Evidence-Based Policymaking: What Human Service Agencies Can Learn from Implementation Science and Integrated Data Systems

Spillover Effects of Financial Incentives for COVID-19 Vaccination: A Population-level Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

“…In the Global South, private context of EBPM and highlighted in prominent policy documents (The White House, 2020), the RCT has generally been the dominant research method for building evidence of policy effectiveness DellaVigna et al, 2022;Evidence-Based Policymaking Collaborative, 2016;Monaghan & Ingold, 2019;Pearce & Raman, 2014). 7 There is no shortage of EBPM process guides targeting policy-makers; many of these guides mention RCTs as part of the impact evaluation stage and their value in building evidence in favor or against a particular policy ( Al-Akhali, 2020;Evidence-Based Policymaking Collaborative, 2016;The Pew Charitable Trusts & MacArthur Foundation, 2014;Tseng, 2015;Zanti & Thomas, 2021). However, the possibility of followup evaluation after scaling is infrequently mentioned and when it is, as with, for example, by the Evidence-Based Policymaking Collaborative (2016), there is little guidance as to the concrete steps a policy-maker should take to incorporate evaluation when scaling up a policy intervention.…”

“…However, both approaches usually require prohibitively more resources and/or much longer wait times before policy is implemented. As such, metaanalyses are not prominently featured in EBPM guides that target policymakers (Al-Akhali, 2020;Evidence-Based Policymaking Collaborative, 2016;The Pew Charitable Trusts & MacArthur Foundation, 2014;Zanti & Thomas, 2021) and are therefore outside of the scope of this paper. 8 Contrast this with the plethora of step-by-step guides for conducting RCTs (Haynes et al, 2012).…”