To the Editor: With increasing attention focused on the need for evidence-based policy making in recent years, researchers have come to the realisation that research has, in fact, little impact on policy making. The literature abounds with theories on how to improve the appropriate use of research evidence in policy decisions.

Researchers must shoulder a large proportion of the responsibility, having spent too much energy generating evidence and insufficient time “translating” this knowledge into a useful product for decision makers.1 Further, the failure of the two communities to communicate has allowed researchers to follow their own agendas, rather than those of the potential users of their research.2 Improved two-way communication between researchers and policy makers may improve the uptake of research evidence.3 This is best achieved by supporting policy makers to utilise evidence and researchers to become more policy-sensitive.

However, even when evidence has been “translated” and acknowledged, it is still subject to other forces. There are numerous barriers to evidence-based policy making, not the least of which is politics.

For example, Stevenson recently highlighted the fact that young drivers are disproportionately represented in road trauma statistics.4 He presented data on a number of interventions that have successfully reduced fatal and injurious crashes involving young drivers. Similar data were presented by the NSW Government in its options paper on improving safety for young drivers, which was put out for community consultation in late 2004.5 So far, a policy decision has been made on only two out of 11 options. One decision, which prohibits provisional (P1) licence holders from driving high-performance cars, has, by the Government’s own admission, no supporting evidence of effectiveness.5 The other decision places a limit of one passenger for 12 months for drivers who lose their provisional (P1 or P2) licence. However, this decision is a variant of a strategy that is supported by evidence, and consequently may have little or no effect.

Researchers need to be aware that social, electoral, ethical, cultural and economic factors have a powerful influence on policy.6 While the literature on evidence-based policy exhorts researchers and policy makers to work on bridging the gap between evidence and policy, the role of other key players (such as the public) has tended to be overlooked.7

As part of a National Health and Medical Research Council capacity-building grant in population health research, a consortium of academic institutions is working on enhancing the interface between injury research and policy and on promoting evidence-informed policy in injury prevention. (Members of the consortium are the NSW Injury Risk Management Research Centre, the School of Public Health and Community Medicine, and the Prince of Wales Medical Research Institute [all of the University of NSW]; and the Rehabilitation Studies Unit and George Institute for International Health [of the University of Sydney]). The role of the public as an audience with which researchers might profitably interact to improve dissemination and uptake of evidence will be explored, as will the role of health journalists in facilitating this.