Evidence-based priority-setting: what do the decision-makers think?

Mitton, Craig; Patten, San

doi:10.1258/1355819041403240

Cited by 62 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…10 Research suggests that some of these sources are likely to be individuals. 10 However, current approaches to exploring this question focus more on comparing narratives and perspectives of researchers and policymakers, 5,[11][12][13] rather data about interpersonal relationships. [14][15][16] Social network analysis allows interpersonal relations to be captured and analysed quantitatively, providing a means of describing the social structure underlying interactions between policymakers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying public health policymakers’ sources of information: comparing survey and network analyses

Oliver

Vocht

Money

et al. 2015

Eur J Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying public health policymakers’ sources of information: comparing survey and network analyses

Oliver

Vocht

Money

et al. 2015

Eur J Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, these opinions may reflect a lack of personal knowledge and familiarity with economic techniques rather than actual organisational constraints. Concerns elsewhere have focused upon the presence of competing priorities within health organisations and that structured and inclusive approaches to priority setting may be overly time-consuming [35][36][37][38][39][40]. Despite these potential barriers, others have argued that health economics will need to be used more frequently by PCTs in the future as a result of increased sophistication in the assessments of needs and demands [41].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Commissioning NHS dentistry in England: Issues for decision-makers managing the new contract with finite resources

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…1 When those in the clinical, management, or policy world are asked what they consider to be "evidence," they respond with a complex mélange of both scientifically verifiable and locally idiosyncratic types of information -a "colloquial" interpretation. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] They "draw on multiple sources and define evidence broadly." 4 Clinical or program effectiveness data competes with expert assertion, cost-benefit calculation sits alongside political acceptability, and public or patient attitude data are combined with the vivid traces of personal encounter.…”

Section: Section 1: What Counts As Evidence? Two Views Of Evidence -Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] They "draw on multiple sources and define evidence broadly." 4 Clinical or program effectiveness data competes with expert assertion, cost-benefit calculation sits alongside political acceptability, and public or patient attitude data are combined with the vivid traces of personal encounter. "What ministers call 'evidence' is what they get from their constituents at their Saturday surgery."…”

Section: Section 1: What Counts As Evidence? Two Views Of Evidence -Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wildlife Health 2.0: Bridging the Knowledge-to-Action Gap

Stephen

2017

Journal of Wildlife Diseases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OUR PURPOSE VisionOur vision is a strong Canadian healthcare system that is guided by solid, research-based management and policy decisions. MissionTo support evidence-based decision-making in the organization, management, and delivery of health services through funding research, building capacity, and transferring knowledge. StrategyTo establish and foster linkages between decision makers (managers and policy makers) and researchers in the governance of the foundation and in the design and implementation of programs to support research, develop researchers, and transfer knowledge. Main Messages• At a basic level, the notion of evidence concerns facts (actual or asserted) intended for use in support of a conclusion.• Most decision makers view evidence colloquially -"anything that establishes a fact or gives reason for believing something" -and define it by its relevance. Most researchers view evidence scientifically -the use of systematic, replicable methods for production -and define it by its methodology.• Scientists' views on the role of evidence divide into those who emphasize more context-free universal truths (identified closely with "evidence-based medicine") and those who emphasize a context-sensitive role for evidence in a particular decision (identified closely with the applied social sciences).• The appropriate methods for obtaining scientific evidence on context factors are not the same as those for obtaining scientific evidence on program or intervention effectiveness -but this makes such evidence no less "scientific."• Scientific evidence on context can usefully be divided into evidence about attitudes, implementation, organizational capacity, forecasting, economics/finance, and ethics.• Colloquial evidence can usefully be divided into evidence about resources, expert and professional opinion, political judgment, values, habits and traditions, lobbyists and pressure groups, and the particular pragmatics and contingencies of the situation.• These three different forms of evidence -colloquial evidence, scientific evidence on effectiveness, and scientific evidence on context -will not combine of themselves to produce health system guidance; combining and interpreting them requires a deliberative process.• A deliberative process is participative and often follows a period of consultation with relevant stakeholders; it entails both the eliciting and the combining of various types of evidence in order to reach an evidence-based judgment.• There is little evidence on the effectiveness of deliberative processes, though there is much to be said in favour of them on grounds of principle.• The design of a deliberative process is not neutral and may well influence the relative weights assigned to each of the three forms of evidence, thus influencing the extent to which guidance is "evidence-based."• Characteristics of a deliberative process likely to ensure evidence-based guidance include consultation with all parties affected by the outcome, fair representation of scientists and stakeholders, high-quality s...

show abstract

Evidence-based priority-setting: what do the decision-makers think?

Cited by 62 publications

References 0 publications

Identifying public health policymakers’ sources of information: comparing survey and network analyses

Identifying public health policymakers’ sources of information: comparing survey and network analyses

Commissioning NHS dentistry in England: Issues for decision-makers managing the new contract with finite resources

Wildlife Health 2.0: Bridging the Knowledge-to-Action Gap

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About