The RUUE tool was developed to fill a significant void in the existing literature. While numerous frameworks exist for evaluating research uptake, most were originally designed for clinical, public health, or educational settings in high-income countries. These traditional tools often fail to capture the cross-sectoral and dynamic realities of research-for-development, where issues such as poverty, food insecurity, and environmental health are intertwined. The new framework is grounded in the Research and Policy in Development, or RAPID, framework, but it extends this model to include dimensions of potential impact, barriers, and facilitators. By doing so, it provides a more holistic view of how evidence is intended to be used by actors ranging from government officials to community members.

The development of RUUE was informed by over a decade of experience implementing research-to-action strategies in agricultural contexts. The researchers conducted a rapid review of existing qualitative and quantitative instruments to identify core concepts that could be adapted for development settings. The resulting tool comprises six key items: the type of research to be used, the specific use of that research, the reasons for its use, the potential impact, potential barriers, and potential facilitators. This structure supports qualitative and quantitative analysis of respondents’ reported engagement and intended use; it does not by itself measure subsequent implementation or impact.

To pilot the tool, the team applied it to the CGIAR One Health Initiative, a multi-year project aimed at addressing health challenges in food systems across Africa and Asia. The initiative focused on five thematic work packages: zoonoses, food safety, antimicrobial resistance, water safety, and governance. Dissemination workshops were held in five countries: Kenya, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Malawi, and Vietnam. A total of 206 participants attended these sessions, representing a wide array of professional backgrounds, including researchers, governmental officials, non-governmental organizations, and private sector representatives. The diversity of participants was crucial for testing the tool’s applicability across different sectors and levels of authority.

The pilot study revealed high intentions to use research evidence among participants. In the zoonoses work package, 34 of 42 participants cited specific examples of evidence they intended to use, while in the food safety package, all 73 participants identified relevant findings. However, uptake was lower in the antimicrobial resistance workshops, with only 69 percent of participants identifying evidence, likely due to the newer status of this focus area. The most frequently cited evidence concerned health risk analyses, followed by intervention studies. This pattern suggests that while risk-based evidence is highly valued, there is a need for further translation support to move from understanding risks to implementing specific interventions.

Analysis of the open-ended responses revealed that conceptual use was the most common form of research uptake, accounting for 70 percent of the responses. Conceptual use is defined as using research to enhance understanding of an issue without immediate application to decision-making. Other forms of use included awareness-raising, problem-solving, capacity-building, and strategic use. The predominance of conceptual use across all work packages indicates that many participants are in the early stages of engaging with the evidence. However, signs of a shift toward more applied forms of use were visible in the governance and food safety packages, where participants mentioned using findings to justify policy positions or develop training materials.

Participants cited several reasons for their intention to use the research. A primary motivator was the ability of the findings to fill existing information gaps with practical, actionable solutions. Many respondents highlighted the timeliness of the work, noting that results were shared within a month of the intervention’s conclusion. The credibility of the research, generated through rigorous methods, also played a significant role. Furthermore, the relevance of the evidence to the daily lives of participants as agri-food workers, consumers, or public health officials was a strong driver of uptake. This alignment with institutional mandates and local priorities suggests that research is most effective when it directly addresses the immediate concerns of its users.

Despite the high intentions to use the evidence, participants identified several potential barriers. A key challenge is that research findings often remain confined to academic spaces, making them inaccessible to broader communities. Structural and institutional barriers, such as weak coordination among health, agriculture, and environment ministries, further limit the promotion and use of evidence. Slow policy adoption processes also hinder change, particularly when urgency is low and other priorities, such as agricultural productivity, dominate the agenda. To overcome these barriers, participants emphasized the need to translate evidence beyond publications into accessible formats, such as policy briefs and training sessions. They also highlighted the importance of leveraging existing One Health platforms and engaging the private sector to ensure sustainability and broader reach.

The RUUE tool offers a promising approach for research-for-development actors seeking to bridge the gap between evidence generation and use. By integrating the tool at the end of dissemination workshops, researchers can generate valuable insights from knowledge users in a relatively short time, typically around 45 minutes. This rapid assessment allows teams to track progress toward impact and identify areas where additional support is needed. The tool’s ability to capture types of use that traditional metrics often miss makes it particularly useful for assessing the contributions of research to policy processes. However, the study acknowledges limitations, including the focus on intended rather than actual use. Follow-up studies will be necessary to determine whether these intentions translate into tangible actions in the field.

As the global development sector continues to prioritize evidence-based decision-making, tools like RUUE provide a critical means of evaluating the real-world impact of research. By offering a structured yet flexible framework, RUUE helps researchers and funders understand how evidence is valued and applied by diverse stakeholders. The pilot study demonstrates that when research is relevant, credible, and accessible, it has the potential to drive significant changes in health, agriculture, and environmental practices. Applications in other sectors and longer-term follow-up could test its generalizability and whether stated intentions lead to action.

Subject of Research: Development of the Research Uptake and Use Evaluation tool for assessing intended research use in development contexts

Article Title: A rapid tool for understanding how knowledge users engage with research findings in research-for-development contexts

Article References: Lam, S., Hoffmann, V., Otoigo, L., & Nguyen-Viet, H. (2026). A rapid tool for understanding how knowledge users engage with research findings in research-for-development contexts. Health Research Policy and Systems, 24(1), Article 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-026-01478-1

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12961-026-01478-1

Keywords: research-for-development, knowledge translation, research impact, One Health, evidence-based policy, global health, agricultural research, evaluation tools, low- and middle-income countries, science communication

The cited source study is licensed under CC BY 4.0. This article is an edited news summary; the original authors and DOI are credited above.