Determinants of evidence use in public health policy making: Results from a study across six EU countries

Goor, Ien van de; Hämäläinen, Riitta-Maija; Syed, Mohamed Ahmed; Lau, Cathrine Juel; Sandu, Petru; Spitters, Hilde; Karlsson, Leena Eklund; Dulf, Diana; Valente, Adriana; Castellani, Tommaso; Aro, Arja R.

doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.01.003

Cited by 95 publications

(93 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The finding that government health policies do not recognise, emphasise, prioritise or promote PCCW raises two issues with implications for ongoing research. First, we and others [1][2][3] have demonstrated a need to promote the development of evidence-informed policies. Synthesised research showed that interactive workshops or collaboration with researchers can improve the use of research by policy-makers [4].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This research employed qualitative content analysis of government policies to assess if and how they addressed PCCW [27], an approach commonly used in other policy analyses [1][2][3]. This approach can be used to qualitatively and/or quantitatively describe explicit content in written, verbal or visual communication without any theoretical interpretation.…”

Section: Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Analysis of 21 government physical activity policies in 6 European Union countries found that research was used to justify policy creation but did not inform the policies [2]. Common barriers to the use of evidence cited by policy-makers include a lack of evidence relevant to health policy, cost considerations and an absence of shared understanding about priorities between policy-makers and researchers [3]. A scoping review of 22 studies from 18 countries published from 1999 to 2016 found that tailored interactive workshops supported by goal-focused mentoring and that collaboration with researchers can increase policy-makers' use of research [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Is patient-centred care for women a priority for policy-makers? Content analysis of government policies

Gagliardi

Dunn

Foster

et al. 2020

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Considerable research shows that women experience gendered disparities in healthcare access and quality. Patient-centred care (PCC) could reduce inequities by addressing the patient's clinical and personal needs. Healthcare policies can influence service delivery to optimise patient outcomes. This study assessed whether and how government policies recognise and promote PCC for women (PCCW). Methods: We analysed the content of English-language policies published in Canada from 2010 to 2018 on depression and cardiac rehabilitationconditions featuring known gendered inequitiesthat were identified on government websites. We extracted data and used summary statistics to enumerate mentions of PCC and women's health. Results: We included 30 policies (20 depression, 10 cardiac rehabilitation). Of those, 20 (66.7%) included any content related to PCC (median 1.0, range 0.0 to 5.0), most often exchanging information (14, 46.7%) and making decisions (13, 43.3%). Less frequent domains were enabling self-management (8, 26.7%), addressing emotions (6, 20.0%) and fostering the relationship (4, 13.3%). No policies included content for the domain of managing uncertainty. A higher proportion of cardiac rehabilitation guidelines included PCC content. Among the 30 policies, 7 (23.3%) included content related to at least one women's health domain (median 0.0, range 0.0 to 3.0). Most frequently included were social determinants of health (4, 13.3%). Fewer policies mentioned any issues to consider for women (2, 28.6%), issues specific to subgroups of women (2, 28.6%) or distinguished care for women from men (2, 28.6%). No policies included mention of abuse or violence, or discrimination or stigma. The policies largely pertained to depression. Despite mention of PCC or women's health, policies offered brief, vague guidance on how to achieve PCCW; for example, "Patients value being involved in decision-making" and "Women want care that is collaborative, woman-and family-centered, and culturally sensitive." Conclusions: Despite considerable evidence of need and international recommendations, most policies failed to recognise gendered disparities or promote PCC as a mitigating strategy. These identified gaps represent opportunities by which government policies could be developed or strengthened to support PCCW. Future research should investigate complementary strategies such as equipping policy-makers with the evidence and tools required to develop PCCW-informed policies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is patient-centred care for women a priority for policy-makers? Content analysis of government policies

Gagliardi

Dunn

Foster

et al. 2020

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Strong leadership is crucial for successful EBPH, as leaders set the tone for organizational climate and culture [19,20,[73][74][75][76][77][78]. In turn, employees interpret the culture as what management values and supports [79].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Practitioner perspectives on building capacity for evidence-based public health in state health departments in the United States: a qualitative case study

Mazzucca

Valko

Eyler

et al. 2020

Implement Sci Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Public health agencies are responsible for implementing effective, evidence-based public health programs and policies to reduce the burden of chronic diseases. Evidence-based public health can be facilitated by modifiable administrative evidence-based practices (A-EBPs) (e.g., workforce development, organizational climate), yet little is known about how practitioners view A-EBPs. Thus, the purpose of this qualitative study was to understand state health department practitioners' perceptions about how A-EBPs are implemented and what facilitators and barriers exist to using A-EBPs. Methods: Chronic disease prevention and health promotion program staff who were members of the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors were recruited to participate in telephone interviews using a snowball sampling technique. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and transcripts were analyzed using a common codebook and the a priori method in NVivo. Results: Twenty seven interviews were conducted with practitioners in four states (5-8 interviews per state). All practitioners felt that their work unit culture is positive and that leadership encouraged and expected staff to use evidence-based processes. Participants discussed the provision of trainings and technical assistance as key to workforce development and how leaders communicate their expectations. Access to evidence, partnerships, and funding restrictions were the most commonly discussed barriers to the use of A-EBPs and EBDM. Conclusions: Results of this study highlight practitioners' perspectives on promoting evidence-based public health in their departments. Findings can inform the development and refinement of resources to improve A-EBP use and organizational and leadership capacity of state health departments.

show abstract

“…The situation in terms of research evidence‐use in policy/practice is less clear. Helping to embed secure research findings into policy and practice has been a concern for at least as long as the concern about improved evidence itself (Lawrence, 1990), and is worldwide (Koh et al , 2010, van de Goor et al , 2017). The UK ESRC want ‘Knowledge Exchange and Impact’ embedded at the heart of all ESRC research, and they present awards to studies regarded as having outstanding impact.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is the evidence on the best way to get evidence into use in education?

Gorard

See

Siddiqui

2020

Review of Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For decades there have been calls by concerned stakeholders to improve the quality of education research, and some progress has been made towards creating a more secure evidence base in some areas. More programmes and approaches that have a reasonable evidence base are now also being used in schools (but not in policy, and not necessarily because they have a reasonable evidence base). However, there has been no equivalent improvement in secure knowledge about how best to get that evidence into use, or even what difference it makes when such evidence is used. This paper looks at what little is already known about the different ways to get research evidence into use in education by summarising the results of a large-scale review of the literature. A total of 323 of the most relevant studies were looked at across all areas of public policy, and judged for quality and contribution. Very few (33) were of the appropriate design and quality needed to make robust causal claims about evidence-intouse, and even fewer of these concerned education. This means that despite over 20 years of modest improvement in research on what works in education policy and practice, the evidence on how best to deploy these findings is still very weak. We consider studies in terms of several issues, including whether they look at changes in user knowledge and behaviour, or student outcomes, and how evidence is best modified before use. Providing access to raw research evidence or even slightly simplified evidence is not generally an effective way of getting it used, even if that evidence is presented to users by knowledge-brokers, in short courses or similar. What is more likely to work for both policy and practice is the engineering of high quality evidence into a more usable format and presenting it actively or iteratively via a respected and trusted conduit, or through population measures such as legislation. Having the users actually do the research is another promising approach. Expecting each individual study they fund to have an impact is not the way forward, as this may encourage widespread use of ineffective or even harmful interventions. Publicly-funded users, including policy-makers, should be required to use evidence-led programmes from those libraries providing them and which are appropriate and relevant to their aims. Research funders should support these approaches, and help to build up libraries of successfully tested programmes. Researchers need to be scrupulous, looking at their new evidence in the context of what is already known and not looking to obtain 'impact' from single studies. More and better research is needed on the best routes for evidence-into-use. However, the improvements required of all parties are as much ethical in nature as they are technical or scientific.Keywords use of evidence, engineering of evidence, translation of evidence, research impact, knowledge transfer, robust evidence.

show abstract

Determinants of evidence use in public health policy making: Results from a study across six EU countries

Cited by 95 publications

References 57 publications

Is patient-centred care for women a priority for policy-makers? Content analysis of government policies

Is patient-centred care for women a priority for policy-makers? Content analysis of government policies

Practitioner perspectives on building capacity for evidence-based public health in state health departments in the United States: a qualitative case study

What is the evidence on the best way to get evidence into use in education?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About