scholarly journals Measuring use of research evidence in public health policy: a policy content analysis

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pauline Zardo ◽  
Alex Collie
Author(s):  
Sara Masood ◽  
Anita Kothari ◽  
Sandra Regan

The use of robust research findings in public health policy has been strongly encouraged for bridging the evidence-policy gap. To assess and further promote evidence uptake, understanding how research evidence is being used by decision makers is very important. This systematic review examined primary studies exploring the use of research evidence in public health policy published between 2010 and January 2016; this work extended Orton et al’s (2011) review that covered studies published between 1980 and March 2010. The current systematic review incorporated 16 studies, representing 864 individuals, that provided insight into five topics pertaining to public health policy decision making: 1) the extent to which research evidence is used; 2) types of research evidence used; 3) the process of using research evidence; 4) factors other than research influencing decisions; and 5) barriers to and facilitators of evidence use. Relevant studies were identified using five different information sources including 14 electronic databases, websites of key organisations, forward citation search, reverse citation search, and internet search engines. Eligibility and methodological quality were assessed independently by two reviewers. The primary author conducted data extraction and the remaining authors reviewed the extraction results. Due to study heterogeneity, data were synthesised and findings were reported using a narrative approach. Findings aligned with previous literature to show that various types of research evidence are being accessed in public health policymaking. Further, challenges and enablers exist at multiple levels of the system, suggesting that use of research evidence is a complex, interdependent process.


2010 ◽  
Vol 64 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. A21-A21 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Orton ◽  
F. Lloyd-Williams ◽  
D. Taylor-Robinson ◽  
M. O'Flaherty ◽  
S. Capewell

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Underwood ◽  
S. Micucci ◽  
D. Ciliska ◽  
J. Vohra

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e028221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmed Razavi ◽  
J Adams ◽  
Martin White

ObjectivesWe explore one aspect of the decision making process—public consultation on policy proposals by a national regulatory body—aiming to understand how public health policy development is influenced by different stakeholders.DesignWe used thematic content analysis to explore responses to a national consultation on the regulation of television advertising of foods high in fat, salt and sugar aimed at children.SettingUK.Results139 responses from key stakeholder groups were analysed to determine how they influenced the regulator’s initial proposals for advertising restrictions. The regulator’s priorities were questioned throughout the consultation process by public health stakeholders. The eventual restrictions implemented were less strict in many ways than those originally proposed. These changes appeared to be influenced most by commercial, rather than public health, stakeholders.ConclusionsPublic health policy making appears to be considered as a balance between commercial and public health interests. Tactics such as the questioning and reframing of scientific evidence may be used. In this example, exploring the development of policy regulating television food advertising to children, commercial considerations appear to have led to a watering down of initial regulatory proposals, with proposed packages not including the measures public health advocates considered to be the most effective. This seems likely to have compromised the ultimate public health effectiveness of the regulations eventually implemented.


2001 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 507-509 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rob Baggott ◽  
David J Hunter

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie A. Crimin ◽  
Carol T. Miller

Author(s):  
Scott Burris ◽  
Micah L. Berman ◽  
Matthew Penn, and ◽  
Tara Ramanathan Holiday

This chapter explores the powers of Congress to pass federal public health laws and to delegate authority to federal agencies. The chapter starts with an explanation of Congress’s limited, enumerated powers and how this limits Congress to certain arenas of authority. It next explores the evolution Congress’s use of the Commerce Clause to pass public health laws, before exploring Congress’s use of the Taxing and Spending Clause. The chapter provides examples of how Congress has used both the Commerce Clause and its taxing and spending power to effectuate public health policy. Next, the chapter explains the National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius case; it details challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate and Medicaid and explains the implications of the Supreme Court’s holdings. Lastly, the chapter explains Congress’s authority to delegate authority to federal administrative agencies to issue and enforce public health regulations.


Author(s):  
Monika Mitra ◽  
Linda Long-Bellil ◽  
Robyn Powell

This chapter draws on medical, social, and legal perspectives to identify and highlight ethical issues pertaining to the treatment, representation, and inclusion of persons with disabilities in public health policy and practice. A brief history of disability in the United States is provided as a context for examining the key ethical issues related to public health policy and practice. Conceptual frameworks and approaches to disability are then described and applied. The chapter then discusses the imperativeness of expanding access to public health programs by persons with disabilities, the need to address implicit and structural biases, and the importance of including persons with disabilities in public health decision-making.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document