scholarly journals Regional Evidence-Based Policymaking Guidance for ECOW AS Countries: Pro cess of evidence use in policymaking

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
West African Health Organisation
Keyword(s):  
Policy Making ◽  
Systematic Approach ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
West African ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Health Policies ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Scientific Methods ◽  
Local Factors ◽  
System Components

The present Guidance is in line with the four strategies and followed a transparent and systematic approach in its design. The Guidance is adapted to West African contexts and validated using standard scientific methods, considering all available evidence. Local factors that may influence the effects of all options recommended to address their feasibility were taken into account in its development.The production of the Guidance is largely based on knowledge translation approaches that bridge the gap between research evidence and its application to policy-making. Consequently, the Guidance will be very relevant and useful to decision-makers, as it incorporates the complex interrelations of the health system components, and the numerous contextual factors that may influence the effectiveness of policies. The main objective is to develop adapted guidance for the use of evidence in development and implementation of health policies, plans and protocols adapted to the context of ECOW AS countries.

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.

Adaptive decision-making: how Australian healthcare managers decide

2012 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdolvahab Baghbanian ◽  
Ian Hughes ◽  
Ali Kebriaei ◽  
Freidoon A. Khavarpour
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Resource Allocation ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Full Potential ◽  
Healthcare Decision ◽  
Adaptive Decision Making

Despite many calls for the utilisation of research evidence in health policy-making, it is not widely practised, and little is known about how decision-makers in healthcare organisations actually make decisions. We recruited a purposive sample of Australian healthcare decision-makers to complete a web-based survey. We then took a sub-sample from willing respondents for individual interviews. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and coded thematically. We found that resource allocation decision-making varied greatly across the Australian healthcare system. Decision-making was highly dependent on the operational context in time, place and purpose, and that research evidence was rarely exploited to its full potential. Decision-making involved a multifaceted interplay of elements in situation of inquiry. All decisions were made by networks or collectives of people; and no instance of individual decision-making was reported. This varied, social and contextual nature of decision-making points to a complexity that is not reflected in systematic evidence-based reviews or evidence-based models for decision-making, and we did not discover an appropriate model to reflect this complexity in the health- related literature. We developed a model of ‘adaptive decision-making’ that has potential to guide robust decision-making in complex situations, and could have some value as an explanatory or theoretical model for teaching and practice. What is known about the topic? The topic is certainly novel and original, relevant and timely for academics and healthcare decision-makers. Despite increasing calls for the use of systematic evidence-based reviews including economic evaluations, the way in which decision-makers arrive at their allocation decisions and how such decisions reflect concern for economic efficiency is often blurred. This topic is an important one for its relevance to the current difficulties in the complex situation of healthcare. What does this paper add? This paper shows that decision-makers acknowledged the integration of economic principles as contextual realities into their decision-making activities, rather than utilising the results of ever-more seemingly ‘technically sound’ economic evaluations, which cannot address the inherent uncertainty attached to complex decision-making activities. We developed a novel adaptive model of decision-making generated by the interplay of multiple behaviours and factors in the situation of inquiry. The model is new and takes into account the complexity of the context in time, place, purpose and administrative location. What are the implications for practitioners? This paper should be of interest to a broad readership including those interested in health economics, public health policy, healthcare delivery, healthcare resource allocation and decision-making. The adaptive decision-making model designed in this study has the potential as a guide or heuristic device for teaching and practice. Healthcare decision-makers need to be prepared for complexity and ambiguity and cannot expect the data to tell them everything they need to know. We expect to see a shift in the literature on healthcare decision-making, not away from evidence-based practice and economic evaluation, but towards contextualising these methods in broader, adaptive models of decision-making.

scholarly journals Conservation, evidence and policy

Oryx ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 329-335 ◽  
Author(s):  
William. M. Adams ◽  
Chris Sandbrook
Keyword(s):  
Policy Making ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Policy Debate ◽  
Medical Outcomes ◽  
Policy Making Process ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Source Of Information

AbstractA growing literature argues for evidence-based conservation. This concept reflects a wider approach to policy-making and follows thinking in medicine, in which rigorous, objective analysis of evidence has contributed to widespread improvements in medical outcomes. Clearly, conservation decisions should be informed by the best information available. However, we identify issues relating to the type and sources of evidence commonly used and the way evidence-based conservation studies frame policy debate. In this paper we discuss two issues; firstly, we ask ‘what counts as evidence?’ (what is meant by evidence, and what kind of evidence is given credibility). We conclude that evidence-based conservation should adopt a broad definition of evidence to give meaningful space for qualitative data, and local and indigenous knowledge. Secondly, we ask ‘how does evidence count?’ (the relationship between evidence and the policy-making process). We conclude that there should be greater recognition that policy-making is a complex and messy process, and that the role of evidence in policy making can never be neutral. In the light of these issues we suggest some changes to build on developing practice under the title evidence-informed conservation. The change in terminology is subtle, yet it has profound implications in that it calls for a re-positioning and re-understanding of conservation science as one source of information among many for decision-makers.

Rational Decision Making in Psychiatry: Evidence-Based Psychiatry is Just the Start

1997 ◽  
Vol 171 (3) ◽  
pp. 226-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trevor A. Sheldon ◽  
Simon M. Gilbody
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Systematic Approach ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Scientific Basis ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Rational Decision ◽  
Rational Decision Making ◽  
Chief Of Staff ◽  
Patterns Of Practice

Geddes and Harrison make the case simply and persuasively for the value of a systematic approach to identifying and applying research evidence in clinical practice. No sensible psychiatrist, nurse or other therapist can justify a situation where patterns of practice are overly influenced by fashion, tradition, what the chief of staff happens to believe, or what the adverts claim, independent of the scientific basis, as represented by the results of valid experimental research.

What Does Evidence-Based Practice Mean to You? A Follow-Up Study Examining School-Based Speech-Language Pathologists' Perspectives on Evidence-Based Practice

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 688-704
Author(s):  
Katrina Fulcher-Rood ◽  
Anny Castilla-Earls ◽  
Jeff Higginbotham
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Expertise ◽  
Speech Language Pathologists ◽  
School Based ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Ebp Implementation

Purpose The current investigation is a follow-up from a previous study examining child language diagnostic decision making in school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs). The purpose of this study was to examine the SLPs' perspectives regarding the use of evidence-based practice (EBP) in their clinical work. Method Semistructured phone interviews were conducted with 25 school-based SLPs who previously participated in an earlier study by Fulcher-Rood et al. 2018). SLPs were asked questions regarding their definition of EBP, the value of research evidence, contexts in which they implement scientific literature in clinical practice, and the barriers to implementing EBP. Results SLPs' definitions of EBP differed from current definitions, in that SLPs only included the use of research findings. SLPs seem to discuss EBP as it relates to treatment and not assessment. Reported barriers to EBP implementation were insufficient time, limited funding, and restrictions from their employment setting. SLPs found it difficult to translate research findings to clinical practice. SLPs implemented external research evidence when they did not have enough clinical expertise regarding a specific client or when they needed scientific evidence to support a strategy they used. Conclusions SLPs appear to use EBP for specific reasons and not for every clinical decision they make. In addition, SLPs rely on EBP for treatment decisions and not for assessment decisions. Educational systems potentially present other challenges that need to be considered for EBP implementation. Considerations for implementation science and the research-to-practice gap are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document