Evidence-based policy development: the role of the National Primary Care Research and Development Centre

Objective. Chlamydia prevention and control form a significant part of the Australian Government’s sexual health policy. This paper examines the evidence for policy development and in particular the role of systematic reviews in evidence-based policy. Methods. The author undertook a review of the literature on evidence-based policy. The major theories for evidence-based policy were then linked to the Australian Government’s main chlamydia policy. Results. A systematic review on chlamydia screening has been influential in policy development, but like all systematic reviews its validity must be assessed. It has been suggested that methodological appropriateness and the question being asked are perhaps more important than study design per se. Partnerships between researchers and policymakers are important but it should be noted that experts have their own particular biases. Policymaking can also be determined by political ideologies. Conclusions and implications. The publication of a systematic review has provided a good summative evaluation of chlamydia screening that has been built upon through partnerships with researchers. The resulting chlamydia screening pilot will provide further evidence for future policy; however, a variety of sources are required to develop robust policy directions. What is known about the topic? Systematic reviews are often considered to be the best evidence on which to base policy decisions. In practice it is not always the case that best evidence is used to form policy. As well as systematic reviews, which are not always infallible, there are many other factors that affect the development of national health policy. What does the paper add? This paper provides a consideration of the role of systematic reviews in policy-making, as well as some of the pitfalls to this approach. As an example, it provides the Australian Government’s policy on chlamydia control and looks at other factors that may have contributed to the development of this policy. What are the implications for practitioners? All practitioners involved in policy decisions should consider the evidence-base from which their policies are derived. They should understand the sound basis of the systematic review while accepting that other pressures may affect the processes leading up to the formation of good health policy.

Download Full-text

The privileged role of researchers in “evidence-based” policy: implications and engagement of other voices

Drugs and Alcohol Today ◽

10.1108/dat-06-2015-0027 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 15 (4) ◽

pp. 181-191 ◽

Cited By ~ 15

Author(s):

Alison Ritter

Keyword(s):

Drug Policy ◽

Policy Development ◽

Policy Implications ◽

Research Translation ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Research Knowledge ◽

Content Type ◽

Evidence Based Policy ◽

Ordinary Citizens

Purpose – This paper starts from the familiar premise of evidence-based policy, and examines the active role that researchers play in policy development processes. The interactive nature of much research translation immediately suggests the need to consider the dynamic way in which problems come to be understood, which is explored in this paper. Furthermore, the integration of research knowledge with the knowledges of “ordinary” citizens is a key challenge. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – This paper represents a synthesis of recent studies conducted by the author and her colleagues along with other drug policy literature. Findings – The interactive and dialogic processes that researchers engage with, whether as knowledge brokers or participants in elite policy development forums, have implications for how policy problems (and solutions) come to be constituted. Four perspectives and theoretical approaches are briefly outlined: research design; policy processes; problematization; and critical social sciences analyses. These offer different ways of seeing, understanding and analyzing the relationship between problems, policy solutions and the policy processes. Yet all have lessons for the ways in which research evidence and researchers constitute policy. This needs to sit alongside the role of other drug policy stakeholders – notably the “ordinary” citizen. It is argued that the elite role of research can be tempered with engagement of ordinary citizens. While it can be challenging to reconcile general public views about drugs with the evidence-base, deliberative democracy approaches may hold some promise. Originality/value – This paper draws together a number of central themes for drug policy processes research: where the evidence-based policy paradigm intersects with participatory democracy; how problems are constituted; and the privileged role of research and researchers.

Download Full-text