Evidence-informed health policy 1 – Synthesis of findings from a multi-method study of organizations that support the use of research evidence

Background: The use of research evidence in health policy-making is a popular line of inquiry for scholars of public health and policy studies, with qualitative methods constituting the dominant strategy in this area. Research on this subject has been criticized for, among other things, disproportionately focusing on high-income countries; overemphasizing ‘barriers and facilitators’ related to evidence use to the neglect of other, less descriptive concerns; relying on descriptive, rather than in-depth explanatory designs; and failing to draw on insights from political/policy studies theories and concepts. We aimed to comprehensively map the global, peer-reviewed qualitative literature on the use of research evidence in health policy-making and to provide a descriptive overview of the geographic, temporal, methodological, and theoretical characteristics of this body of literature. Methods: We conducted a systematic review following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We searched nine electronic databases, hand-searched 11 health- and policy-related journals, and systematically scanned the reference lists of included studies and previous reviews. No language, date or geographic limitations were imposed. Results: The review identified 319 qualitative studies on a diverse array of topics related to the use of evidence in health policy-making, spanning 72 countries and published over a nearly 40 year period. A majority of these studies were conducted in high-income countries, but a growing proportion of the research output in this area is now coming from low- and middle-income countries, especially from sub-Saharan Africa. While over half of all studies did not use an identifiable theory or framework, and only one fifth of studies used a theory or conceptual framework drawn from policy studies or political science, we found some evidence that theory-driven and explanatory (eg, comparative case study) designs are becoming more common in this literature. Investigations of the barriers and facilitators related to evidence use constitute a large proportion but by no means a majority of the work in this area. Conclusion: This review provides a bird’s eye mapping of the peer reviewed qualitative research on evidence-to-policy processes, and has identified key features of – and gaps within – this body of literature that will hopefully inform, and improve, research in this area moving forward.

Download Full-text

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

BMC Public Health ◽

10.1186/1471-2458-14-496 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 14 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 10

Author(s):

Pauline Zardo ◽

Alex Collie

Keyword(s):

Public Health ◽

Content Analysis ◽

Health Policy ◽

Public Health Policy ◽

Research Evidence ◽

Policy Content ◽

Use Of Research

Download Full-text

Health policy-makers' perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review

Journal of Health Services Research & Policy ◽

10.1258/135581902320432778 ◽

2002 ◽

Vol 7 (4) ◽

pp. 239-244 ◽

Cited By ~ 537

Author(s):

Simon Innvær ◽

Gunn Vist ◽

Mari Trommald ◽

Andrew Oxman

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Health Policy ◽

Research Evidence ◽

Personal Communication ◽

Personal Contact ◽

Policy Decisions ◽

Appropriate Use ◽

Policy Makers ◽

Interview Studies ◽

Use Of Research

Objectives: The empirical basis for theories and common wisdom regarding how to improve appropriate use of research evidence in policy decisions is unclear. One source of empirical evidence is interview studies with policy-makers. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the evidence from interview studies of facilitators of, and barriers to, the use of research evidence by health policy-makers. Methods: We searched multiple databases, including Medline, Embase, Sociofile, PsychLit, PAIS, IBSS, IPSA and HealthStar in June 2000, hand-searched key journals and personally contacted investigators. We included interview studies with health policy-makers that covered their perceptions of the use of research evidence in health policy decisions at a national, regional or organisational level. Two reviewers independently assessed the relevance of retrieved articles, described the methods of included studies and extracted data that were summarised in tables and analysed qualitatively. Results: We identified 24 studies that met our inclusion criteria. These studies included a total of 2041 interviews with health policy-makers. Assessments of the use of evidence were largely descriptive and qualitative, focusing on hypothetical scenarios or retrospective perceptions of the use of evidence in relation to specific cases. Perceived facilitators of, and barriers to, the use of evidence varied. The most commonly reported facilitators were personal contact (13/24), timely relevance (13/24), and the inclusion of summaries with policy recommendations (11/24). The most commonly reported barriers were absence of personal contact (11/24), lack of timeliness or relevance of research (9/24), mutual mistrust (8/24) and power and budget struggles (7/24). Conclusions: Interview studies with health policy-makers provide only limited support for commonly held beliefs about facilitators of, and barriers to, their use of evidence, and raise questions about commonsense proposals for improving the use of research for policy decisions. Two-way personal communication, the most common suggestion, may improve the appropriate use of research evidence, but it might also promote selective (inappropriate) use of research evidence.

Download Full-text

Evidence-informed health policy 4 – Case descriptions of organizations that support the use of research evidence

Implementation Science ◽

10.1186/1748-5908-3-56 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 3 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 16

Author(s):

John N Lavis ◽

Ray Moynihan ◽

Andrew D Oxman ◽

Elizabeth J Paulsen

Keyword(s):

Health Policy ◽

Research Evidence ◽

Use Of Research

Download Full-text

Evidence-based mental health policy

Practical Psychiatric Epidemiology ◽

10.1093/med/9780198735564.003.0024 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 405-424

Author(s):

Valentina Iemmi ◽

Nicole Votruba ◽

Graham Thornicroft

Keyword(s):

Mental Health ◽

Health Policy ◽

Research Evidence ◽

Mental Health Policy ◽

Historical Context ◽

Healthcare Facility ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Policy Cycle ◽

Facility Level ◽

Use Of Research

This chapter describes evidence-based mental health policy with the help of illustrative examples. After briefly setting the use of research evidence to inform mental health policy within the broader historical context, the second section of the chapter provides a brief description of evidence-based mental health policy and its rationale. The third section illustrates how mental health research may help inform mental health policy, with a description of the research cycle, the policy cycle, their relationship, and the use of epidemiological studies for policymaking. The fourth section provides examples of the use of research evidence in mental health policy at different organizational levels, from the clinical level (micro-level), through the service provision/healthcare facility level (meso-level) and the whole health system level (macro-level), to the global level (mega-level). Finally, the chapter concludes by reflecting on some of the opportunities and challenges that influence evidence-based mental health policy.

Download Full-text

The use of research in public health policy: a systematic review

Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice ◽

10.1332/174426418x15193814624487 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 16 (1) ◽

pp. 7-43 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Sara Masood ◽

Anita Kothari ◽

Sandra Regan

Keyword(s):

Public Health ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Health Policy ◽

Public Health Policy ◽

Research Evidence ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Policy Decision ◽

Health Policy Decision ◽

Study Heterogeneity ◽

Use Of Research

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.

Download Full-text