scholarly journals The challenge of bridging the gap between researchers and policy makers: experiences of a Health Policy Research Group in engaging policy makers to support evidence informed policy making in Nigeria

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Uzochukwu ◽  
Obinna Onwujekwe ◽  
Chinyere Mbachu ◽  
Chinenye Okwuosa ◽  
Enyi Etiaba ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Policy ◽  
Research Group ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Policy Research ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Support Evidence

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.

Re-engineering health policy research to measure equity impacts

2019 ◽  
pp. 277-290
Author(s):  
Tim Doran ◽  
Richard Cookson
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Social Policy ◽  
Policy Research ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Public Health Interventions ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Policy Interventions ◽  
Organizational Barriers ◽  
Analytical Tools

The determinants of health inequality have become increasingly well understood, but policy makers have repeatedly failed to address the issue effectively, and many public health interventions unintentionally worsen inequalities because they disproportionately benefit those with greater resources. This is a policy failure, but it is also a scientific failure. Although policy makers often understand that their decisions have differential impacts across society, the analytical tools used to inform policy lack a substantial perspective on equity, focusing on averages rather than social distributions, leading to inequitable solutions. In an age of social division driven by rising inequality, rigorous new methods for precisely measuring the equity impacts of health and social policy interventions are required, drawing on new partnerships between researchers across disciplines. By developing these methods, and using them to assess the effectiveness of major public health and healthcare initiatives, researchers can improve understanding of the structural, behavioural and organizational barriers to delivering equitable health outcomes. Policy makers will then have the necessary information to judge who gains and who loses from their decisions.

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.

scholarly journals PENTINGNYA RISET KEBIJAKAN DALAM PEMBUATAN KEBIJAKAN PUBLIK UNGGUL DI INDONESIA

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 37
Author(s):  
Anugerah Yuka Asmara
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Personal Experience ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Policy Research ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Economic Consideration ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Research Results ◽  
New Public ◽  
Policy Making Process

A public policy in Indonesia tends to be implemented insufficiently good, although a public policy making process has been undertaken sequentially. One of factors is the neglected research results, particularly a social or policy research has not become yet as a main consideration for the policy makers. They tend using an intuition consideration and a personal experience rather than using the research results in determining a new public policy. Unfortunately, majority of policy makers use a political and economic consideration in each of stages of policy making process to fulfill the various elite interests, not for public as a whole. Important to be known that a evidence-based policy can create a sound public policy. It is a policy to resolve the recent problems, to minimize the mistakes/failures, and giving a bright wish for people in the future. The aim of this sound public policy is to hoist the image and trust of Indonesian Government in the perspective of Indonesian and foreign people currently.

scholarly journals Why do we need for timeliness of research in decision-making?

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
J de Jong ◽  
J Hansen ◽  
P Groenewegen
Keyword(s):  
Policy Process ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Research Policy ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Evidence Based Policy ◽  
Research And Policy ◽  
Support Evidence

Abstract Background Compared to the policy process, the research process is slow. As a result, research evidence is not always available when needed in the policy process. These differences in timelines between research and policy hinder the use of research evidence in the policy process. In order to support evidence-based policy making, timeliness of research is important. Methods Examples are provided, e.g. where research was on time to be included in the policy process and where research was too late to be included in it. These examples are described and analysed to provide for recommendations on how to better align both processes. Results It is shown that in order to create timeliness of research, policy makers and researchers should talk on a regular basis. This increases the chance that results from the research are included in policy making. Conclusions Timeliness of research is important for evidence-based policy making. In order to create timeliness of research, interaction between researchers and policy makers is important.

Re-imagining contested communities: implications for policy research

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Rutherfoord ◽  
Maria O’Beirne
Keyword(s):  
Policy Making ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Policy Research ◽  
Local Policy ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Collaborative Community ◽  
Future Policy ◽  
Collaborative Ethnography

This chapter suggests that this volume's insights on collaborative ethnography could have even more impact if it were generated in collaboration with policy contributors, and it is notable that the local authority has worked in partnership with the ‘Imagine’ project in Rotherham. This points to other opportunities to bring together communities, local policy makers, and academics in generating knowledge for future policy making. If community-based collaborative research is to make its full impact, then it would need to develop beyond a small number of case study areas and be strategically planned, resourced, and structured. The chapter also considers how — and what type of — academic research is prioritised, and how research careers are incentivised to include more collaborative, community-based knowledge production.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document