scholarly journals Policy options to increase motivation for improving evidence-informed health policy-making in Iran

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Haniye Sadat Sajadi ◽  
Reza Majdzadeh ◽  
Elham Ehsani-Chimeh ◽  
Bahareh Yazdizadeh ◽  
Sima Nikooee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Policy ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Comparative Case Study ◽  
Second Phase ◽  
Policy Options ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Conducting Research

Abstract Background Current incentive programmes are not sufficient to motivate researchers and policy-makers to use research evidence in policy-making. We conducted a mixed-methods design to identify context-based policy options for strengthening motivations among health researchers and policy-makers to support evidence-informed health policy-making (EIHP) in Iran. Methods This study was conducted in 2019 in two phases. In the first phase, we conducted a scoping review to extract interventions implemented or proposed to strengthen motivations to support EIHP. Additionally, we employed a comparative case study design for reviewing the performance evaluation (PE) processes in Iran and other selected countries to determine the current individual and organizational incentives to encourage EIHP. In the second phase, we developed two policy briefs and then convened two policy dialogues, with 12 and 8 key informants, respectively, where the briefs were discussed. Data were analysed using manifest content analysis in order to propose contextualized policy options. Results The policy options identified to motivate health researchers and policy-makers to support EIHP in Iran were: revising the criteria of academic PE; designing appropriate incentive programmes for nonacademic researchers; developing an indicator for the evaluation of research impact on policy-making or health outcomes; revising the current policies of scientific journals; revising existing funding mechanisms; presenting the knowledge translation plan when submitting a research proposal, as a mandatory condition; encouraging and supporting mechanisms for increasing interactions between policy-makers and researchers; and revising some administrative processes (e.g. managers and staff PEs; selection, appointment, and changing managers and reward mechanisms). Conclusions The current individual or organizational incentives are mainly focused on publications, rather than encouraging researchers and policy-makers to support EIHP. Relying more on incentives that consider the other impacts of research (e.g. impacts on health system and policy, or health outcomes) is recommended. These incentives may encourage individuals and organizations to be more involved in conducting research evidence, resulting in promoting EIHP. Trial registration NA.

scholarly journals Policy options for strengthening evidence-informed health policy-making in Iran: overall SASHA project findings

2022 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Reza Majdzadeh ◽  
Haniye Sadat Sajadi ◽  
Bahareh Yazdizadeh ◽  
Leila Doshmangir ◽  
Elham Ehsani-Chimeh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Policy ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Training System ◽  
Policy Support ◽  
Second Phase ◽  
Policy Dialogue ◽  
Policy Options ◽  
Road Map

Abstract Background The institutionalization of evidence-informed health policy-making (EIHP) is complex and complicated. It is complex because it has many players and is complicated because its institutionalization will require many changes that will be challenging to make. Like many other issues, strengthening EIHP needs a road map, which should consider challenges and address them through effective, harmonized and contextualized strategies. This study aims to develop a road map for enhancing EIHP in Iran based on steps of planning. Methods This study consisted of three phases: (1) identifying barriers to EIHP, (2) recognizing interventions and (3) measuring the use of evidence in Iran's health policy-making. A set of activities was established for conducting these, including foresight, systematic review and policy dialogue, to identify the current and potential barriers for the first phase. For the second phase, an evidence synthesis was performed through a scoping review, by searching the websites of benchmark institutions which had good examples of EIHP practices in order to extract and identify interventions, and through eight policy dialogues and two broad opinion polls to contextualize the list of interventions. Simultaneously, two qualitative-quantitative studies were conducted to design and use a tool for assessing EIHP in the third phase. Results We identified 97 barriers to EIHP and categorized them into three groups, including 35 barriers on the “generation of evidence” (push side), 41 on the “use of evidence” (pull side) and 21 on the “interaction between these two” (exchange side). The list of 41 interventions identified through evidence synthesis and eight policy dialogues was reduced to 32 interventions after two expert opinion polling rounds. These interventions were classified into four main strategies for strengthening (1) the education and training system (6 interventions), (2) the incentives programmes (7 interventions), (3) the structure of policy support organizations (4 interventions) and (4) the enabling processes to support EIHP (15 interventions). Conclusion The policy options developed in the study provide a comprehensive framework to chart a path for strengthening the country’s EIHP considering both global practices and the context of Iran. It is recommended that operational plans be prepared for road map interventions, and the necessary resources provided for their implementation. The implementation of the road map will require attention to the principles of good governance, with a focus on transparency and accountability.

scholarly journals Understanding needs and barriers to using geospatial tools for public health policymaking in China

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dohyeong Kim ◽  
Yingyuan Zhang ◽  
Chang Kil Lee
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Policy Development ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Geographical Information Systems ◽  
Geographical Information ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Adoption And Implementation ◽  
Challenges And Opportunities ◽  
Geospatial Tools

Despite growing popularity of using geographical information systems and geospatial tools in public health fields, these tools are only rarely implemented in health policy management in China. This study examines the barriers that could prevent policy-makers from applying such tools to actual managerial processes related to public health problems that could be assisted by such approaches, e.g. evidence-based policy-making. A questionnaire-based survey of 127 health-related experts and other stakeholders in China revealed that there is a consensus on the needs and demands for the use of geospatial tools, which shows that there is a more unified opinion on the matter than so far reported. Respondents pointed to lack of communication and collaboration among stakeholders as the most significant barrier to the implementation of geospatial tools. Comparison of survey results to those emanating from a similar study in Bangladesh revealed different priorities concerning the use of geospatial tools between the two countries. In addition, the follow-up in-depth interviews highlighted the political culture specific to China as a critical barrier to adopting new tools in policy development. Other barriers included concerns over the limited awareness of the availability of advanced geospatial tools. Taken together, these findings can facilitate a better understanding among policy-makers and practitioners of the challenges and opportunities for widespread adoption and implementation of a geospatial approach to public health policy-making in China.

scholarly journals Aligning the times: Exploring the convergence of researchers, policy makers and research evidence in higher education policy making

2020 ◽  
pp. 003452372092067
Author(s):  
Karen Smith ◽  
Scott Fernie ◽  
Nick Pilcher
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Education Policy ◽  
Higher Education Policy ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Policy Networks ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
The Times ◽  
Depth Interviews ◽  
Research And Policy

The complexity of contemporary higher education policy making and the multitude of evidences and actors in policy networks mean that relationships between higher education researchers, policy makers and research evidence are not straightforward. In this article, we use a theoretical lens of time, Adams’ Timescapes, to explore this relationship and better understand why the research and policy worlds are frequently described as divided. Drawing on in-depth interviews with higher education researchers, policy makers and research funders, we show how research and policy have different interpretations of time. We discuss the Timeframes, or lengths, of work and career, the Temporality, or complexity, of ‘evidence’, of networks and relationships, and the importance of elements such as Timing, or synchronisation, and Tempo, or pace. We conclude that policy makers and higher education researchers may be better able to make sense of the problematic nature of aligning their concerns, interests and actions through understanding different Timescapes.

scholarly journals Use of Research Evidence in Policy and Decision-Making: Views, Attitudes and Practices of Health Policy Makers in Lusaka Province of Zambia

Health ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (04) ◽  
pp. 502-515
Author(s):  
Patricia Katowa-Mukwato ◽  
Lonia Mwape ◽  
Mwaba Chileshe Siwale ◽  
Emmanuel Mwila Musenge ◽  
Margaret Maimbolwa
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Attitudes And Practices ◽  
Lusaka Province ◽  
Use Of Research

scholarly journals Effectiveness of Technology-Enabled Knowledge Translation Strategies in Improving the Use of Research in Public Health: Systematic Review (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Brown ◽  
Courtney Barnes ◽  
Judith Byaruhanga ◽  
Matthew McLaughlin ◽  
Rebecca K Hodder ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Knowledge Translation ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Public Health Policy ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Or Practice

BACKGROUND Knowledge translation (KT) aims to facilitate the use of research evidence in decision making. Changes in technology have provided considerable opportunities for KT strategies to improve access and use of evidence in decision making by public health policy makers and practitioners. Despite this opportunity, there have been no reviews that have assessed the effects of digital technology-enabled KT (TEKT) in the field of public health. OBJECTIVE This study aims to examine the effectiveness of digital TEKT strategies in (1) improving the capacity for evidence-based decision making by public health policy makers and practitioners, (2) changing public health policy or practice, and (3) changes in individual or population health outcomes. METHODS A search strategy was developed to identify randomized trials assessing the effectiveness of digital TEKT strategies in public health. Any primary research study with a randomized trial design was eligible. Searches for eligible studies were undertaken in multiple electronic bibliographic databases (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online [MEDLINE], Excerpta Medica dataBASE [EMBASE], PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature [CINAHL], and Scopus) and the reference lists of included studies. A hand search of 2 journals (Implementation Science and Journal of Medical Internet Research) and a gray literature search were also conducted. Pairs of independent review authors screened studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data from relevant studies. RESULTS Of the 6819 citations screened, 8 eligible randomized trials were included in the review. The studies examined the impact of digital TEKT strategies on health professionals, including nurses, child care health consultants, physiotherapists, primary health care workers, and public health practitioners. Overall, 5 of the interventions were web-training programs. The remaining 3 interventions included simulation games, access to digital resource materials and the use of tailored messaging, and a web-based registry. The findings suggest that digital TEKT interventions may be effective in improving the knowledge of public health professionals, relative to control, and may be as effective as a face-to-face KT approach. The effectiveness of digital TEKT strategies relative to a control or other digital KT interventions on measures of health professional self-efficacy to use evidence to enhance practice behavior or behavioral intention outcomes was mixed. The evidence regarding the effects on changes to health policy or practice following exposure to digital TEKT was mixed. No trials assessed the effects on individual or population-level health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS This review is the first to synthesize the effectiveness of digital TEKT interventions in a public health setting. Despite its potential, relatively few trials have been undertaken to investigate the impacts of digital TEKT interventions. The findings suggest that although a digital TEKT intervention may improve knowledge, the effects of such interventions on other outcomes are equivocal.

scholarly journals Workshop: Bringing economics, health and migration together: a mutual learning experiment

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Social Policy ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Migrant Health ◽  
Policy Options ◽  
Translation Strategies ◽  
Mutual Learning ◽  
Knowledge Translation Strategies

Abstract Acknowledging the role of economic arguments in political discourses and decision-making, researchers have begun to pay more attention to the fiscal implications of different health policy options for migrants. As yet, empirical evidence on economic effects of policy responses to migration and the societal costs or cost-effectiveness of competing strategies to address migrants’ health needs is scarce. Methodological challenges such as limited availability and accessibility of decent data often impede the generation of robust evidence. Further, little is known as to how evidence can effectively be moved into policy; e.g., the actual clout of economic arguments in migration policies debates, as opposed to other evidence- or value-based arguments, hitherto remains unclear. In other social policy domains such as educational and labour market integration, economic evaluations have become routine components of policy assessments. And under the title of, e.g., knowledge translation, strategies for the introduction of research evidence into political decision-making processes have been developed. The combination of similar goals and challenges suggests that there are opportunities to build bridges across sectors and disciplines - e.g., public health, social epidemiology, economics, social policy, data science - as well as across research-practice-divides, for the purposes of mutual learning and the joint improvement of research outcomes. The goal of this workshop is to start such learning processes by bringing together researchers and professionals from different fields, by sharing existing knowledge, and by jointly exploring the following questions: What are the thematic intersections, tensions and synergies between the different disciplines? What are common goals and questions? Which kinds of different knowledge complement each other towards those goals?Where are options for mutual learning, methodological transfer and/or synthesis? How can they help to overcome current challenges in estimating the costs of divergent migrant health policies?What can be learnt from existing knowledge translation strategies as regards the role of research for migrant health policy making?What challenges and open questions remain? The workshop will start with a brief introduction of key concepts and objectives. The first presentation will use three case studies to reflect on the potential of economic evaluation for improving health screening and assessment policies for asylum seekers in Germany. The second presentation will provide input from seminal research on public policy in migration contexts. A third presentation will summarize previous activities and insights of the work group “Economic arguments in migrant health policy making”. The following discussion will examine the above noted questions by tapping into the presenters’ expertise and the audience’s experience. The workshop will be closed with a summary of lessons learnt and directions for future research. Key messages Economic arguments play a central role in policy-making; but economic analyses of different migrant health policy options are hampered by various methodological challenges and tensions. Seminal research in other social policy domains offers potential for mutual learning, toward the end of generating valid economic evidence on the cost-benefits of migrants’ greater in-/exclusion.

scholarly journals Ethics, health policy-making and the economic crisis: a qualitative interview study with European policy-makers

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Brall ◽  
Peter Schröder-Bäck ◽  
Rouven Porz ◽  
Farhang Tahzib ◽  
Helmut Brand
Keyword(s):  
Health Policy ◽  
Economic Crisis ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Moral Concern ◽  
European Policy ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Qualitative Interview Study ◽  
Policy Measures ◽  
Decision Taking

Abstract Background The economic crisis posed various challenges to policy-makers who had to decide on which health policy measures to focus on and on which to refrain from. The aim of this research was to assess the relevance of ethics and to highlight ethical dimensions in decision-taking by policy-makers with regard to policy and priority-setting in health systems posed by the economic crisis. Methods Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with eight European policy-makers from six countries. Results All interviewees recalled difficult and strenuous situations where they had to prioritise between distinct areas to focus on and invest in, for example around choices between prioritising medications, health professional staffing, care specific equipment, or urgent infrastructure issues. Values could be identified which they deemed as important within the policy-making process, such as trust and responsibility. They explicitly expressed the need for ethical tools and assistance in terms of policy advice for reaching morally sustainable decisions in health policy matters. Conclusions The study showed that ethical concepts and values frequently come into play in health policy-making, and that ethics is highly relevant in policy-makers’ daily decision-taking, yet that they lack ethical guidance on what to base their decisions. The study is of relevance since it can provide future decisions on austerity-related issues with an ethical underpinning and could identify areas of moral concern.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document