as well as to strengthen capacity in some key communications skills. It was facilitated by external experts and had input from members of the consortium with expertise in specific communications areas. Participants were introduced to the Overseas Development institute (ODI) Research and Policy in Development (RAPID) framework for understanding how research can influence policy. They carried out exercises from the RAPID toolkits on policy impact and successful communication to identify: the audience; the desired changes; forces for and against change; and the message and the messenger. The draft strategies were then taken back to partner organisations for consultation and revision before being finalised. "This process enabled country-specific strategies to be developed, and strengthened the capacity of communications leads to plan strategic communications. It has resulted in strong buy-in from communications leads, who, in some cases, have acted as advocates within their organisation for communicating research."

Another way of providing ongoing support to those involved in communicating research is through a "Communications Community of Practice", which meets regularly and tends to favour teleconferences over email and the internet for its communications. The author contends that this has proven to be a good way to support researchers both with ideas and resources; based on survey data of members, it also has lent a "strong sense of belonging to a community that shares a common concern with communication. Developing strong partnerships with research users, other research organisations, knowledge intermediaries and other stakeholders is vital for effective communication."

A key recurring theme in the lessons from RPC communications work has been the importance of partnerships. For example, in Uganda, Evidence for Action partners Medical Research Council/Uganda Virus Research Institute (MRC/UVRI) have been working in partnership with the Ministry of Health, with the Ministry of Health identifying a question of interest (can peripheral health services effectively and safely deliver antiretroviral therapy (ART)?) and asking MRC/UVRI to work with it to find answers. It is suggested here that partnerships are most effective when research users are involved in all stages of the research process, rather than simply being brought in during the dissemination phase.

The author suggests that knowledge intermediaries have also been important for several RPC. For example, Realising Rights have worked in partnership with Panos to link research and media more effectively. Partnerships between the different RPC have also been useful, with 4 RPC on HIV and SRH working together to examine the research to policy interface, and collaborating on a joint conference held in May 2010 which enabled the different RPC to learn from each other’s experience, pool resources, and reach wider audiences.