research on local government

• Open access
• Published: 03 July 2023

Research evidence use in local government-led public health interventions: a systematic review

• Jennifer L. Dam   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0088-1517 1 ,
• Phoebe Nagorka-Smith 2 ,
• Alex Waddell 3 ,
• Annemarie Wright 4 , 5 ,
• Joannette J. Bos 1 &
• Peter Bragge 1  

Health Research Policy and Systems volume  21 , Article number:  67 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

4521 Accesses

4 Citations

14 Altmetric

Metrics details

Local governments play an important role in improving public health outcomes globally, critical to this work is applying the best-available research evidence. Despite considerable exploration of research use in knowledge translation literature, how research is practically applied by local governments remains poorly understood. This systematic review examined research evidence use in local government-led public health interventions. It focused on how research was used and the type of intervention being actioned.

Quantitative and qualitative literature published between 2000 and 2020 was searched for studies that described research evidence use by local governments in public health interventions. Studies reporting interventions developed outside of local government, including knowledge translation interventions, were excluded. Studies were categorised by intervention type and their level of description of research evidence use (where ‘level 1’ was the highest and ‘level 3’ was the lowest level of detail).

The search identified 5922 articles for screening. A final 34 studies across ten countries were included. Experiences of research use varied across different types of interventions. However, common themes emerged including the demand for localised research evidence, the legitimising role of research in framing public health issues, and the need for integration of different evidence sources.

Conclusions

Differences in how research was used were observed across different local government public health interventions. Knowledge translation interventions aiming to increase research use in local government settings should consider known barriers and facilitators and consider contextual factors associated with different localities and interventions.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), non-communicable diseases (NCDs) such as heart disease, respiratory disease, cancer and diabetes are the leading causes of chronic illness and premature death globally [ 1 ]. Research on the social determinants of health—the conditions, forces and systems that shape the conditions of daily life [ 1 ] highlights that NCDs are largely influenced by modifiable behaviours (or risk factors) such as tobacco use, physical activity and diet, and that these behaviours are often shaped by the local environments people live in; underscoring the important of role of local governments in improving population health outcomes [ 2 ].

Often articulated as the level of government closest to the people [ 3 ], local governments are the metropolitan and regional areas that sit within a state, territory or province. Their connection to a defined population and place means they are well positioned to influence health outcomes through both ‘bottom-up’ engagement with local stakeholders and ‘top-down’ policy interventions [ 3 ]. For example, local governments provide social infrastructure such as community health services and sporting facilities which play a critical role in addressing the challenge of ‘lifestyle’ diseases and improving health outcomes [ 4 , 5 ].

Decentralisation of public health responsibilities has seen the role of local government expand considerably in many regions [ 6 , 7 , 8 ]. While this is broadly understood to benefit health outcomes, bringing decision-making within closer proximity of service delivery [ 3 ], it has not been without its challenges, including a lack of resources and the need to navigate new decision-making structures and processes [ 7 , 8 ]. Alongside this, local governments have also faced growing demands for greater use of research in health policy [ 9 ]. In Australia for example, local government public health responsibilities in the state of Victoria are mandated through the [ 10 ] which is underpinned by several principles, including “ evidence-based decision-making ” (s. 5) to guide the effective use of resources and inform public health interventions.

An evidence-based approach in public health—broadly defined as the integration of the best available research with community preferences and other resources such as practitioner expertise—is associated with both improvements in health outcomes and enhanced organisational efficiency and service delivery [ 11 ]. Within local government settings, an evidence-based approach requires policymakers and practitioners to draw on various forms of evidence including population health data, community feedback, guidelines and research. These forms of evidence need to be weighed against community needs, constituent preferences, strategic imperatives, and availability of resources and expertise [ 12 , 13 ]. Ideally, this results in interventions with demonstrated impact that are also feasible and acceptable to the community that they seek to serve.

Despite broad consensus on the benefits research in public health policy, it is often underutilised for a range of reasons such as inadequate access to relevant research or a lack of institutional support [ 14 , 15 ]. This ‘evidence-policy gap’ is a well-established phenomenon across multiple sectors and settings including and beyond local government. Furthermore, research has shown that perceptions of research needs can differ greatly between researchers and policy-makers [ 16 ]. Addressing this mismatch is a key goal of knowledge translation (KT) research, which aims to increase the relevance and effectiveness of research-based evidence alongside building individual and organisational capacity to use it [ 16 ]. However, after more than two decades of KT research, there remains a gap in empirical studies identifying which strategies are most effective at increasing research use, and how to implement them [ 17 ]. Critique of this literature argues that KT studies have tended to focus too heavily on how to get more research into policy, emphasising a need to better explore how research and policy interact outside the context of an implementation intervention.

There are a number of related systematic reviews that have examined research use in public health policy [ 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 ]. These have largely focused on exploring barriers and facilitators of research use [ 18 , 19 , 20 ], and influences on research use [ 21 , 22 ], including the political dimensions of public health policy [ 23 ]. More recently, Verboom and Baumann [ 24 ] comprehensively mapped various characteristics of qualitative literature describing research use, including geography, methodology and use of theory [ 24 ]. While these reviews were predominantly global, and all but one [ 20 ] focused exclusively on public health policy, they included policy settings at all levels of government, examining local government experiences alongside national and state or regional government collectively.

Two reviews concentrated on local government settings, however they also included studies relating to local agencies/practitioners outside of local government [ 25 , 26 ]. One was global with a focus on high income/OECD countries only [ 25 ], the other was limited to England-based studies [ 26 ]. Although different in scope, both reviews were interested in research use in public health decision-making, drawing attention to the diverse ‘landscape’ of local public health decision-making structures and processes. These reviews emphasise a need for research to explore these differences in order to foster a deeper understanding of the “broad patterns of evidence use (and need)” [ 26 ] (p. 9) within local government settings.

Given the increasing expectation for local governments globally to develop and deliver public health interventions, this systematic review aimed to identify, appraise and synthesise published literature describing research use in local government-led public health interventions. Specifically, the review focused on exploring how research evidence was used in local government; for what type of activity (e.g. public policy development, health education, partnership); and variations in evidence use by intervention type.

A systematic review methodology was used and reported in accordance with the PRISMA checklist (see Additional file 1 ) [ 27 ]. Prior to conducting the review, a protocol was registered at Open Science Framework https://osf.io/s38qf/ .

For the purpose of this review, ‘research’ was defined as primary evidence produced through formal research or scientific methods, generally based in universities or with university-affiliated researchers, and/or published in peer-reviewed journals [ 28 ]. The use of raw data such as health monitoring or surveillance data not generated by academics was not a focus of this review. ‘Public health intervention’ is defined as an action “ intended to promote or protect health or prevent ill health in communities or populations ” [ 28 ], including environmental interventions aimed at improving health conditions.

To support the study aim of exploring whether research use varied depending on the nature of an intervention, a public health classification was used to categorise studies according to the type of intervention they described [ 29 , 30 ]. The use of organising frameworks in research and practice is also understood to support greater consistency in reporting public health interventions, and help facilitate national and international comparison [ 29 ]. Developed for the National Public Health Partnership in Australia, the classification used was informed by public health experts and an analysis of core public health functions and existing classification systems in Australia and internationally [ 29 ]. It comprises six top-level classes (see Additional file 2 ):

functions (e.g. promote health and prevent disease; ensure public health capability);

health issues (e.g. health and wellbeing; diseases and conditions);

determinants of health (e.g. environmental; socio-economic);

intervention methods that support the achievement of public health functions including actions, activities, programs and services;

the settings in which public health work is undertaken (e.g. local government; education; healthcare); and

the resources and infrastructure that support this work.

This review drew on the ‘ Methods ’ sub-classes which encompass a range of methods specific to public health (e.g. health education, community development, Health Impact Assessment), and those that reflect the day-to-day work of public health workers [e.g. administration, management and policy development [ 29 ]].

Search strategy

The search strategy was developed in consultation with a library specialist using key terms based on review objectives and identified through early research scoping. These were adapted as required for each database (see Table 1 for MEDLINE example). The CINAHL, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane and Health Systems Evidence databases were systematically searched for English language articles published between 2000 and 2020. This time frame was chosen because the year 2000 marks the origins of scientific enquiry of evidence use in public health [ 11 ] and the beginnings of legislative requirements for local government public health planning (e.g. Canada, Australia, England, The Netherlands) [ 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 ]. Additional screening included reference lists of systematic reviews and cited references of studies that reported primary evidence and/or made public health policy recommendations.

Eligibility

This review included primary qualitative and quantitative peer-reviewed journal publications. To be eligible for inclusion, studies had to report the use of research (including research sourced from grey literature such as policy briefs, agency reports or guidelines) in an intervention aimed at improving human health outcomes at the population level. This could include an intervention targeting a specific risk factor (e.g. tobacco use) or broader factors that influence population health (e.g. social determinants, health equity, environmental health).

In order to generate a picture of ‘everyday’ research use in local policy settings, the review focused exclusively on studies describing research use in public health interventions implemented in local government settings, by local government decision-makers. Studies describing interventions implemented by non-public health departments within a specified local government were included, providing improved health outcomes was an explicitly stated goal. However, studies that reported interventions implemented by public health departments not embedded in a policy setting, or within local government settings by non-public health decision-makers (e.g. university-based research teams), were ineligible. Observational studies examining the role of research in decision-making were included however, KT studies with a primary objective of increasing research use were excluded. See Additional file 3 for a full list of inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Study selection

Study screening and selection was conducted using Covidence systematic review software [ 35 ]. After duplicates were removed, articles were independently screened by title and abstract by two authors (JD and PN) and in full text by three authors (JD, PN and AW). At both stages of the screening process, conflicts were resolved collaboratively, with a fourth author (PB) contributing where consensus could not be reached.

Methodological quality appraisal

Study quality and risk of bias was assessed using the Critical Review Forms for Quantitative Studies [ 36 ] and Qualitative Studies [ 37 ] as appropriate to the study design. The Critical Review Forms incorporate both dichotomous (yes/no) and descriptive items to appraise study variables such as methodological rigour, appropriateness of measures and sampling procedures. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) [ 38 ] was used for studies employing mixed research methods. The MMAT includes two screening questions and five categories of questions to select from based on study design. The response format for all questions is categorical (yes/no/can’t tell). These tools were chosen as they are published, freely available, widely utilised in health sciences and suitable for assessing a range of research designs. The tools enabled quantitative analysis of strengths and limitations within and between included studies. Tallying of categorical variables was used to classify included studies as ‘low’, ‘medium’ and ‘high’ quality. Quality appraisal was undertaken by one author (JD) with input from a second author (AW). A selection of studies (10%) were first appraised by both authors and results were compared and differences discussed until an agreed conclusion was reached to adopt a consistent approach. See Additional file 4 for an overview of quality appraisal.

Data extraction

Following screening, descriptive data for included studies was extracted and tabulated, including: citation; publication year; whether it was co-authored by local government; study aim/objectives; use of theory; research methods; research setting; participants; intervention type; and the level of detail provided in describing evidence use (see Additional file 5 ). Data extraction was primarily undertaken by one author (JD) with review from a second author (PN). First, both authors completed a proportion (10%) to allow for comparison of results. Consistency was observed between both authors.

Studies were categorised as follows according to their level of description of evidence use:

Level 3: the included study made a statement about research use.

Level 2: level 3 + the study discussed how and/or why research was used.

Level 1: level 2 + the study described stakeholder experiences of using research and/or barriers and facilitators of research use.

Studies were also categorised according to their intervention focus using a public health classification [ 29 , 30 ]. For parsimony, studies that reported more than one intervention method (e.g. health education and capacity building) were categorised according to the primary method identified. For observational studies that did not identify a specific intervention (e.g. those exploring research evidence use across broad aspects of public health decision-making), the cross-cutting category of ‘public policy development’ was used.

Following categorisation, further data extraction was undertaken (by JD in consultation with PB) to capture descriptions of research use, including perceived barriers and facilitators. A descriptive analysis of research use was conducted with greater attention given to higher-quality studies that provided more detailed descriptions of research use (i.e. levels 1–2).

Of the 5922 articles identified through searching, 805 duplicates were removed. A further 4857 that did not meet inclusion criteria were excluded through title and abstract screening. The remaining 260 articles were reviewed in full text, and a further 226 were removed (see Fig.  1 for exclusion reasons). A final 34 articles were considered to meet the inclusion criteria [ 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 ]. Four of these (two sets of two) related to the same study: Atkins et al. [ 40 ] and Kelly et al. [ 41 ] and; Hunter et al. [ 44 ] and Marks et al. [ 45 ]. These were analysed together, resulting in 32 included studies (see Table 2 ). Six studies were included, but not quality-appraised. One did not have a clearly defined research question [ 66 ], and five were commentaries [ 58 , 65 , 67 , 68 , 72 ]. All six described research use in local government-led public health interventions, were authored or co-authored by local government, published in peer-review journals and met all other inclusion criteria. It was determined to include them in the review as they contained relevant data; however, they should be interpreted in this context.

PRISMA flow diagram

Study quality assessment and confidence in the evidence

Confidence in the methodological rigour of included studies was good, with mostly high ( n  = 16) and medium ( n  = 8) quality scores (refer Table 2 for quality scores). Only two studies were considered low quality. Overall, studies were clear in articulating their purpose and informing the need for the stated research. Research methods were well described and appropriate for addressing stated research questions. Few studies ( n  = 8) specified the overall research design and many were lacking in describing the role of the researcher and measures to control potential bias. Trustworthiness of included studies was mixed. Common concerns included a lack of detail describing the research site and participant and auditability of data collection and/or analysis procedures. Refer Additional file 4 for an overview of quality appraisal and study level data.

Study characteristics

Characteristics of included studies are shown in Table 2 . Studies were published between 2007 and 2020. More than half ( n  = 18) were published between 2017 and 2020. Studies were mostly qualitative ( n  = 19). A smaller number were either quantitative ( n  = 5) or mixed methods ( n  = 3). Geographically, studies spanned 10 different countries, although a large proportion ( n  = 12) focused on the United Kingdom (UK). Studies were typically undertaken within a specific local government area or a subset of local governments within a specified region. Only one study spanned multiple regions, although they did not explore between-country differences.

Types of evidence used and associated definitions

Eleven studies reported a specific aim of investigating evidence use, mostly to explore research use alongside other types of evidence (e.g. evaluation reports and community views). Four focused explicitly on use of research, including evidence-based decision-making [ 43 ], systematic reviews [ 51 ], and evidence-based guidelines [ 40 , 41 , 58 ].

Only four studies included a definition for research evidence [ 42 , 47 , 58 , 69 ]. Consistent with the definition guiding this review, all defined ‘research as evidence derived from scientific methods and analysis. Definitions also emphasised the role of non-research-based evidence in public health decision-making such as evaluation reports or data (i.e. to inform the scale of health issues).

Use of theoretical frameworks

The use of theory as part of the study design was limited in the included studies. Only six studies used a theoretical framework (refer Table 2 ); three to guide data analysis [ 40 , 41 , 42 , 59 ] and three more robustly to inform overall research design [ 39 , 44 , 45 , 50 ].

The use of theory by local governments to inform intervention development or implementation, as described by the included studies, was even less evident. While some studies described the use of known models or frameworks by government to help inform understanding of particular health issues (e.g. place-based approaches to address health equity), more detailed accounts of theory to guide intervention design, implementation or evaluation were not observed.

Intervention methods and public health focus

As shown in Table 3 , studies described a range of public health interventions. For example, ‘legislation and regulation’ included the development or enactment of local laws and regulations such as licensing requirements and taxes. Interventions targeted a variety of health-related concerns; some were specific (e.g. tobacco use or problem gambling); others focused on broader factors such as health systems or the social determinants of health.

A large proportion of studies (59%) described research use in ‘public policy development’. While some were specific, for example describing public policy development to address alcohol use behaviours [ 59 ], many ( n  = 13) adopted a broader focus, describing public health decision-making in general terms in relation to service delivery, planning or strategy development (see Table 3 for individual study details).

Descriptions of research evidence use

More than half of included studies ( n  = 19) provided detailed descriptions of research use (categorised as level 1). These studies were predominantly medium to high quality (see Table 2 ). Ten were less detailed (level 2) but did describe how or why research was used. Overall, the quality of these studies was mixed; only two were high quality. Four studies only included a statement about research use (level 3), of which two were high quality. Although less descriptive in their reporting of research use, these studies were more explicit about sources, including identifying primary research that informed interventions.

Experiences of research use were typically framed in terms of barriers and facilitators, which were broadly consistent across different types of interventions. Common barriers to evidence use reported by the studies included:

lack of consensus about what constitutes research evidence [ 39 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 49 , 55 , 56 , 58 ];

availability of resources to support research use (e.g. staff skills, time and organisational support) [ 39 , 40 , 41 , 47 ];

perceived gaps in the evidence base on key public health issues [ 51 , 65 ]; and

the political nature (and associated complexity) of the decision-making context [ 40 , 41 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 51 , 52 , 54 , 55 , 58 ].

As well as different conceptualisations of what research-based evidence is, perceptions about what it means to be evidence-based also varied [ 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 47 , 55 ]. Differences were primarily attributed to variations in professional backgrounds of staff, including within local government public health teams (e.g. architecture, physiotherapy, nursing), which had implications for how notions of research, and what is considered robust research, were conceived [ 39 , 47 , 55 ].

Several studies described the impact of political influence on research use and the tensions that arose when evidence-based decision-making or public health priorities were in conflict with other political goals and decision-making processes [ 40 , 41 , 51 , 54 ]. For example, in the case of local alcohol policy-making where public health priorities conflicted with commercial priorities [ 50 ]. While at times political influence was reported to outweigh even good research [ 44 , 45 ], when political goals were aligned with public health priorities or research findings, this facilitated its use [ 52 ]. Other facilitators included:

individual and organisational capacity to use research [ 39 , 42 , 47 ];

research findings communicated in clear and simple language [ 50 , 51 , 53 ]; and

collaboration, including formal partnerships [ 43 , 47 , 48 , 50 , 51 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 59 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 72 ].

The reciprocal benefits of collaboration in knowledge building and sharing were well described. For example, informal networking between local governments was identified as an important research dissemination method; associated with additional benefits such as facilitating greater ‘ buy-in’ and promoting more robust policy responses [ 59 ], and reducing duplication of effort by promoting the effective use of limited resources [ 65 ]. Participatory processes at the heart of well-established evidence-based methods such as ‘Health Impact Assessment’ and Health in All Policies were also reported to foster research use through facilitated stakeholder engagement (including local citizens and experts from various sectors) across a range of public health issues [ 57 , 62 , 64 , 66 ].

Three themes emerged relating to research use. First, was the commonly expressed desire for more ‘localised research’ . Local evidence, including “ evidence of effectiveness in other LGAs ”, was described as critical to informing “ policies and strategies that were most likely to work in their local communities ” [ 48 ] (p.373). Although local evidence often referred to evidence that might not constitute research as defined in this review (e.g. evidence derived from community consultation by local governments), a lack of locally relevant research (as opposed to national or international research) was a commonly cited concern. This was described in relation to the use of national guidelines in a number of ‘public policy development’ studies which described a lack of local utility due to their broad focus. For example, a participant in one study noted, “ they lacked specificity and did not take into account complexity and scale ” [ 40 ] (p.5), while others felt that the diversity of local populations (and associated public health needs) were not always aligned with national populations and priorities. Consequently, local evidence was not only given precedence over national guidelines, it was considered essential for giving context to public health issues.

In ‘legislation and regulation’ interventions, the need for ‘localised research’ was more specific. For example, in alcohol licensing processes in the UK, Martineau et al. [ 54 ] describe how only certain types of evidence could be used. In the case of health-related research, it was only permitted if it was “ legally relevant as well as scientifically valid ” (p. 439); directly linked to licensing objectives (e.g. public safety); “ legally framed in terms of non-health objectives ” (p. 436) and; specific to the geography of the named premise. This study articulated a need for locally situated research linking known alcohol-related harms with local alcohol consumption practices, to facilitate its applicability in licensing processes. While only one study described a ‘research and evaluation’ intervention (reporting the commissioning of local research), it highlighted a range of positive outcomes [ 65 ]. In addition to clarifying the extent and nature of the public health issue (i.e. problem gambling), undertaking local research helped to foster partnerships and drive coordinated local and regional action [ 65 ].

The second theme to emerge was how research was used to ‘ frame or legitimise ’ public health issues or different points of view [ 48 , 50 , 52 , 56 , 57 ], particularly when engaging stakeholders outside of public health teams (e.g., other local government departments or community groups). This was observed in ‘Health Impact Assessment’ and Health in All Policies interventions as well as various ‘public policy development’ interventions where research was used to help build awareness of the public health implications of non-health issues; contributing to the adoption of more equitable policies. For example, Marko et al. [ 48 ], describe using research to highlight “the impact of EGMs [electronic gambling machines] on broader health and social issues (such as housing instability and family violence)” (p. 371) to reframe problem gambling from an addiction context to a public health context. However, the legitimising role of research did not always serve to benefit public health outcomes. Analysing research use in ‘advocacy and lobbying’, Rossow et al. [ 50 ] observed the use of research by two opposing coalitions to legitimise different points of view; also noting the active undermining, or de-legitimising of public health research by one coalition [ 50 ].

The third theme related to the need to ‘ integrate research’ with other sources of evidence, and the work associated with this. For example, in a study exploring research use by local governments in Victoria, Australia, participants reported that a mixture of evidence was considered both “ most useful ” and “ most influential ” in public health decision-making [ 39 ] (p. 7). While this finding was similar in numerous other studies, the drivers varied somewhat depending on the nature of the intervention, the stakeholders involved and the breadth or relevance of available research. For example, in ‘Health Impact Assessment’ interventions grounded in evidence-based decision-making, it was reported that gaps in the research-base meant that processes had to rely on other inputs including expert opinions and anecdotal evidence. At other times, presenting research within broader narratives (including local and anecdotal evidence), was seen as important to help influence decision-makers [ 39 , 46 , 52 ]. Most commonly in planning and strategy development activities described in ‘public policy development’ interventions; where stakeholders were often negotiating competing demands, personal and professional differences and power dynamics. While research was also considered important in these decisions, participants reported that it was rarely enough to support the full breadth and complexity of decision-making needs, often due to a lack of local relevance or failure to address certain considerations such as economic impact [ 49 , 52 ]. Despite the work involved in integrating various forms of evidence, it was clear that it was beneficial in terms of helping to engage different stakeholders (often with competing interests) on different public health issues [ 55 ], as well as addressing “ different views about relevant evidence methodologies ” [ 42 ] (p. 466).

These themes were often described within broader narratives of decentralisation of public health responsibilities and the associated push for more evidence-based policy. This was particularly prominent in studies from the UK where there was an underlying assumption that local governments were expected “ to up their game and get used to the processes and practices of evidence-based public health ” [ 40 ] (p. 9). Responding to this, Atkins et al. [ 40 ] argue that research needs to be fit for purpose and consider decision-maker needs, also calling for more shared responsibility in addressing the evidence-policy gap. Differences in evidence needs between local governments and national health services were also highlighted, including the need for a focus on sources rather than hierarchies of evidence.

This is the first known systematic review with an explicit focus on an in-depth exploration of research use in local government-led public health interventions, aiming to identify how research is used, and whether use varies depending on the nature of the intervention. This review found that local governments employ a range of different intervention strategies to address public health outcomes; highlighting the multi-dimensional nature of their role in public health. Furthermore, this review found that how research is used can vary depending on the nature of an intervention and the public health issue being addressed. These findings build on previous KT literature that emphasises the complexity of research use in public health policy, articulating the importance of acknowledging intervention methods and the nature of public health issues alongside the myriad factors surrounding the accessibility, legitimacy and practical value of various forms of evidence in local policy settings.

Strengths and limitations

A key strength of this review is the use of robust, established methods, including: a comprehensive search strategy (six electronic databases); having two authors independently screen all studies to reduce potential bias in study selection; and independent review of over 10% of studies to help mitigate any potential for bias in data extraction, quality appraisal and classification of interventions. Another major strength of this review is its focus on how research is used; building on findings of related work to examine research use at the level of intervention type and public health issue being addressed. This enabled a more nuanced understanding of how research use can vary according to these characteristics. In doing so, this review highlights that steps taken to improve research use in local government may need to vary according to these differences.

There were also a number of limitations to this review including that it was limited to English language articles which may have resulted in the exclusion of some studies. While database searching included the Cochrane review, a more comprehensive search of grey literature was not undertaken, which may mean that some studies were overlooked. This review adopted broad inclusion criteria, which may have resulted in some overlap with studies in previous reviews, however, the exclusive focus on local government settings allowed for findings to be explored in-depth within a singular government setting. Similarly, this review only included studies that described research use in local government-led interventions. While, this was purposeful decision, aimed at capturing a realistic view of research use by local government stakeholders, it should be noted that public health work in local government settings is rarely undertaken by a single agency. Partnership is both an integral aspect of addressing the challenges of public health, and a known facilitator of research use [ 73 ]. Although it is expected that this has resulted in the exclusion of studies that involved local government participation in public health interventions, it was considered necessary in order to meaningfully address a known gap in the literature and help build knowledge about local governments use of research. Despite this, an important limitation of this study is the ability to generalise findings across diverse local government settings. As discussed in the introduction, local governments have a globally recognised role to play in public health [ 4 ], however, public health is often conceptualised and organised differently both within and across regions [ 3 , 4 , 29 ]. Local government’s capacity to address public health outcomes is highly context dependent and impacted by relationships to higher levels of government, degree of decision-making authority and allocation of budgets and resources [ 3 , 4 ]. All of which can have a considerable impact on the type of decisions being made, the stakeholders involved and the role of research in decision-making.

Despite its global focus, this review had a high concentration of studies from the UK and fewer than previous reviews with an international focus; none were from low and middle-income countries. These differences are likely attributed to the review's exclusion criteria, particularly the exclusion of KT interventions to support the aim of capturing ‘everyday’ research use and the exclusive focus on public health departments embedded in local policy settings.

Use of theory

Consistent with previous literature [ 23 , 24 ], the use of theory was limited by both researchers and the governments they were studying. This is notable given the known benefits of theory in facilitating the success and sustainability of interventions and ensuring their replicability in other settings [ 74 , 75 ]. For example, behavioural theory can help inform the social and cultural dimensions of health behaviours (e.g. smoking) and assist with identifying strategies to promote change [ 75 ]. However, with a plethora of theoretical approaches to choose from, theory selection can prove challenging [ 76 ]. Future research may consider further exploration of local government stakeholders' knowledge of, and use of theory to inform public health intervention strategies.

Barriers and facilitators

As with previous reviews [ 18 , 19 , 20 ], a large number of studies in this review described research use in terms of barriers and facilitators to use (e.g. 39,42,43,46,53), despite this not being the focus of this review or the included studies. This finding is consistent with a recent review by Verboom et al. (2020) and suggests a shift in focus away from perceived barriers and facilitators in favour of exploring how research is engaged with in policy settings.

Exploration of research use

Despite a considered focus on exploring how research is used, this review found that few studies provided process-orientated descriptions of research use. How research is used was explored across three themes (i.e. the desire for more local research; the legitimising role of research and; the need to integrate research with other types of evidence). While themes were broadly consistent with wider KT literature, by categorising studies according to intervention type, this review identified several unique insights.

Demand for localised research

Direct interaction with the local environment is intrinsic to the work of local governments [ 77 , 78 ], and the desire to be locally informed is often in competition with the desire to be evidence-based. Consistent with Kneale et al. [ 26 ], this study observed a clear desire for more localised research. This was driven by a range of factors across different studies including: accountability to local constituents [ 45 ]; political ideology [ 40 , 45 ]; beliefs about the uniqueness of local populations and associated health needs [ 40 , 41 ] and; gaps in empirical literature [ 51 , 64 ]. It also found that in many cases, these factors led decision-makers to rely on other sources of evidence, often at the expense of methodological rigour or evidence hierarchies [ 46 , 49 ].

Also highlighting the importance of local research at the local government level, was the requirement for health research to be locally specific to be eligible for use in alcohol licensing processes in ‘legislation and regulation’ interventions as described by Martineau et al., [ 54 ]. Although less explored in the literature, this has been observed in other aspects of local government decision-making [ 25 ].

Despite critique from study participants about the limited utility of nationally informed evidence-based guidelines in local settings [ 40 , 41 ], they were still a commonly reported go-to-resource in the face of challenges surrounding the use of primary research (e.g. time and budget constraints) [ 39 , 51 ]. This is consistent with previous literature [ 22 , 78 ] and highlights an opportunity for higher levels of government and non-state actors such as researchers, knowledge brokers and peak bodies, to work more closely with local governments to explore how research needs can be more directly addressed through research synthesis and guidelines.

Elevating local experiences

Although there was a clear desire for more local research, this review found only one example of locally commissioned research [ 65 ]. This study provided a detailed, process orientated description of the various stages of the project to meaningfully inform other local governments on local evidence building. As well as underscoring a need for greater investment in production of local research, the relevance of this study to the scope of the present review highlights the potential value in greater inclusion of grey literature and non-traditional research papers in future systematic reviews to help elevate local government experiences.

This may also help address concerns about the tendency for KT literature to be descriptive or theoretical [ 17 ] and provide greater insight into what may or may not help to optimise research use. Promisingly, this review, along with a previous review [ 24 ], found that the number of studies using observational methods is on the rise; as is local government participation in study authorship compared to earlier literature [ 20 ]. This is important as observational studies, such as ethnographies and case studies that give voice to first hand-accounts of local government experiences can provide much needed practical insights into decision-making process and research use [ 20 , 23 , 24 ]. However, if this research gap is to be addressed, studies will also need to adopt a more open-minded approach to ensure greater exploration of policy-making activities and processes, as opposed to identifying perceived deficits in research use [ 79 ].

Framing and legitimising

The use of research to frame or legitimise different points of view in policy settings is often explored through the lens of Weiss’s [ 80 ] typology of research use. Commonly referred to as symbolic or political use, this involves using research to justify an action or position [ 81 ]; as observed in this review in ‘advocacy and lobbying’ [ 50 ]. While this type of use is often characterised negatively, Weiss et al. [ 82 ] argue it can also be functional; as long as research findings are not distorted or omitted in the process. This strategic use of research by health teams (observed in this review by studies describing the use of research to frame the impacts of non-health related decisions) [ 48 , 56 , 62 ], highlights the persuasiveness of research with some stakeholder groups, and the role it can play in helping to legitimise public health concerns. These findings also underscore the need for unbiased evidence reviews that present a full picture of the various impacts of different health issues and associated interventions.

Integrating evidence

The importance of drawing on a variety of evidence sources to inform local public health policy is well articulated in the literature [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 77 ]. This review identified that the drivers for this can vary across different types of interventions, emphasising the importance of building a research-base (including research synthesis) that “ better reflect (s) the complexity of local populations and systems of influence in order for this evidence to be more useful and usable in local public health decision-making ” [ 46 ] (p. 10). This means addressing demands for more locally relevant and issue specific research, using accessible language and open access publishing, and fostering greater involvement from policy-makers in research production [ 51 ].

This review builds on previous knowledge about barriers and facilitators to research use in public health decision-making, identifying considerable diversity in how research is used, by whom and for what purpose. Consistent with previous literature, this review highlighted the complexity of using research in local government settings, including the associated demands of needing to integrate research with other evidence sources to facilitate its use. In response to these challenges, local government stakeholders expressed a desire for more relevant research that reflects local experiences, supports the implementation of interventions within local communities, addresses the social determinants of health, and is communicated in clear and straightforward language that facilitates engagement with diverse stakeholders. This review classified studies according to intervention type, however other factors associated with local public health policy (e.g. policy cycle) are also likely to shape when and how research is used and as such are worthy of consideration in designing future studies. Additionally, future research should pursue more observational approaches to build further knowledge of how research (including theory) is applied, as well as fostering greater involvement of local government stakeholders in communicating findings. Building on the approach used in this review, researchers may need to adopt a more nuanced understanding of the diversity of intervention methods employed by local governments in order to better engage with the complex dynamics of research use.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available on Open Science Framework https://osf.io/s38qf/ .

Abbreviations

Non-communicable disease

Knowledge translation

Mixed Methods Quality Appraisal Tool

United Kingdom

World Health Organization. Social determinants of health [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://www.who.int/health-topics/social-determinants-of-health .

Marmot M, Allen J, Bell R, Goldblatt P. Building of the global movement for health equity: from Santiago to Rio and beyond. The Lancet. 2012;379:181–8.

Article   Google Scholar  

Collins PA, Hayes MV. The role of urban municipal governments in reducing health inequities: a meta-narrative mapping analysis. Int J Equity Health. 2010;9(13):1–20.

Google Scholar  

Baum F. Local Government and Health Governance. In: Governing for health: Advancing health and equity through policy and advocacy. USA: Oxford University Press; 2018. p. 141–58.

Lowe M, Whitzman C, Giles-Corti B. Health-promoting spatial planning: approaches for strengthening urban policy integration. Plan Theory Pract. 2018;19(2):180–97.

Harris E, Wills J. Developing healthy local communities at local government level: lessons from the past decade. Aust N Z J Public Health. 1997;21(4):403–12.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kingsnorth R. Partnerships for health and wellbeing transferring public health responsibilities to local authorities. J Integr Care. 2013;21:64.

Zon H, Pavlova M, Drabo KM, Groot W. Municipal health services provision by local governments: a systematic review of experiences in decentralized Sub-Saharan African countries. Health Policy Plan. 2017;32:1327–36.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Moat K, Lavis JN. Supporting the use of Cochrane Reviews in health policy and management decision‐making: health Systems Evidence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(2).

Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic) [Internet]. Available from: http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubStatbook.nsf/51dea49770555ea6ca256da4001b90cd/8B1B293B576FE6B1CA2574B8001FDEB7/$FILE/08-46a.pdf .

Brownson RC, Fielding JE, Maylahn CM. Evidence-based public health: a fundamental concept for public health practice. Annu Rev Public Health. 2009;30:175–201.

Head BW. Toward more “Evidence-Informed” policy making? Public Adm Rev. 2015;76(3):472–84.

Lavis JN. Research, public policymaking, and knowledge-translation processes: Canadian efforts to build bridges. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26(1):37–45.

Petticrew M, Platt S, McCollam A, Wilson S, Thomas S. We’re not short of people telling us what the problems are. We’re short of people telling us what to do": an appraisal of public policy and mental health. BMC Public Health. 2008;8(1):314.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Pettman TL, Armstrong R, Pollard B, Evans R, Stirrat A, Scott I, et al. Using evidence in health promotion in local government: contextual realities and opportunities. Health Promot J Austr. 2013;24(1):72–5.

Newman J, Cherney A, Head BW. Do policy makers use academic research? Reexamining the “Two Communities” theory of research utilization. Public Adm Rev. 2016;76(1):24–32.

Haynes AS, Gillespie JA, Derrick GE, Hall WD, Redman S, Chapman S, et al. Galvanizers, guides, champions, and shields: the many ways that policymakers use public health researchers. Milbank Q. 2011;89(4):564–98.

Innvaer S, Vist G, Trommald M, Oxman A. Health policy-makers’ perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002;7(4):239–44.

Lavis JN, Davies HTO, Oxman A, Denis JL, Golden-Biddle K, Ferlie E. Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(1):35–48.

Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J, Innvar S, et al. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(2).

Orton L, Lloyd-Williams F, Taylor-Robinson D, O’Flaherty M, Capewell S. The use of research evidence in public health decision making processes: systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(7):e21704.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Masood S, Kothari A, Regan S. The use of research in public health policy: a systematic review. Evid Policy. 2020;16(1):7–43.

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(10): e77404.

Verboom B, Baumann A. Mapping the qualitative evidence base on the use of research evidence in health policy-making: a systematic review systematic review. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2020;2020:1–16.

Lorenc T, Tyner EF, Petticrew M, Duffy S, Martineau FP, Phillips G, et al. Cultures of evidence across policy sectors: systematic review of qualitative evidence. Eur J Public Health. 2014;24(6):1041–7.

Kneale D, Rojas-García A, Raine R, Thomas J. The use of evidence in English local public health decision-making: a systematic scoping review. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):53.

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4).

Rychetnik L, Frommer M, Hawe P, Shiell A. Criteria for evaluating evidence on public health interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2002;56(2):119–27.

Jorm L, Churches T, Gruszin S. A multidimensional classification of public health activity in Australia. Aust N Z Health Policy. 2009;6(1).

Gruszin S, Jorm L, Churches T, Straton Su Gruszin J. Public Health Classifications Project Phase One: Final Report. Melbourne; 2006.

Chang M, Ross A. Briefing: reuniting health and planning in England—reflections from the front line. Proc Inst Civ Eng Urban Des Plan. 2015;168(2):69–74.

de Goede J, Putters K, van der Grinten T, van Oers HAM. Knowledge in process? Exploring barriers between epidemiological research and local health policy development. Health Res Policy Syst. 2010;8(26):1–11.

Hay A, Frew R, Butterworth I. Environments for health: municipal public health planning. Environ Health. 2001;1(3):85–9.

Levesque JA, O’Dowd JJM, NíShé DEM, Weenink J, Gunn J. Moving regional health services planning and management to a population-based approach: implementation of the Regional Operating Model (ROM) in Victoria, Australia. Aust J Prim Health. 2018;24:311–6.

Veritas Health Innovation. Covidence systematic review software [Internet]. Melbourne, Australia; Available from: www.covidence.org .

Law M, Stewart D, Letts L, Pollock N, Bosch J, Westmorland M. Guidelines for critical review of qualitative studies. McMaster University occupational therapy evidence-based practice research Group. 1998;1.

Letts L, Wilkins S, Law M, Stewart D, Bosch J, Westmorland M. Guidelines for critical review form: Qualitative studies (Version 2.0). McMaster university occupational therapy evidence-based practice research group. 2007.

Nha Hong Q, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, et al. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) Version 2018 User Guide. 2018.

Armstrong R, Waters E, Moore L, Dobbins M, Pettman TL, Burns C, et al. Understanding evidence: a statewide survey to explore evidence-informed public health decision-making in a local government setting. Implement Sci. 2014;9(188):1–11.

Atkins L, Kelly MP, Littleford C, Leng G, Michie S. Reversing the pipeline? Implementing public health evidence-based guidance in english local government. Implement Sci. 2017;12(63):1–13.

Kelly MP, Atkins L, Littleford C, Leng G, Michie S. Evidence-based medicine meets democracy: the role of evidence-based public health guidelines in local government. J Public Health UK. 2017;39(4):678–84.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Beenstock J, Sowden S, Hunter DJ, White M. Are health and well-being strategies in England fit for purpose? A thematic content analysis. J Public Health. 2014;37(3):461–9.

Erwin PC, Parks RG, Mazzucca S, Allen P, Baker EA, Hu H, et al. Evidence-based public health provided through local health departments: importance of academic-practice partnerships. Am J Public Health. 2019;109(5):739–47.

Hunter DJ, Marks L, Brown J, Scalabrini S, Salway S, Vale L, et al. The potential value of priority-setting methods in public health investment decisions: qualitative findings from three English local authorities. Crit Public Health. 2016;26(5):578–87.

Marks L, Hunter DJ, Scalabrini S, Gray J, McCafferty S, Payne N, et al. The return of public health to local government in England: changing the parameters of the public health prioritization debate? Public Health. 2015;129(9):1194–203.

Kneale D, Rojas-García A, Thomas J. Obstacles and opportunities to using research evidence in local public health decision-making in England. Health Res Policy Syst. 2019;17(1):1–11.

Larsen M, Gulis G, Pedersen KM. Use of evidence in local public health work in Denmark. Int J Public Health. 2012;57(3):477–83.

Marko S, Thomas SL, Pitt H, Daube M. The development and implementation of electronic gambling machine policy: a qualitative study of local government policy makers. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2020;44(5):369–75.

Mcgill E, Egan M, Petticrew M, Mountford L, Milton S, Whitehead M, et al. Trading quality for relevance: non-health decision-makers’ use of evidence on the social determinants of health. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e007053.

Rossow I, Ugland T, Baklien B. Use of research in local alcohol policy-making. Drugs Alcohol Today. 2015;15(4):192–202.

South E, Lorenc T. Use and value of systematic reviews in English local authority public health: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1–11.

Willmott M, Womack J, Hollingworth W, Campbell R. Making the case for investment in public health: Experiences of Directors of Public Health in English local government. J Public Health UK. 2016;38(2):237–42.

Frew E, Breheny K. Health economics methods for public health resource allocation: a qualitative interview study of decision makers from an English local authority. Health Econ Policy Law. 2020;15(1):128–40.

Martineau FP, Graff H, Mitchell C, Lock K. Responsibility without legal authority? Tackling alcohol-related health harms through licensing and planning policy in local government. J Public Health. 2014;36(3):435–42.

Phillips G, Green J. Working for the public health: politics, localism and epistemologies of practice. Sociol Health Illn. 2015;37(4):491–505.

Purtle J, Langellier B, Lê-Scherban F. A case study of the Philadelphia sugar-sweetened beverage tax policymaking process: implications for policy development and advocacy. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2018;24(1):4–8.

Corburn J, Bhatia R. Health impact assessment in San Francisco: incorporating the social determinants of health into environmental planning. J Environ Plan Manag. 2007;50(3):323–41.

Van Vliet J. How to apply the evidence-based recommendations for greater health equity into policymaking and action at the local level? Scand J Public Health. 2018;46(22):28–36.

Gavens L, Holmes J, Buykx P, de Vocht F, Egan M, Grace D, et al. Processes of local alcohol policy-making in England: does the theory of policy transfer provide useful insights into public health decision-making? Health Place. 2019;57:358–64.

Reynolds J, McGrath M, Engen J, Pashmi G, Andrews M, Lim J, et al. Processes, practices and influence: a mixed methods study of public health contributions to alcohol licensing in local government. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):15–7.

Boyce KS, Travers M, Rothbart B, Santiago V, Bedell J. Adapting evidence-based teen pregnancy programs to Be LGBT-inclusive: lessons learned. Health Promot Pract. 2018;19(3):445–54.

Corburn J, Curl S, Arredondo G, Malagon J. Health in all Urban policy: city services through the prism of health. J Urban Health. 2014;91(4):623–36.

VonHeimburg D, Hakkebo B. Health and equity in all policies in local government: processes and outcomes in two Norwegian municipalities. Scand J Public Health. 2017;45(18):68–76.

Kögel CC, Peña TR, Sánchez I, Tobella M, López JA, Espot FG, et al. Health impact assessment (HIA) of a fluvial environment recovery project in a medium-sized Spanish Town. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(5):1484.

Elbers M, Rowlands J, Boo M, Cameron I. Building momentum for local action on problem gambling in Leeds and Yorkshire. Public Health. 2020;184:67–70.

Linzalone N, Coi A, Lauriola P, Luise D, Pedone A, Romizi R, et al. Participatory health impact assessment used to support decision-making in waste management planning: a replicable experience from Italy. Waste Manag. 2017;59:557–66.

Rube K, Veatch M, Huang K, Sacks R, Lent M, Goldstein GP, et al. Developing built environment programs in local health departments: lessons learned from a nationwide mentoring program. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(5):10–8.

Steer KJD, Brown K, Doncaster H, Dueck K, Loh LC. From priority to endgame: the region of peel living tobacco-free strategy. Can J Public Health. 2019;110(5):633–7.

Browne GR, Davern M, Giles-Corti B. What evidence is being used to inform municipal strategic planning for health and wellbeing? Victoria, Australia, a case study. Evid Policy. 2017;13(3):401–16.

Dobbinson SJ, Simmons J, Chamberlain JA, MacInnis RJ, Salmon J, Staiger PK, et al. Examining health-related effects of refurbishment to parks in a lower socioeconomic area: the ShadePlus Natural Experiment. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(17):6102.

Dannefer R, Wong BC, John P, Gutierrez J, Brown-Dudley L, Freeman K, et al. The neighborhood as a unit of change for health: early findings from the East Harlem Neighborhood Health Action Center. J Community Health. 2019;45(1):161–9.

Lederer A, Curtis CJ, Silver LD, Angell SY. Toward a healthier city nutrition standards for New York City Government. Am J Prev Med. 2014;46(4):423–8.

Mitchell P, Pirkis J, Hall J, Haas M. Partnerships for knowledge exchange in health services research, policy and practice. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2009;14(2):104–11.

Lynch EA, Mudge A, Knowles S, Kitson AL, Hunter SC, Harvey G. “There is nothing so practical as a good theory”: a pragmatic guide for selecting theoretical approaches for implementation projects. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(857).

Glanz K, Bishop DB. The role of behavioral science theory in development and implementation of public health interventions. Annu Rev Public Health. 2010;31:399–418.

Birken SA, Powell BJ, Shea CM, Haines ER, Kirk MA, Leeman J, et al. Criteria for selecting implementation science theories and frameworks: results from an international survey. Implement Sci. 2017;12(124).

Cairney P, Oliver K. Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy? Health Res Policy Syst. 2017;15(35).

Oliver KA, de Vocht F. Defining ‘evidence’ in public health: a survey of policymakers’ uses and preferences. Eur J Public Health. 2017;27(2):112–7.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Oliver K, Lorenc T, Innvær S. New directions in evidence-based policy research: a critical analysis of the literature. Health Res Policy Syst. 2014;12(1):1–11.

Weiss CH. The many meanings of research utilization. Public Adm Rev. 1979;39(5):426–31.

Amara N, Mathieu O, Réjean L. New evidence on instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic utilization of university research in government agencies. Sci Commun. 2004;26(1):75–106.

Weiss CH, Murphy-Graham E, Birkeland S. An alternate route to policy influence. Am J Eval. 2005;26(1):12–30.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance from Louise Micallef, Subject Librarian at the Sir Louis Matheson Library at Monash University. They also acknowledge the support of VicHealth in funding JD’s research higher degree scholarship through Monash University’s Behaviour Change Graduate Research Industry Partnership jointly funded by the Australian Government Research Training Program and VicHealth.

JD is supported by a research higher degree scholarship jointly funded by the Australian Government Research Training Program and The Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth). Beyond funding support, the funders had no direct role in the study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation, or writing the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University, 8 Scenic Boulevard, Clayton Campus, Clayton, VIC, 3800, Australia

Jennifer L. Dam, Joannette J. Bos & Peter Bragge

School of Health and Social Development, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, 1 Gheringhap Street, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia

Phoebe Nagorka-Smith

Action Lab, Monash University, 8 Scenic Boulevard, Clayton Campus, Clayton, VIC, 3800, Australia

Alex Waddell

Victorian Department of Health and Human Services, 50 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia

Annemarie Wright

Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie Street, VIC, 3053, Carlton, Australia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

JD contributed to the concept, design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation and drafting of the manuscript, PN contributed to data collection and data extraction, AW contributed to data collection and quality appraisal, AMW, AB and PB contributed to the concept, design, data interpretation and drafting of the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer L. Dam .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

: PRISMA Checklist for Reporting Systematic Reviews.

Additional file 2

: Classification of public health: top two levels of all classes.

Additional file 3

: Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria.

Additional file 4

: Quality Appraisal.

Additional file 5

: Study Details.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Dam, J.L., Nagorka-Smith, P., Waddell, A. et al. Research evidence use in local government-led public health interventions: a systematic review. Health Res Policy Sys 21 , 67 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-01009-2

Download citation

Received : 04 December 2022

Accepted : 13 May 2023

Published : 03 July 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-01009-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Local government
• Research evidence use
• Public health policy

Health Research Policy and Systems

ISSN: 1478-4505

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Announcements
• About AOSIS

Journal of Local Government Research and Innovation

• Editorial Team
• Submission Procedures
• Submission Guidelines
• Submit and Track Manuscript
• Publication fees
• Make a payment
• Journal Information
• Journal Policies
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Reviewer Guidelines
• Article RSS
• Support Enquiry (Login required)
• Aosis Newsletter

Quick links:

• Articles by Author
• Articles by Issue
• Articles by Section
• Find an Article
• Login / Log Out

Subscribe to our newsletter

Get specific, domain-collection newsletters detailing the latest CPD courses, scholarly research and call-for-papers in your field.

Journal of Local Government Research and Innovation    |    ISSN: 2709-7412 (PRINT)    |    ISSN: 2788-919X (ONLINE)

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction
• Constitutional status
• Areas and authorities
• Finance and local freedom
• Organization
• Central control

• Who were Alexander II’s parents?
• What did Alexander II accomplish?
• Why is Vladimir Putin still in power?
• How has Vladimir Putin changed Russia?
• What’s the background to Vladimir Putin’s attack on Ukraine in 2022?

local government

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Verywell Health - Uveitis Causes and Symptoms
• Academia - Main doc local govt.docx
• Pressbooks Create - Local Government in North Carolina - Local Governments are close to you
• Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - The role of municipal governments
• Social Science LibreTexts - Local government
• GlobalSecurity.org - Local Government
• Table Of Contents

local government , authority to determine and execute measures within a restricted area inside and smaller than a whole state. Some degree of local government characterizes every country in the world, although the degree is extremely significant. The variant, local self-government, is important for its emphasis upon the freedom of the locality to decide and act.

There is more than a technical importance in the difference between the two terms, because they are related to the distinction sometimes drawn between deconcentration and decentralization . Local government is often, but not necessarily, related to the former; local self-government to the latter. These distinctions are important, even if they are blurred. Deconcentration broadly means that, for the sake of convenience, some functions have been devolved from a central government to administration on the spot. Power is still administered through officials appointed by and responsible to the centre, and authority and discretion are vested in the centre. On the other hand, decentralization represents local government in areas where the authority to decide has been devolved to a council of locally elected persons acting on their own discretion with officials they themselves freely appoint and discipline .

The term local self-government has been traditionally used of local government in the United Kingdom and Germany . Thus, the Basic Law (the constitution of Germany) says, “ Municipalities must be guaranteed the right to regulate all local affairs on their own responsibility, within the limits prescribed by the laws.” On the other hand, the amended constitution of the French Fifth Republic says, “In the conditions provided for by statute, these [local communities] shall be self-governing through elected councils and shall have power to make regulations for matters coming within their jurisdiction.” This expresses the spirit of deconcentration.

However tightly bound to the central office’s authority and regulations local officials may be, a degree of discretion is unavoidable. Often, again, the fairly pure organs of local self-government, such as the borough councils in the United Kingdom, are obliged to execute the purposes of the central government. Primarily units of local self-government, they are simultaneously units of local obligation acting as ordered by the central government for services such as education and policing.

Thus, modern local government has a twofold aspect—it is a mixture of both deconcentration and decentralization, of central convenience and an acknowledgment that not all authority ought to be exerted by the centre. The mixture is revealed by the extent to which some of the powers exercised by local government units are exercised compulsorily and under fairly strict control by central authority with financial assistance, while others are not. This mixture produces the high complexity of modern local government. Further, local government is a departmentalization of the state’s work, based on the territorial distribution of services, as contrasted with (1) division into departments at the centre or (2) decentralization of functions to public corporations. In local government, territorial distribution of power is the essence.

The history of local government in Western Europe, Great Britain, the United States , and Russia exhibits the growing awareness of its significance. This awareness is a product of a development of parochial and town life which began long before the modern state emerged between the 15th and 17th centuries. Any central control over these and other areas was, until the 18th century, rather scanty. Notable exceptions were France under Jean-Baptiste Colbert or 17th-century Prussia, where local authorities were already overlaid by the heavy hand of the central intendants in the former and the war commissariat in the latter. Many Germanic states, such as the Hanse towns, were nothing but cities . In England and especially New England , the local units—parishes, towns, and cities—emerged from their origins as spontaneous self-governing units. This was also the case in Russia, although there the tsars took strict control of the cities through their provincial governors and over the mir —the village-cum-agricultural unit—through taxes, the police, and the boyars . The state colonized some cities from the beginning. The various local units were gradually integrated by the state, which exacted obligations from them regarding peace, crime and police duties, taxes, military supplies, assistance to the poor, and highways. By ordinances or statutes or judicial decisions, local units were subordinated, so that the idea of an inherent right to self-government was extinguished. By the 19th century all local units had become legal creatures of the state, subsidiary in authority and acting independently by sufferance alone.

The local freedoms of the 19th century were challenged by (1) speed of communications, which reduced administrative time, (2) demands of a planned economy , (3) growth of nationwide political parties with social welfare programs uniform for all parts of the nation, (4) growth of a consciousness favouring a national minimum of services, (5) realization that the best technical administration of modern utilities requires areas knitted together by a central plan that differs from the traditional ones, and (6) needs of civil defense against air attack . These are powerful forces working against claims to purely self-regarding government. On the other hand, local freedom is supported by need for (1) intimate local knowledge and variation, (2) intensity of local interest and enlistment of loyalty and cooperation, (3) small areas for easy impact of the citizen-consumers upon officials-producers, (4) an accessible area of political education, (5) counterweight to the abuse of central power, and (6) the democratic value of a plurality of political experience and confidence. In all plans, decentralization, whether to a regional agency such as the Tennessee Valley Authority in the U.S. or to traditional units, is pressing, necessary, and fruitful.

Comparing Local Government Systems across Countries: Conceptual and Methodological Challenges to Building a Field of Comparative Local Government Studies

• February 2008
• Environment and Planning C Government and Policy 26(1):87-103
• 26(1):87-103

• George Washington University

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Abubakar Sani
• Halima Mansur Chiranchi

• Alejandro Peinado-García

• Alexander Bastianen
• Mara A. Yerkes

• Karen van Hedel

• Guilherme Arevalo Leal

• Alan Norton
• Kenneth Bailey
• Edward C. Page

• Michael Goldsmith

• Michal Illner
• Janice Caulfield
• Helge O. Larsen
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

Publications

• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

State & Local Government

How do states fill vacancies in the u.s. senate it depends on the state.

In the event that a Senate seat becomes vacant, governors in 45 states have the power to appoint a temporary replacement.

How Americans Get Local Political News

Most U.S. adults follow news about local government and politics, yet only a quarter are highly satisfied with the quality of coverage.

More than 80% of Americans believe elected officials don’t care what people like them think

More than 80% of Americans believe elected officials don’t care what people like them think.

Americans rate their federal, state and local governments less positively than a few years ago

Americans view their state and local governments far more positively than the federal government in Washington.

Working on Columbus Day or Indigenous Peoples’ Day? It depends on where your job is

16 states and the territory of American Samoa still observe the second Monday in October as an official public holiday exclusively called Columbus Day.

Americans’ Dismal Views of the Nation’s Politics

Americans’ views of politics and elected officials are unrelentingly negative, with little hope of improvement on the horizon. 65% of Americans say they always or often feel exhausted when thinking about politics. By contrast, just 10% say they always or often feel hopeful about politics.

More than half of states will recognize Juneteenth as an official public holiday in 2023

This year, at least 28 states and the District of Columbia will legally recognize Juneteenth as a public holiday.

Around one-in-five candidates for Congress or governor this year are veterans

21% of the roughly 1,000 candidates for U.S. Senate, House or state governor on the fall ballot claim some degree of military experience.

Americans’ Views of Government: Decades of Distrust, Enduring Support for Its Role

65% say most political candidates run for office “to serve their own personal interests.”

In some states, students account for a large and growing share of statehouse reporters

In Missouri, 51% of all reporters covering the state capitol this year – 26 of 51 – are students.

REFINE YOUR SELECTION

• Drew DeSilver (16)
• Aleksandra Sandstrom (6)
• David Masci (5)
• Katerina Eva Matsa (5)
• Elisa Shearer (4)
• Lee Rainie (4)
• Anna Brown (3)
• Bradley Jones (3)
• John Gramlich (3)
• Mark Jurkowitz (3)
• Carrie Blazina (2)
• Hannah Hartig (2)
• Katherine Schaeffer (2)
• Kirsten Worden (2)
• Michael Lipka (2)
• Naomi Forman-Katz (2)
• Vianney Gómez (2)
• A.W. Geiger (1)
• Alec Tyson (1)
• Alex T. Williams (1)
• Amina Dunn (1)
• Amy Mitchell (1)
• Andrew Daniller (1)
• Bruce Drake (1)
• Carroll Doherty (1)
• Cary Funk (1)
• Christopher St. Aubin (1)
• Claire Gecewicz (1)
• David McClendon (1)
• Elena Larsen (1)
• George Gao (1)
• Hannah Gilberstadt (1)
• Jan Lauren Boyles (1)
• Janakee Chavda (1)
• Jeff Diamant (1)
• Jenn Hatfield (1)
• Jens Manuel Krogstad (1)
• Jocelyn Kiley (1)
• Jodi Enda (1)
• John B. Horrigan (1)
• Joseph Copeland (1)
• Juliana Menasce Horowitz (1)
• Kim Parker (1)
• Kristen Purcell (1)
• Luxuan Wang (1)
• Mark Hugo Lopez (1)
• Rachel Minkin (1)
• Rebecca Leppert (1)
• Rich Morin (1)
• Ruth Igielnik (1)
• Sara Atske (1)
• Sara Kehaulani Goo (1)
• Ted Van Green (1)
• Tom Rosentiel (1)
• Virginia Villa (1)

Research Teams

• Politics (32)
• Religion (22)
• Internet and Technology (14)
• Journalism (14)
• Social Trends (12)
• Global Migration and Demography (6)
• Race and Ethnicity (6)
• Science (6)
• Data Labs (5)
• Methods (5)
• Pew Research Center (5)

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

• [email protected]

Lex localis - Journal of Local Self-Government

About the journal.

Lex localis - Journal of Local Self-Government (ISSN:1581-5374, E-ISSN:1855-363X ) is an international journal for the study of the politics, administration, and management of local affairs published four times a year (in January, April, July, and October). The journal publishes articles that contribute to the better understanding and practice of local self-government and which are of interest to scholars, policy analysts, policymakers, and practitioners. The focus of the journal is on the critical analysis of developments in local governance throughout the world. Lex localis - Journal of Local Self-Government provides a unique forum for the consideration of all issues related to sub-national levels of government. Articles appearing in Lex localis - Journal of Local Self-Government are abstracted and indexed in Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) (Web of Science), Essential Citation Index (Web of Science), CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts, Current Geographical Publications, CSA PAIS International, Academic's OneFile (Gale), ERIH Plus, International Political Science Abstracts, ProQuest, Scopus, International Bibliography of Periodical Literature (IBZ), International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS).

Current Issue

The Status of Elected Women Representatives in Rural Assam, India: Their Performance in Local Self Government

• Requires Subscription or Fee PDF (GBP 90)

Dual Systems of Urban Villages: Autonomy and Informal Governance Mechanisms of Yuan Village in Guangzhou

Huma betang-based resolution of mining land conflicts: belom bahadat legal culture of bakumpai dayak community in central kalimantan, indonesia, cultural diversity under sino-myanmar policies: local policies to promote cultural expression and diversity, the increasing importance of intergovernmental transfer revenue in local finance in poland and the flypaper effect, the urgency of forest governance: learning from brazil's sustainable tourism development, the influence of trust in tax administration and gender on tax compliance in slovenia, how to make the low-powered incentives mode of the public sector play a high-powered incentive effect- evidence from china's government performance management reform, does the internal control system play a strong safeguarding role against fraud in local communities, smart practice of integrating administrative management and human resources of chinese local governments under the background of digital transformation, is there a demand for extensive financial reporting on local government from the most important stakeholders: residents, the analysis of the influence of government diversity policy intervention, service innovation and competitive performance on social governance from the perspective of inclusiveness, local social capital: revisiting the measurement and establishing manageable indicators, latest publications, information.

• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians
• Slovenščina

Make a Submission

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 01 August 2024

Public and local policymaker preferences for large-scale energy project characteristics

• Holly Caggiano   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7519-7221 1 ,
• Sara M. Constantino 2 ,
• Chris Greig   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7671-6388 3 &
• Elke U. Weber   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1678-3631 3 , 4  

Nature Energy ( 2024 ) Cite this article

142 Accesses

28 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Climate-change mitigation
• Energy and society
• Environmental studies

Rapidly building utility-scale energy infrastructure requires not only public support but also political will across levels of government. Here we use a conjoint experiment to assess preferences for large-scale energy projects among residents and local elected officials in Pennsylvania—a key transition state with high solar potential where siting authority rests at the local level. We find that residents prefer solar to other energy projects, and job creation and cooperative community ownership are associated with increased support. Public and elected official support decreases when projects are owned by foreign companies. We find limited partisan differences in preferences, suggesting a path towards bipartisan support for such projects. Elected officials misperceive their constituents’ preferences, underestimating support for renewable energy and the importance of job creation. As local officials are key decision-makers regarding infrastructure development, their preferences and perceptions of constituents’ preferences may dictate which energy projects are approved and what community benefits they deliver.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

The impact of policies and business models on income equity in rooftop solar adoption

Partisanship and energy efficiency program participation in the USA

Housing policies and energy efficiency spillovers in low and moderate income communities

Data availability.

Data supporting this study are openly available from OSF at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/WKGT9 .

Code availability

Code supporting this study (including replication code for analyses, figures and tables) is openly available from OSF at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/WKGT9 .

Jenkins, J. D., Mayfield, E. N., Larson, E. D., Pacala, S. W. & Greig, C. Mission net-zero America: the nation-building path to a prosperous, net-zero emissions economy. Joule 5 , 2755–2761 (2021).

Article   Google Scholar  

Larson, E. et al. Net-zero America: potential pathways, infrastructure, and impacts . Princeton University Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/img/Princeton_NZA_Interim_Report_15_Dec_2020_FINAL.pdf (2021).

Essa, E., Curtiss, K. & Dodinval, C. Solar siting authority across the United States. University of Michigan Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy https://closupstage.fordschool.umich.edu/research/working-papers/solar-siting-authority-across-united-states (2021).

Kahn, J. & Shields, L. State approaches to wind facility siting. National Conference of State Legislatures https://www.ncsl.org/energy/state-approaches-to-wind-facility-siting (2020).

Tumlison, C., Button, E. D., Song, G. & Kester, J. What explains local policy elites’ preferences toward renewable energy/energy efficiency policy? Energy Policy 117 , 377–386 (2018).

Pennsylvania announces largest government solar energy commitment in the U.S. Pennsylvania Office of Rural Health https://www.porh.psu.edu/pennsylvania-announces-largest-government-solar-energy-commitment-in-the-u-s/ (2021).

Badissy, M. R. Comments for joint hearing of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs & Local Government Committees on ‘Utility Scale Solar Development & Local Government Ordinances '. Pennsylvania State University (2021).

Tyson, A., Funk, C. & Kennedy, B. Americans largely favor U.S. taking steps to become carbon neutral by 2050. Pew Research Center Science & Society https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2022/03/01/americans-largely-favor-u-s-taking-steps-to-become-carbon-neutral-by-2050/ (2022).

Leppert, R. Americans continue to express mixed views about nuclear power. Pew Research Center https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/03/23/americans-continue-to-express-mixed-views-about-nuclear-power/ (2022).

Sharpton, T., Lawrence, T. & Hall, M. Drivers and barriers to public acceptance of future energy sources and grid expansion in the United States. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 126 , 109826 (2020).

Bjärstig, T., Mancheva, I., Zachrisson, A., Neumann, W. & Svensson, J. Is large-scale wind power a problem, solution, or victim? A frame analysis of the debate in Swedish media. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 83 , 102337 (2022).

Bollman, M. Frames, fantasies, and culture: applying and comparing different methodologies for identifying energy imaginaries in American policy discourse. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 84 , 102380 (2022).

Constantino, S. M. & Weber, E. U. Decision-making under the deep uncertainty of climate change: the psychological and political agency of narratives. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 42 , 151–159 (2021).

Carley, S. & Konisky, D. M. The justice and equity implications of the clean energy transition. Nat. Energy 5 , 569–577 (2020).

Devine-Wright, P. Explaining ‘NIMBY’ objections to a power line: the role of personal, place attachment and project-related factors. Environ. Behav. 45 , 761–781 (2013).

van der Horst, D. NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy 35 , 2705–2714 (2007).

Wolsink, M. Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renew. Energy 21 , 49–64 (2000).

Bell, D., Gray, T. & Haggett, C. The ‘Social Gap’ in wind farm siting decisions: explanations and policy responses. Environ. Polit. 14 , 460–477 (2005).

Devine-Wright, P. Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 8 , 125–139 (2005).

Langer, K., Decker, T. & Menrad, K. Public participation in wind energy projects located in Germany: which form of participation is the key to acceptance? Renew. Energy 112 , 63–73 (2017).

Carlisle, J. E., Solan, D., Kane, S. L. & Joe, J. Utility-scale solar and public attitudes toward siting: a critical examination of proximity. Land Use Policy 58 , 491–501 (2016).

Pianta, S., Rinscheid, A. & Weber, E. U. Carbon capture and storage in the United States: perceptions, preferences, and lessons for policy. Energy Policy 151 , 112149 (2021).

Vuichard, P., Broughel, A., Wüstenhagen, R., Tabi, A. & Knauf, J. Keep it local and bird-friendly: exploring the social acceptance of wind energy in Switzerland, Estonia, and Ukraine. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 88 , 102508 (2022).

Hallan, C. & González, A. Adaptive responses to landscape changes from onshore wind energy development in the Republic of Ireland. Land Use Policy 97 , 104751 (2020).

The Associated Press. A Wind Energy Company Has Pleaded Guilty after Killing at Least 150 Eagles (NPR , 2022).

Moore, S., Graff, H., Ouellet, C., Leslie, S. & Olweean, D. Can we have clean energy and grow our crops too? Solar siting on agricultural land in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 91 , 102731 (2022).

Pascaris, A. S., Schelly, C., Burnham, L. & Pearce, J. M. Integrating solar energy with agriculture: Industry perspectives on the market, community, and socio-political dimensions of agrivoltaics. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 75 , 102023 (2021).

Adelaja, S., Shaw, J., Beyea, W. & Charles McKeown, J. D. Renewable energy potential on brownfield sites: a case study of Michigan. Energy Policy 38 , 7021–7030 (2010).

Spiess, T. & De Sousa, C. Barriers to renewable energy development on brownfields. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 18 , 507–534 (2016).

Lim, T., Guzman, T. S. & Bowen, W. M. Rhetoric and reality: jobs and the energy provisions of the american recovery and reinvestment act. Energy Policy 137 , 111182 (2020).

Jolley, G. J., Khalaf, C., Michaud, G. & Sandler, A. M. The economic, fiscal, and workforce impacts of coal-fired power plant closures in Appalachian Ohio. Reg. Sci. Policy Pract. 11 , 403–422 (2019).

Knauf, J. Can’t buy me acceptance? Financial benefits for wind energy projects in Germany. Energy Policy 165 , 112924 (2022).

Zaunbrecher, B. S., Linzenich, A. & Ziefle, M. A mast is a mast is a mast…? Comparison of preferences for location-scenarios of electricity pylons and wind power plants using conjoint analysis. Energy Policy 105 , 429–439 (2017).

National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) Energy Sector-Specific Plan (NIPP). US Department of Homeland Security & US Department of Energy https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/nipp-ssp-energy-2015-508.pdf (2015).

Goedkoop, F. & Devine-Wright, P. Partnership or placation? The role of trust and justice in the shared ownership of renewable energy projects. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 17 , 135–146 (2016).

Venus, T. E. et al. The public’s perception of run-of-the-river hydropower across Europe. Energy Policy 140 , 111422 (2020).

Roby, H. & Dibb, S. Future pathways to mainstreaming community energy. Energy Policy 135 , 111020 (2019).

Warlenius, R. H. & Nettelbladt, S. Scaling up community wind energy: the relevance of autonomy and community. Energy Sustain. Soc. 13 , 33 (2023).

Kennedy, B. & Spencer, A. Most Americans support expanding solar and wind energy, but Republican support has dropped. Pew Research Center https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/06/08/most-americans-support-expanding-solar-and-wind-energy-but-republican-support-has-dropped/ (2021).

Gustafson, A. et al. Republicans and Democrats differ in why they support renewable energy. Energy Policy 141 , 111448 (2020).

Hazboun, S. O. & Boudet, H. S. Natural gas—friend or foe of the environment? Evaluating the framing contest over natural gas through a public opinion survey in the Pacific Northwest. Environ. Sociol. 7 , 368–381 (2021).

Mayer, A. National energy transition, local partisanship? Elite cues, community identity, and support for clean power in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 50 , 143–150 (2019).

Marshall, R. & Burgess, M. G. Advancing bipartisan decarbonization policies: lessons from state-level successes and failures. Clim. Change 171 , 17 (2022).

McDermott-Levy, R., Kaktins, N. & Sattler, B. Fracking, the environment, and health. Am. J. Nurs. 113 , 45–51 (2013).

Bromet, E. J., Parkinson, D. K. & Dunn, L. O. Long-term mental health consequences of the accident at three mile island. Int. J. Ment. Health 19 , 48–60 (1990).

Dimanchev, E. G. et al. Health co-benefits of sub-national renewable energy policy in the US. Environ. Res. Lett. 14 , 085012 (2019).

Mayer, A. More than just jobs: understanding what drives support for a declining coal industry. Extr. Ind. Soc. 9 , 101038 (2022).

Google Scholar  

BW research. 2021 Pennsylvania Energy Employment Report . https://www.dep.pa.gov/Business/Energy/OfficeofPollutionPrevention/EnergyEfficiency_Environment_and_EconomicsInitiative/Pages/Workforce-Development.aspx (2021).

Mijin Cha, J., Stevis, D., Vachon, T. E., Price, V. & Brescia-Weiler, M. A Green New Deal for all: the centrality of a worker and community-led just transition in the US. Polit. Geogr. 95 , 102594 (2022).

Creamer, E. et al. Community energy: entanglements of community, state, and private sector. Geogr. Compass 12 , e12378 (2018).

Schelly, C. et al. Energy policy for energy sovereignty: can policy tools enhance energy sovereignty? Sol. Energy 205 , 109–112 (2020).

Dawson, A. People’s Power: Reclaiming the Energy Commons (OR Books, 2020).

Skonieczny, A. Emotions and political narratives: populism, trump and trade. Polit. Gov. 6 , 62–72 (2018).

Electric power monthly. US Energy Information Administration https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php (2022).

Pennsylvania Cottontail Solar Farm Project | Lightsource bp. Lightsource BP USA https://www.lightsourcebp.com/us/projects/cottontail-solar-farm-project/ (2020).

Nilson, R., Hoen, B. & Rand, J. Survey of utility-scale wind and solar developers report. Energie Technologies Area, Berkeley Lab https://emp.lbl.gov/publications/survey-utility-scale-wind-and-solar (2024).

Mildenberger, M. & Tingley, D. Beliefs about climate beliefs: the importance of second-order opinions for climate politics. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 49 , 1279–1307 (2019).

Caggiano, H. & Weber, E. U. Advances in qualitative methods in environmental research. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 48 , 793–811 (2023).

Bergquist, P., Mildenberger, M. & Stokes, L. C. Combining climate, economic, and social policy builds public support for climate action in the US. Environ. Res. Lett. 15 , 054019 (2020).

Bernauer, T. & Gampfer, R. How robust is public support for unilateral climate policy? Environ. Sci. Policy 54 , 316–330 (2015).

Gampfer, R., Bernauer, T. & Kachi, A. Obtaining public support for North–South climate funding: evidence from conjoint experiments in donor countries. Glob. Environ. Change 29 , 118–126 (2014).

Bansak, K., Hainmueller, J. & Hangartner, D. How economic, humanitarian, and religious concerns shape European attitudes toward asylum seekers. Science 354 , 217–222 (2016).

Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J. & Yamamoto, T. Causal inference in conjoint analysis: understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Polit. Anal. 22 , 1–30 (2014).

Horiuchi, Y., Markovich, Z. D. & Yamamoto, T. Does conjoint analysis mitigate social desirability bias? SSRN https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3219323 (2020).

Bechtel, M. M. & Scheve, K. F. Mass support for global climate agreements depends on institutional design. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110 , 13763–13768 (2013).

DeBell, M. & Krosnick, J. A. Computing weights for American national election study survey data. ANES Technical Report Series American National Election Studies (2009).

Stefanelli, A. & Lukac, M. Subjects, trials, and levels: statistical power in conjoint experiments. Preprint at SocArXiv https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/spkcy (2020).

Leeper, T. J., Hobolt, S. B. & Tilley, J. Measuring subgroup preferences in conjoint experiments. Polit. Anal. 28 , 207–221 (2020).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was presented at the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning Conference in October 2023, and we thank discussant M. Coffman for her generous feedback on the manuscript. It was also presented at the 2024 American Political Science Association Virtual Research Meeting, and we thank participants of the ‘Greener Futures in Tense Times’ panel for their comments. We are grateful for the assistance of various research assistants and lab managers in Princeton’s Behavioral Science for Policy Lab and UBC’s School of Community and Regional Planning in making this work possible, especially K. Nichols and M. Lore. We appreciate the time and expertise of the multiple stakeholders that reviewed early drafts of the conjoint experiment. Finally, we acknowledge internal funding from the Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment at Princeton University (H.C.).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Holly Caggiano

Department of Psychology and School of Public Policy, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA

Sara M. Constantino

Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA

Chris Greig & Elke U. Weber

Department of Psychology, School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA

Elke U. Weber

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

H.C., S.M.C., E.U.W. and C.G. conceived of the presented idea and research questions. H.C., S.M.C. and E.U.W. designed the survey experiment. H.C. carried out data collection and analysis with support from S.M.C. H.C., S.M.C., E.U.W. and C.G. contributed to the interpretation of results. H.C. took the lead in writing the manuscript. S.M.C., E.U.W. and C.G. provided critical feedback and helped shape the research, analysis and manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Holly Caggiano .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Energy thanks Salil D Benegal, Shawn Hazboun and Adam Mayer for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

Supplementary Figs. 1–8, Tables 1–7 and Information on survey design.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Caggiano, H., Constantino, S.M., Greig, C. et al. Public and local policymaker preferences for large-scale energy project characteristics. Nat Energy (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-024-01603-w

Download citation

Received : 16 February 2024

Accepted : 11 July 2024

Published : 01 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-024-01603-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Local governments

Find contact information for local governments by state.

• Alabama (AL)
• Alaska (AK)
• Arizona (AZ)
• Arkansas (AR)
• California (CA)
• Colorado (CO)
• Connecticut (CT)
• Delaware (DE)
• District of Columbia (DC)
• Florida (FL)
• Georgia (GA)
• Hawaii (HI)
• Illinois (IL)
• Indiana (IN)
• Kansas (KS)
• Kentucky (KY)
• Louisiana (LA)
• Maryland (MD)
• Massachusetts (MA)
• Michigan (MI)
• Minnesota (MN)
• Mississippi (MS)
• Missouri (MO)
• Montana (MT)
• Nebraska (NE)
• Nevada (NV)
• New Hampshire (NH)
• New Jersey (NJ)
• New York (NY)
• North Carolina (NC)
• North Dakota (ND)
• Oklahoma (OK)
• Oregon (OR)
• Pennsylvania (PA)
• Rhode Island (RI)
• South Carolina (SC)
• South Dakota (SD)
• Tennessee (TN)
• Vermont (VT)
• Virginia (VA)
• Washington (WA)
• West Virginia (WV)
• Wisconsin (WI)
• Wyoming (WY)

LawPavilion Blog

No1 legaltech resource in Africa

Whether Local Government Council Allocations from the Federation Account Should Be Paid Directly to the Local Government Councils

• Special Judgment Reports

Share this:

CASE TITLE: AG OF THE FEDERATION v. AG OF ABIA STATE & ORS (2024) LPELR-62576(SC)

JUDGMENT DATE: 11TH JULY, 2024

JUSTICES: MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C. EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C. CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, J.S.C. HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.S.C. MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.S.C. HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C. JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.

PRACTICE AREA : CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

The suit was initiated on May 24, 2024, challenging the actions of the 36 states of Nigeria regarding their obligations to ensure democratic governance at the local government level. The plaintiff argued that state governments, through their governors and state houses of assembly, are required by the Nigerian Constitution to maintain democratically elected local government councils. The suit contended that the states’ actions of dissolving these councils and replacing them with caretaker committees were unconstitutional. In summary, the plaintiff sought the following reliefs, thus:

“1. A declaration that, according to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the 36 states of Nigeria must ensure democratic governance at the local government level.

2. A declaration that the 36 states of Nigeria cannot lawfully dissolve democratically-elected Local Government Councils using state power from state Laws or Executive Orders.

3. A declaration that no state can replace democratically-elected Local Government Councils with Caretaker Committees or similar entities.

4. A declaration that the dissolution of democratically-elected Local Government Councils by any state is unlawful, unconstitutional, null, and void.

5. A declaration that the Federal Government is not obligated to allocate funds to a state from the Federation Account if there are no democratically elected local government councils in place.

6. A declaration that states in breach of the Constitution by not putting in place democratically elected local governments are not entitled to receive and spend funds meant for local governments.

7. A declaration that any state official who dissolves democratically-elected Local Government Councils has committed a gross misconduct and breached the Constitution.

8. A declaration that any state dissolving democratically elected Local Government Councils is not entitled to revenue allocation and the operation of a Joint Account until the status quo is restored.

9. A declaration that all funds received by a state for the benefit of its Local Government Councils must be remitted immediately and without deductions or delays to the Local Government Councils.

10. A declaration that any state official dissolving democratically-elected Local Government Councils is liable for criminal offenses related to breach of the Constitution.

11. A declaration that states must not operate the State Joint Local Government Account to the disadvantage of democratically elected Local Government Councils.

12. A declaration that the funds allocated to Local Government Councils in the Federation Account should be paid directly to them.

13. A declaration that a State Government acts merely as an agent for Local Governments to collect and pay funds from the Federation Account directly to the Local Governments.

14. A declaration that funds received by a state on behalf of Local Government Councils must be paid directly to each Local Government without delay.

15. A declaration that a Local Government council is entitled to direct payment from the Federation Account if the State Government fails to remit the funds.

16. An injunction restraining the Defendants from receiving, spending, or tampering with funds released from the Federation Account for Local Government Councils when no democratically elected local government system is in place.

17. An order that the Federation should pay funds directly to Local Governments in a state from the Federation Account if the State has failed to pay the amounts received on their behalf.

18. An order for immediate and successive compliance by the states with the terms of the judgment and orders made in this suit.

19. Any other orders the Honourable Court deems fit to make in the circumstances of this case.”

The defendants responded with preliminary objections and counter-affidavits, to which the plaintiff replied with further affidavits and a composite written address.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court determined the merits of the suit.

COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS:

The plaintiff argued that the states have persistently refused to allocate funds from the Federation Account to the Local government Councils, in violation of Sections 162(4), (5), and (6) of the Nigerian Constitution. The plaintiff claimed that this refusal justifies the Federation’s direct payment of these funds to the Local Government Councils to uphold the Constitution’s objectives. Additionally, the plaintiff contended that the states’ practice of governing local areas through appointed caretaker committees, interim councils, and administrators violates Sections 1(2) and 7(1) of the Constitution, thereby threatening the existence of local governments as a third tier of federal governance.

The defendants collectively argued that the Federation cannot directly pay funds to the Local Government Councils without violating Sections 162(5) and (6) of the Constitution, which mandate that such funds be paid to the states for the benefit of their local councils and deposited into a State Joint Local Government Account. They asserted that the states are entitled to manage these allocations for the local councils’ benefit. The defendants also claimed that the failure to hold democratic elections for local government councils was not intentional but due to existing Court orders preventing such elections.

DECISION/HELD:

The Court held that the plaintiff’s claim had merit and accordingly succeeded. The reliefs sought were granted.

Abiru JSC however granted some of the reliefs sought but dismissed others. His Lordship agreed that States must ensure democratic governance at the local level and cannot dissolve elected local councils or replace them with caretaker committees. The Honourable Justice also stated that States without democratically elected local councils are not entitled to local government funds from the Federation Account and that state officials dissolving such councils breach the Constitution. However, his Lordship dismissed requests for direct payments to local councils from the Federation Account, liability for officials dissolving councils, and other specific financial declarations. He issued an injunction to prevent states from tampering with local government funds if there are no elected councils.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – REVENUE ALLOCATION: Whether Local Government Council allocations from the Federation account can be paid directly to the Local Government Councils

“I think that the approach of direct payment to the Local Government Councils would achieve the intention and purpose of the constitution and accord with the smooth running of the system of paying Local Government Councils their allocations from the Federation Account.

In our present case, the person or body saddled with the constitutional responsibility to implement a method or procedure for the enjoyment of a right created by the Constitution is using that role to destroy that right. In a situation such as this, the Constitution should not be applied in a manner as to support the destruction of the said right.

The demands of justice require a progressive application of interpretative criteria in the interpretation and application of the Constitution or other statutes. So that the use of a literal and narrow criterion in the application of the provisions would result in absurdity, injustice, impracticality or work against the objective of the Constitution, the Court should employ a purposeful or teleological approach or criterion that would meet the intention and objective of the Constitution. The purposive or teleological approach requires the Court not to remain fixated on the literal and narrow meaning of the words used in the Constitution or statute in the situations mentioned above in disregard of the intention or purpose of the provisions, but go on to give the words a meaning that accords with the purpose and intention behind the words.

There is no doubt that a literal and narrow construction of the word “shall” in Subsection (5) of S.162 as imposing a mandatory duty on the Federation to pay Local Government Councils allocation from the Federation Account, only through the States, would mean that the Federation must pay it to the States only. As the facts of this case has shown, such a literal application would work against the intention and purpose of the Constitution and create an unconstitutional status quo, unworkable and oppressive situations. To apply that word “shall” as making it mandatory for the Federation to pay Local Government allocations from the Federation Account through the States would make a constitutional provision prescribing the procedure to facilitate the enjoyment of a right created by the same Constitution to override and even extinguish the very right created by the Constitution, whose enjoyment it is meant to facilitate. For the above reasons, I think that a purposive and teleological application of that word would best meet the intention of the Constitution, accord with the smooth running of the system for payment of allocation from Federation Account to Local Government Councils. This is an application that would not exclude any other mode of paying allocation from the Federation Account to the Local Government Councils and giving discretion to the Federation to pay the allocations directly to the Local Government Councils or through States. The law is long settled that it is not always that the word “shall” in a statute is ordinarily literally read as mandatory and that in situations where such literal reading would defeat the intention of the statute and reading it as permissive or discretionary would meet the intention of the statute it would be read as permissive. See Amokeodo V IGP (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt.607)467 @ 481, Evong V Messrs Obono Obono & Ass. (2012) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1296) and Okorocha V UBA (2011) 1 NWLR (Pt.1228) 348. In this case it is glaring that giving the word “Shall” a literal meaning would defeat the objective of the Constitution, result in unconstitutionalities or illegalities or cause injustice or unworkable situations. It should be purposively read as permissive or discretionary. Therefore, I understand that word as permissive and imposing a discretionary and not mandatory duty. In the light of the foregoing, I hold that the Federation can pay Local Government allocations from the Federation Account to Local Government Councils directly or pay to them through States. In this case, since paying them through states has not worked, the justice of the case demands that the Local Government Council allocations from the Federation Account should henceforth be paid directly to the Local Government Councils.” Per AGIM, J.S.C.

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to  Prime  or  Primsol

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Related stories.

• Be the FIRST to KNOW

Is the Prosecution Duty-Bound to Prove That an Accused Person Had Mens Rea and Actus Reus?

Whether the Failure of the Police to Investigate a Defence of Alibi Is Fatal to the Case of the Prosecution

Circumstances in Which a Chieftaincy Declaration Can Be Set Aside

You may have missed.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Health Res Policy Syst
• PMC10318787

Research evidence use in local government-led public health interventions: a systematic review

Jennifer l. dam.

1 Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University, 8 Scenic Boulevard, Clayton Campus, Clayton, VIC 3800 Australia

Phoebe Nagorka-Smith

2 School of Health and Social Development, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, 1 Gheringhap Street, Geelong, VIC 3220 Australia

Alex Waddell

3 Action Lab, Monash University, 8 Scenic Boulevard, Clayton Campus, Clayton, VIC 3800 Australia

Annemarie Wright

4 Victorian Department of Health and Human Services, 50 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000 Australia

5 Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie Street, VIC 3053 Carlton, Australia

Joannette J. Bos

Peter bragge, associated data.

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available on Open Science Framework https://osf.io/s38qf/ .

Local governments play an important role in improving public health outcomes globally, critical to this work is applying the best-available research evidence. Despite considerable exploration of research use in knowledge translation literature, how research is practically applied by local governments remains poorly understood. This systematic review examined research evidence use in local government-led public health interventions. It focused on how research was used and the type of intervention being actioned.

Quantitative and qualitative literature published between 2000 and 2020 was searched for studies that described research evidence use by local governments in public health interventions. Studies reporting interventions developed outside of local government, including knowledge translation interventions, were excluded. Studies were categorised by intervention type and their level of description of research evidence use (where ‘level 1’ was the highest and ‘level 3’ was the lowest level of detail).

The search identified 5922 articles for screening. A final 34 studies across ten countries were included. Experiences of research use varied across different types of interventions. However, common themes emerged including the demand for localised research evidence, the legitimising role of research in framing public health issues, and the need for integration of different evidence sources.

Conclusions

Differences in how research was used were observed across different local government public health interventions. Knowledge translation interventions aiming to increase research use in local government settings should consider known barriers and facilitators and consider contextual factors associated with different localities and interventions.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-023-01009-2.

Introduction

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), non-communicable diseases (NCDs) such as heart disease, respiratory disease, cancer and diabetes are the leading causes of chronic illness and premature death globally [ 1 ]. Research on the social determinants of health—the conditions, forces and systems that shape the conditions of daily life [ 1 ] highlights that NCDs are largely influenced by modifiable behaviours (or risk factors) such as tobacco use, physical activity and diet, and that these behaviours are often shaped by the local environments people live in; underscoring the important of role of local governments in improving population health outcomes [ 2 ].

Often articulated as the level of government closest to the people [ 3 ], local governments are the metropolitan and regional areas that sit within a state, territory or province. Their connection to a defined population and place means they are well positioned to influence health outcomes through both ‘bottom-up’ engagement with local stakeholders and ‘top-down’ policy interventions [ 3 ]. For example, local governments provide social infrastructure such as community health services and sporting facilities which play a critical role in addressing the challenge of ‘lifestyle’ diseases and improving health outcomes [ 4 , 5 ].

Decentralisation of public health responsibilities has seen the role of local government expand considerably in many regions [ 6 – 8 ]. While this is broadly understood to benefit health outcomes, bringing decision-making within closer proximity of service delivery [ 3 ], it has not been without its challenges, including a lack of resources and the need to navigate new decision-making structures and processes [ 7 , 8 ]. Alongside this, local governments have also faced growing demands for greater use of research in health policy [ 9 ]. In Australia for example, local government public health responsibilities in the state of Victoria are mandated through the [ 10 ] which is underpinned by several principles, including “ evidence-based decision-making ” (s. 5) to guide the effective use of resources and inform public health interventions.

An evidence-based approach in public health—broadly defined as the integration of the best available research with community preferences and other resources such as practitioner expertise—is associated with both improvements in health outcomes and enhanced organisational efficiency and service delivery [ 11 ]. Within local government settings, an evidence-based approach requires policymakers and practitioners to draw on various forms of evidence including population health data, community feedback, guidelines and research. These forms of evidence need to be weighed against community needs, constituent preferences, strategic imperatives, and availability of resources and expertise [ 12 , 13 ]. Ideally, this results in interventions with demonstrated impact that are also feasible and acceptable to the community that they seek to serve.

Despite broad consensus on the benefits research in public health policy, it is often underutilised for a range of reasons such as inadequate access to relevant research or a lack of institutional support [ 14 , 15 ]. This ‘evidence-policy gap’ is a well-established phenomenon across multiple sectors and settings including and beyond local government. Furthermore, research has shown that perceptions of research needs can differ greatly between researchers and policy-makers [ 16 ]. Addressing this mismatch is a key goal of knowledge translation (KT) research, which aims to increase the relevance and effectiveness of research-based evidence alongside building individual and organisational capacity to use it [ 16 ]. However, after more than two decades of KT research, there remains a gap in empirical studies identifying which strategies are most effective at increasing research use, and how to implement them [ 17 ]. Critique of this literature argues that KT studies have tended to focus too heavily on how to get more research into policy, emphasising a need to better explore how research and policy interact outside the context of an implementation intervention.

There are a number of related systematic reviews that have examined research use in public health policy [ 18 – 26 ]. These have largely focused on exploring barriers and facilitators of research use [ 18 – 20 ], and influences on research use [ 21 , 22 ], including the political dimensions of public health policy [ 23 ]. More recently, Verboom and Baumann [ 24 ] comprehensively mapped various characteristics of qualitative literature describing research use, including geography, methodology and use of theory [ 24 ]. While these reviews were predominantly global, and all but one [ 20 ] focused exclusively on public health policy, they included policy settings at all levels of government, examining local government experiences alongside national and state or regional government collectively.

Two reviews concentrated on local government settings, however they also included studies relating to local agencies/practitioners outside of local government [ 25 , 26 ]. One was global with a focus on high income/OECD countries only [ 25 ], the other was limited to England-based studies [ 26 ]. Although different in scope, both reviews were interested in research use in public health decision-making, drawing attention to the diverse ‘landscape’ of local public health decision-making structures and processes. These reviews emphasise a need for research to explore these differences in order to foster a deeper understanding of the “broad patterns of evidence use (and need)” [ 26 ] (p. 9) within local government settings.

Given the increasing expectation for local governments globally to develop and deliver public health interventions, this systematic review aimed to identify, appraise and synthesise published literature describing research use in local government-led public health interventions. Specifically, the review focused on exploring how research evidence was used in local government; for what type of activity (e.g. public policy development, health education, partnership); and variations in evidence use by intervention type.

A systematic review methodology was used and reported in accordance with the PRISMA checklist (see Additional file 1 ) [ 27 ]. Prior to conducting the review, a protocol was registered at Open Science Framework https://osf.io/s38qf/ .

For the purpose of this review, ‘research’ was defined as primary evidence produced through formal research or scientific methods, generally based in universities or with university-affiliated researchers, and/or published in peer-reviewed journals [ 28 ]. The use of raw data such as health monitoring or surveillance data not generated by academics was not a focus of this review. ‘Public health intervention’ is defined as an action “ intended to promote or protect health or prevent ill health in communities or populations ” [ 28 ], including environmental interventions aimed at improving health conditions.

To support the study aim of exploring whether research use varied depending on the nature of an intervention, a public health classification was used to categorise studies according to the type of intervention they described [ 29 , 30 ]. The use of organising frameworks in research and practice is also understood to support greater consistency in reporting public health interventions, and help facilitate national and international comparison [ 29 ]. Developed for the National Public Health Partnership in Australia, the classification used was informed by public health experts and an analysis of core public health functions and existing classification systems in Australia and internationally [ 29 ]. It comprises six top-level classes (see Additional file 2 ):

• functions (e.g. promote health and prevent disease; ensure public health capability);
• health issues (e.g. health and wellbeing; diseases and conditions);
• determinants of health (e.g. environmental; socio-economic);
• intervention methods that support the achievement of public health functions including actions, activities, programs and services;
• the settings in which public health work is undertaken (e.g. local government; education; healthcare); and
• the resources and infrastructure that support this work.

This review drew on the ‘ Methods ’ sub-classes which encompass a range of methods specific to public health (e.g. health education, community development, Health Impact Assessment), and those that reflect the day-to-day work of public health workers [e.g. administration, management and policy development [ 29 ]].

Search strategy

The search strategy was developed in consultation with a library specialist using key terms based on review objectives and identified through early research scoping. These were adapted as required for each database (see Table ​ Table1 1 for MEDLINE example). The CINAHL, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane and Health Systems Evidence databases were systematically searched for English language articles published between 2000 and 2020. This time frame was chosen because the year 2000 marks the origins of scientific enquiry of evidence use in public health [ 11 ] and the beginnings of legislative requirements for local government public health planning (e.g. Canada, Australia, England, The Netherlands) [ 31 – 34 ]. Additional screening included reference lists of systematic reviews and cited references of studies that reported primary evidence and/or made public health policy recommendations.

MEDLINE search strategy

Eligibility

This review included primary qualitative and quantitative peer-reviewed journal publications. To be eligible for inclusion, studies had to report the use of research (including research sourced from grey literature such as policy briefs, agency reports or guidelines) in an intervention aimed at improving human health outcomes at the population level. This could include an intervention targeting a specific risk factor (e.g. tobacco use) or broader factors that influence population health (e.g. social determinants, health equity, environmental health).

In order to generate a picture of ‘everyday’ research use in local policy settings, the review focused exclusively on studies describing research use in public health interventions implemented in local government settings, by local government decision-makers. Studies describing interventions implemented by non-public health departments within a specified local government were included, providing improved health outcomes was an explicitly stated goal. However, studies that reported interventions implemented by public health departments not embedded in a policy setting, or within local government settings by non-public health decision-makers (e.g. university-based research teams), were ineligible. Observational studies examining the role of research in decision-making were included however, KT studies with a primary objective of increasing research use were excluded. See Additional file 3 for a full list of inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Study selection

Study screening and selection was conducted using Covidence systematic review software [ 35 ]. After duplicates were removed, articles were independently screened by title and abstract by two authors (JD and PN) and in full text by three authors (JD, PN and AW). At both stages of the screening process, conflicts were resolved collaboratively, with a fourth author (PB) contributing where consensus could not be reached.

Methodological quality appraisal

Study quality and risk of bias was assessed using the Critical Review Forms for Quantitative Studies [ 36 ] and Qualitative Studies [ 37 ] as appropriate to the study design. The Critical Review Forms incorporate both dichotomous (yes/no) and descriptive items to appraise study variables such as methodological rigour, appropriateness of measures and sampling procedures. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) [ 38 ] was used for studies employing mixed research methods. The MMAT includes two screening questions and five categories of questions to select from based on study design. The response format for all questions is categorical (yes/no/can’t tell). These tools were chosen as they are published, freely available, widely utilised in health sciences and suitable for assessing a range of research designs. The tools enabled quantitative analysis of strengths and limitations within and between included studies. Tallying of categorical variables was used to classify included studies as ‘low’, ‘medium’ and ‘high’ quality. Quality appraisal was undertaken by one author (JD) with input from a second author (AW). A selection of studies (10%) were first appraised by both authors and results were compared and differences discussed until an agreed conclusion was reached to adopt a consistent approach. See Additional file 4 for an overview of quality appraisal.

Data extraction

Following screening, descriptive data for included studies was extracted and tabulated, including: citation; publication year; whether it was co-authored by local government; study aim/objectives; use of theory; research methods; research setting; participants; intervention type; and the level of detail provided in describing evidence use (see Additional file 5 ). Data extraction was primarily undertaken by one author (JD) with review from a second author (PN). First, both authors completed a proportion (10%) to allow for comparison of results. Consistency was observed between both authors.

Studies were categorised as follows according to their level of description of evidence use:

• Level 3: the included study made a statement about research use.
• Level 2: level 3 + the study discussed how and/or why research was used.
• Level 1: level 2 + the study described stakeholder experiences of using research and/or barriers and facilitators of research use.

Studies were also categorised according to their intervention focus using a public health classification [ 29 , 30 ]. For parsimony, studies that reported more than one intervention method (e.g. health education and capacity building) were categorised according to the primary method identified. For observational studies that did not identify a specific intervention (e.g. those exploring research evidence use across broad aspects of public health decision-making), the cross-cutting category of ‘public policy development’ was used.

Following categorisation, further data extraction was undertaken (by JD in consultation with PB) to capture descriptions of research use, including perceived barriers and facilitators. A descriptive analysis of research use was conducted with greater attention given to higher-quality studies that provided more detailed descriptions of research use (i.e. levels 1–2).

Of the 5922 articles identified through searching, 805 duplicates were removed. A further 4857 that did not meet inclusion criteria were excluded through title and abstract screening. The remaining 260 articles were reviewed in full text, and a further 226 were removed (see Fig.  1 for exclusion reasons). A final 34 articles were considered to meet the inclusion criteria [ 39 – 72 ]. Four of these (two sets of two) related to the same study: Atkins et al. [ 40 ] and Kelly et al. [ 41 ] and; Hunter et al. [ 44 ] and Marks et al. [ 45 ]. These were analysed together, resulting in 32 included studies (see Table ​ Table2). 2 ). Six studies were included, but not quality-appraised. One did not have a clearly defined research question [ 66 ], and five were commentaries [ 58 , 65 , 67 , 68 , 72 ]. All six described research use in local government-led public health interventions, were authored or co-authored by local government, published in peer-review journals and met all other inclusion criteria. It was determined to include them in the review as they contained relevant data; however, they should be interpreted in this context.

PRISMA flow diagram

Study characteristics

Stated research use level 3 = the study made a statement about research use; level 2 = level 3 + the study discussed how and/or why research was used; level 1 = level 2 + the study described stakeholder experiences of using research and/or barriers and facilitators of research use

a Denotes studies co-authored by local government

Study quality assessment and confidence in the evidence

Confidence in the methodological rigour of included studies was good, with mostly high ( n  = 16) and medium ( n  = 8) quality scores (refer Table ​ Table2 2 for quality scores). Only two studies were considered low quality. Overall, studies were clear in articulating their purpose and informing the need for the stated research. Research methods were well described and appropriate for addressing stated research questions. Few studies ( n  = 8) specified the overall research design and many were lacking in describing the role of the researcher and measures to control potential bias. Trustworthiness of included studies was mixed. Common concerns included a lack of detail describing the research site and participant and auditability of data collection and/or analysis procedures. Refer Additional file 4 for an overview of quality appraisal and study level data.

Characteristics of included studies are shown in Table ​ Table2. 2 . Studies were published between 2007 and 2020. More than half ( n  = 18) were published between 2017 and 2020. Studies were mostly qualitative ( n  = 19). A smaller number were either quantitative ( n  = 5) or mixed methods ( n  = 3). Geographically, studies spanned 10 different countries, although a large proportion ( n  = 12) focused on the United Kingdom (UK). Studies were typically undertaken within a specific local government area or a subset of local governments within a specified region. Only one study spanned multiple regions, although they did not explore between-country differences.

Types of evidence used and associated definitions

Eleven studies reported a specific aim of investigating evidence use, mostly to explore research use alongside other types of evidence (e.g. evaluation reports and community views). Four focused explicitly on use of research, including evidence-based decision-making [ 43 ], systematic reviews [ 51 ], and evidence-based guidelines [ 40 , 41 , 58 ].

Only four studies included a definition for research evidence [ 42 , 47 , 58 , 69 ]. Consistent with the definition guiding this review, all defined ‘research as evidence derived from scientific methods and analysis. Definitions also emphasised the role of non-research-based evidence in public health decision-making such as evaluation reports or data (i.e. to inform the scale of health issues).

Use of theoretical frameworks

The use of theory as part of the study design was limited in the included studies. Only six studies used a theoretical framework (refer Table ​ Table2); 2 ); three to guide data analysis [ 40 – 42 , 59 ] and three more robustly to inform overall research design [ 39 , 44 , 45 , 50 ].

The use of theory by local governments to inform intervention development or implementation, as described by the included studies, was even less evident. While some studies described the use of known models or frameworks by government to help inform understanding of particular health issues (e.g. place-based approaches to address health equity), more detailed accounts of theory to guide intervention design, implementation or evaluation were not observed.

Intervention methods and public health focus

As shown in Table ​ Table3, 3 , studies described a range of public health interventions. For example, ‘legislation and regulation’ included the development or enactment of local laws and regulations such as licensing requirements and taxes. Interventions targeted a variety of health-related concerns; some were specific (e.g. tobacco use or problem gambling); others focused on broader factors such as health systems or the social determinants of health.

Summary of intervention methods and public health issues

a Based on number of included studies not articles

A large proportion of studies (59%) described research use in ‘public policy development’. While some were specific, for example describing public policy development to address alcohol use behaviours [ 59 ], many ( n  = 13) adopted a broader focus, describing public health decision-making in general terms in relation to service delivery, planning or strategy development (see Table ​ Table3 3 for individual study details).

Descriptions of research evidence use

More than half of included studies ( n  = 19) provided detailed descriptions of research use (categorised as level 1). These studies were predominantly medium to high quality (see Table ​ Table2). 2 ). Ten were less detailed (level 2) but did describe how or why research was used. Overall, the quality of these studies was mixed; only two were high quality. Four studies only included a statement about research use (level 3), of which two were high quality. Although less descriptive in their reporting of research use, these studies were more explicit about sources, including identifying primary research that informed interventions.

Experiences of research use were typically framed in terms of barriers and facilitators, which were broadly consistent across different types of interventions. Common barriers to evidence use reported by the studies included:

• lack of consensus about what constitutes research evidence [ 39 , 44 – 47 , 49 , 55 , 56 , 58 ];
• availability of resources to support research use (e.g. staff skills, time and organisational support) [ 39 – 41 , 47 ];
• perceived gaps in the evidence base on key public health issues [ 51 , 65 ]; and
• the political nature (and associated complexity) of the decision-making context [ 40 , 41 , 44 – 47 , 51 , 52 , 54 , 55 , 58 ].

As well as different conceptualisations of what research-based evidence is, perceptions about what it means to be evidence-based also varied [ 39 – 42 , 47 , 55 ]. Differences were primarily attributed to variations in professional backgrounds of staff, including within local government public health teams (e.g. architecture, physiotherapy, nursing), which had implications for how notions of research, and what is considered robust research, were conceived [ 39 , 47 , 55 ].

Several studies described the impact of political influence on research use and the tensions that arose when evidence-based decision-making or public health priorities were in conflict with other political goals and decision-making processes [ 40 , 41 , 51 , 54 ]. For example, in the case of local alcohol policy-making where public health priorities conflicted with commercial priorities [ 50 ]. While at times political influence was reported to outweigh even good research [ 44 , 45 ], when political goals were aligned with public health priorities or research findings, this facilitated its use [ 52 ]. Other facilitators included:

• individual and organisational capacity to use research [ 39 , 42 , 47 ];
• research findings communicated in clear and simple language [ 50 , 51 , 53 ]; and
• collaboration, including formal partnerships [ 43 , 47 , 48 , 50 , 51 , 54 – 57 , 59 , 61 – 66 , 72 ].

The reciprocal benefits of collaboration in knowledge building and sharing were well described. For example, informal networking between local governments was identified as an important research dissemination method; associated with additional benefits such as facilitating greater ‘ buy-in’ and promoting more robust policy responses [ 59 ], and reducing duplication of effort by promoting the effective use of limited resources [ 65 ]. Participatory processes at the heart of well-established evidence-based methods such as ‘Health Impact Assessment’ and Health in All Policies were also reported to foster research use through facilitated stakeholder engagement (including local citizens and experts from various sectors) across a range of public health issues [ 57 , 62 , 64 , 66 ].

Three themes emerged relating to research use. First, was the commonly expressed desire for more ‘localised research’ . Local evidence, including “ evidence of effectiveness in other LGAs ”, was described as critical to informing “ policies and strategies that were most likely to work in their local communities ” [ 48 ] (p.373). Although local evidence often referred to evidence that might not constitute research as defined in this review (e.g. evidence derived from community consultation by local governments), a lack of locally relevant research (as opposed to national or international research) was a commonly cited concern. This was described in relation to the use of national guidelines in a number of ‘public policy development’ studies which described a lack of local utility due to their broad focus. For example, a participant in one study noted, “ they lacked specificity and did not take into account complexity and scale ” [ 40 ] (p.5), while others felt that the diversity of local populations (and associated public health needs) were not always aligned with national populations and priorities. Consequently, local evidence was not only given precedence over national guidelines, it was considered essential for giving context to public health issues.

In ‘legislation and regulation’ interventions, the need for ‘localised research’ was more specific. For example, in alcohol licensing processes in the UK, Martineau et al. [ 54 ] describe how only certain types of evidence could be used. In the case of health-related research, it was only permitted if it was “ legally relevant as well as scientifically valid ” (p. 439); directly linked to licensing objectives (e.g. public safety); “ legally framed in terms of non-health objectives ” (p. 436) and; specific to the geography of the named premise. This study articulated a need for locally situated research linking known alcohol-related harms with local alcohol consumption practices, to facilitate its applicability in licensing processes. While only one study described a ‘research and evaluation’ intervention (reporting the commissioning of local research), it highlighted a range of positive outcomes [ 65 ]. In addition to clarifying the extent and nature of the public health issue (i.e. problem gambling), undertaking local research helped to foster partnerships and drive coordinated local and regional action [ 65 ].

The second theme to emerge was how research was used to ‘ frame or legitimise ’ public health issues or different points of view [ 48 , 50 , 52 , 56 , 57 ], particularly when engaging stakeholders outside of public health teams (e.g., other local government departments or community groups). This was observed in ‘Health Impact Assessment’ and Health in All Policies interventions as well as various ‘public policy development’ interventions where research was used to help build awareness of the public health implications of non-health issues; contributing to the adoption of more equitable policies. For example, Marko et al. [ 48 ], describe using research to highlight “the impact of EGMs [electronic gambling machines] on broader health and social issues (such as housing instability and family violence)” (p. 371) to reframe problem gambling from an addiction context to a public health context. However, the legitimising role of research did not always serve to benefit public health outcomes. Analysing research use in ‘advocacy and lobbying’, Rossow et al. [ 50 ] observed the use of research by two opposing coalitions to legitimise different points of view; also noting the active undermining, or de-legitimising of public health research by one coalition [ 50 ].

The third theme related to the need to ‘ integrate research’ with other sources of evidence, and the work associated with this. For example, in a study exploring research use by local governments in Victoria, Australia, participants reported that a mixture of evidence was considered both “ most useful ” and “ most influential ” in public health decision-making [ 39 ] (p. 7). While this finding was similar in numerous other studies, the drivers varied somewhat depending on the nature of the intervention, the stakeholders involved and the breadth or relevance of available research. For example, in ‘Health Impact Assessment’ interventions grounded in evidence-based decision-making, it was reported that gaps in the research-base meant that processes had to rely on other inputs including expert opinions and anecdotal evidence. At other times, presenting research within broader narratives (including local and anecdotal evidence), was seen as important to help influence decision-makers [ 39 , 46 , 52 ]. Most commonly in planning and strategy development activities described in ‘public policy development’ interventions; where stakeholders were often negotiating competing demands, personal and professional differences and power dynamics. While research was also considered important in these decisions, participants reported that it was rarely enough to support the full breadth and complexity of decision-making needs, often due to a lack of local relevance or failure to address certain considerations such as economic impact [ 49 , 52 ]. Despite the work involved in integrating various forms of evidence, it was clear that it was beneficial in terms of helping to engage different stakeholders (often with competing interests) on different public health issues [ 55 ], as well as addressing “ different views about relevant evidence methodologies ” [ 42 ] (p. 466).

These themes were often described within broader narratives of decentralisation of public health responsibilities and the associated push for more evidence-based policy. This was particularly prominent in studies from the UK where there was an underlying assumption that local governments were expected “ to up their game and get used to the processes and practices of evidence-based public health ” [ 40 ] (p. 9). Responding to this, Atkins et al. [ 40 ] argue that research needs to be fit for purpose and consider decision-maker needs, also calling for more shared responsibility in addressing the evidence-policy gap. Differences in evidence needs between local governments and national health services were also highlighted, including the need for a focus on sources rather than hierarchies of evidence.

This is the first known systematic review with an explicit focus on an in-depth exploration of research use in local government-led public health interventions, aiming to identify how research is used, and whether use varies depending on the nature of the intervention. This review found that local governments employ a range of different intervention strategies to address public health outcomes; highlighting the multi-dimensional nature of their role in public health. Furthermore, this review found that how research is used can vary depending on the nature of an intervention and the public health issue being addressed. These findings build on previous KT literature that emphasises the complexity of research use in public health policy, articulating the importance of acknowledging intervention methods and the nature of public health issues alongside the myriad factors surrounding the accessibility, legitimacy and practical value of various forms of evidence in local policy settings.

Strengths and limitations

A key strength of this review is the use of robust, established methods, including: a comprehensive search strategy (six electronic databases); having two authors independently screen all studies to reduce potential bias in study selection; and independent review of over 10% of studies to help mitigate any potential for bias in data extraction, quality appraisal and classification of interventions. Another major strength of this review is its focus on how research is used; building on findings of related work to examine research use at the level of intervention type and public health issue being addressed. This enabled a more nuanced understanding of how research use can vary according to these characteristics. In doing so, this review highlights that steps taken to improve research use in local government may need to vary according to these differences.

There were also a number of limitations to this review including that it was limited to English language articles which may have resulted in the exclusion of some studies. While database searching included the Cochrane review, a more comprehensive search of grey literature was not undertaken, which may mean that some studies were overlooked. This review adopted broad inclusion criteria, which may have resulted in some overlap with studies in previous reviews, however, the exclusive focus on local government settings allowed for findings to be explored in-depth within a singular government setting. Similarly, this review only included studies that described research use in local government-led interventions. While, this was purposeful decision, aimed at capturing a realistic view of research use by local government stakeholders, it should be noted that public health work in local government settings is rarely undertaken by a single agency. Partnership is both an integral aspect of addressing the challenges of public health, and a known facilitator of research use [ 73 ]. Although it is expected that this has resulted in the exclusion of studies that involved local government participation in public health interventions, it was considered necessary in order to meaningfully address a known gap in the literature and help build knowledge about local governments use of research. Despite this, an important limitation of this study is the ability to generalise findings across diverse local government settings. As discussed in the introduction, local governments have a globally recognised role to play in public health [ 4 ], however, public health is often conceptualised and organised differently both within and across regions [ 3 , 4 , 29 ]. Local government’s capacity to address public health outcomes is highly context dependent and impacted by relationships to higher levels of government, degree of decision-making authority and allocation of budgets and resources [ 3 , 4 ]. All of which can have a considerable impact on the type of decisions being made, the stakeholders involved and the role of research in decision-making.

Despite its global focus, this review had a high concentration of studies from the UK and fewer than previous reviews with an international focus; none were from low and middle-income countries. These differences are likely attributed to the review's exclusion criteria, particularly the exclusion of KT interventions to support the aim of capturing ‘everyday’ research use and the exclusive focus on public health departments embedded in local policy settings.

Use of theory

Consistent with previous literature [ 23 , 24 ], the use of theory was limited by both researchers and the governments they were studying. This is notable given the known benefits of theory in facilitating the success and sustainability of interventions and ensuring their replicability in other settings [ 74 , 75 ]. For example, behavioural theory can help inform the social and cultural dimensions of health behaviours (e.g. smoking) and assist with identifying strategies to promote change [ 75 ]. However, with a plethora of theoretical approaches to choose from, theory selection can prove challenging [ 76 ]. Future research may consider further exploration of local government stakeholders' knowledge of, and use of theory to inform public health intervention strategies.

Barriers and facilitators

As with previous reviews [ 18 – 20 ], a large number of studies in this review described research use in terms of barriers and facilitators to use (e.g. 39,42,43,46,53), despite this not being the focus of this review or the included studies. This finding is consistent with a recent review by Verboom et al. (2020) and suggests a shift in focus away from perceived barriers and facilitators in favour of exploring how research is engaged with in policy settings.

Exploration of research use

Despite a considered focus on exploring how research is used, this review found that few studies provided process-orientated descriptions of research use. How research is used was explored across three themes (i.e. the desire for more local research; the legitimising role of research and; the need to integrate research with other types of evidence). While themes were broadly consistent with wider KT literature, by categorising studies according to intervention type, this review identified several unique insights.

Demand for localised research

Direct interaction with the local environment is intrinsic to the work of local governments [ 77 , 78 ], and the desire to be locally informed is often in competition with the desire to be evidence-based. Consistent with Kneale et al. [ 26 ], this study observed a clear desire for more localised research. This was driven by a range of factors across different studies including: accountability to local constituents [ 45 ]; political ideology [ 40 , 45 ]; beliefs about the uniqueness of local populations and associated health needs [ 40 , 41 ] and; gaps in empirical literature [ 51 , 64 ]. It also found that in many cases, these factors led decision-makers to rely on other sources of evidence, often at the expense of methodological rigour or evidence hierarchies [ 46 , 49 ].

Also highlighting the importance of local research at the local government level, was the requirement for health research to be locally specific to be eligible for use in alcohol licensing processes in ‘legislation and regulation’ interventions as described by Martineau et al., [ 54 ]. Although less explored in the literature, this has been observed in other aspects of local government decision-making [ 25 ].

Despite critique from study participants about the limited utility of nationally informed evidence-based guidelines in local settings [ 40 , 41 ], they were still a commonly reported go-to-resource in the face of challenges surrounding the use of primary research (e.g. time and budget constraints) [ 39 , 51 ]. This is consistent with previous literature [ 22 , 78 ] and highlights an opportunity for higher levels of government and non-state actors such as researchers, knowledge brokers and peak bodies, to work more closely with local governments to explore how research needs can be more directly addressed through research synthesis and guidelines.

Elevating local experiences

Although there was a clear desire for more local research, this review found only one example of locally commissioned research [ 65 ]. This study provided a detailed, process orientated description of the various stages of the project to meaningfully inform other local governments on local evidence building. As well as underscoring a need for greater investment in production of local research, the relevance of this study to the scope of the present review highlights the potential value in greater inclusion of grey literature and non-traditional research papers in future systematic reviews to help elevate local government experiences.

This may also help address concerns about the tendency for KT literature to be descriptive or theoretical [ 17 ] and provide greater insight into what may or may not help to optimise research use. Promisingly, this review, along with a previous review [ 24 ], found that the number of studies using observational methods is on the rise; as is local government participation in study authorship compared to earlier literature [ 20 ]. This is important as observational studies, such as ethnographies and case studies that give voice to first hand-accounts of local government experiences can provide much needed practical insights into decision-making process and research use [ 20 , 23 , 24 ]. However, if this research gap is to be addressed, studies will also need to adopt a more open-minded approach to ensure greater exploration of policy-making activities and processes, as opposed to identifying perceived deficits in research use [ 79 ].

Framing and legitimising

The use of research to frame or legitimise different points of view in policy settings is often explored through the lens of Weiss’s [ 80 ] typology of research use. Commonly referred to as symbolic or political use, this involves using research to justify an action or position [ 81 ]; as observed in this review in ‘advocacy and lobbying’ [ 50 ]. While this type of use is often characterised negatively, Weiss et al. [ 82 ] argue it can also be functional; as long as research findings are not distorted or omitted in the process. This strategic use of research by health teams (observed in this review by studies describing the use of research to frame the impacts of non-health related decisions) [ 48 , 56 , 62 ], highlights the persuasiveness of research with some stakeholder groups, and the role it can play in helping to legitimise public health concerns. These findings also underscore the need for unbiased evidence reviews that present a full picture of the various impacts of different health issues and associated interventions.

Integrating evidence

The importance of drawing on a variety of evidence sources to inform local public health policy is well articulated in the literature [ 11 – 13 , 77 ]. This review identified that the drivers for this can vary across different types of interventions, emphasising the importance of building a research-base (including research synthesis) that “ better reflect (s) the complexity of local populations and systems of influence in order for this evidence to be more useful and usable in local public health decision-making ” [ 46 ] (p. 10). This means addressing demands for more locally relevant and issue specific research, using accessible language and open access publishing, and fostering greater involvement from policy-makers in research production [ 51 ].

This review builds on previous knowledge about barriers and facilitators to research use in public health decision-making, identifying considerable diversity in how research is used, by whom and for what purpose. Consistent with previous literature, this review highlighted the complexity of using research in local government settings, including the associated demands of needing to integrate research with other evidence sources to facilitate its use. In response to these challenges, local government stakeholders expressed a desire for more relevant research that reflects local experiences, supports the implementation of interventions within local communities, addresses the social determinants of health, and is communicated in clear and straightforward language that facilitates engagement with diverse stakeholders. This review classified studies according to intervention type, however other factors associated with local public health policy (e.g. policy cycle) are also likely to shape when and how research is used and as such are worthy of consideration in designing future studies. Additionally, future research should pursue more observational approaches to build further knowledge of how research (including theory) is applied, as well as fostering greater involvement of local government stakeholders in communicating findings. Building on the approach used in this review, researchers may need to adopt a more nuanced understanding of the diversity of intervention methods employed by local governments in order to better engage with the complex dynamics of research use.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance from Louise Micallef, Subject Librarian at the Sir Louis Matheson Library at Monash University. They also acknowledge the support of VicHealth in funding JD’s research higher degree scholarship through Monash University’s Behaviour Change Graduate Research Industry Partnership jointly funded by the Australian Government Research Training Program and VicHealth.

Abbreviations

Author contributions

JD contributed to the concept, design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation and drafting of the manuscript, PN contributed to data collection and data extraction, AW contributed to data collection and quality appraisal, AMW, AB and PB contributed to the concept, design, data interpretation and drafting of the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

JD is supported by a research higher degree scholarship jointly funded by the Australian Government Research Training Program and The Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth). Beyond funding support, the funders had no direct role in the study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation, or writing the manuscript.

Availability of data and materials

Declarations.

Not applicable.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Advertisement

Supported by

Britain’s Weekend of Violence: What We Know

The country begins a new week on edge after anti-immigrant riots, fanned by disinformation from the far right, broke out in cities across Britain.

• Share full article

By The New York Times

After a weekend of violent uprisings across Britain, set off by a deadly stabbing rampage and a disinformation campaign aimed primarily at immigrant Muslims that followed it, tensions are high from the streets to government leaders’ offices.

Here is what we know as the country enters a new week of uncertainty.

Where has the unrest taken place?

Protesters over the weekend took to the streets of a dozen cities across the United Kingdom, most of them in England. Trouble broke out from Aldershot in the south to Sunderland in the north and Liverpool in the west. Belfast, in Northern Ireland, was also drawn into the fray.

In some cases, the protesters were merely unruly, but in others the violence was far more pronounced.

Where arrests have been reported

On Sunday, rioters set upon a hotel that was housing asylum seekers in the town of Rotherham, in northern England, breaking windows before surging inside as the police struggled to control them. No guests were injured in the melee, the police said.

In Middlesbrough, a group of rioters, some masked, hurled bottles and rocks at officers. Cars were set on fire, and at least nine people were arrested. On Saturday, a library and a food bank were set alight in Liverpool as groups damaged and looted businesses, and in Hull, fires were set and storefronts smashed in the city center.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .