Evidence for public health policy on inequalities: 2: Assembling the evidence jigsaw

Whitehead, Margaret; Petticrew, Mark; Graham, Hilary; Macintyre, Sally; Bambra, Clare; Egan, Matt

doi:10.1136/jech.2003.015297

Cited by 203 publications

(144 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

139

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They found that in addition to primary studies and systematic reviews, the types of evidence used included, internal program evaluations, local and provincial best practices, and natural policy experiments among others. In addition the categories tally with the five types of evidence influencing policy on health inequalities that Whitehead and colleagues (29) identified as particularly persuasive with policy-makers. These included observational evidence showing the existence of a problem; narrative accounts of the impacts of policies from the household perspective; controlled evaluations; natural policy experiments; and historical evidence.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence for informing health policy development in Low-income Countries (LICs): perspectives of policy actors in Uganda

Nabyonga‐Orem

Mijumbi-Deve

2015

Int J Health Policy Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Although there is a general agreement on the benefits of evidence informed health policy development given resource constraints especially in Low-Income Countries (LICs), the definition of what evidence is, and what evidence is suitable to guide decision-making is still unclear. Our study is contributing to filling this knowledge gap. We aimed to explore health policy actors' views regarding what evidence they deemed appropriate to guide health policy development. Methods: Using exploratory qualitative methods, we conducted interviews with 51 key informants using an indepth interview guide. We interviewed a diverse group of stakeholders in health policy development and knowledge translation in the Uganda health sector. Data were analyzed using inductive content analysis techniques. Results: Different stakeholders lay emphasis on different kinds of evidence. While donors preferred international evidence and Ministry of Health (MoH) officials looked to local evidence, district health managers preferred local evidence, evidence from routine monitoring and evaluation, and reports from service providers. Service providers on the other hand preferred local evidence and routine monitoring and evaluation reports whilst researchers preferred systematic reviews and clinical trials. Stakeholders preferred evidence covering several aspects impacting on decision-making highlighting the fact that although policy actors look for factual information, they also require evidence on context and implementation feasibility of a policy decision. Implications for policy makers• Policy development requires different types of evidence and there is no single type of evidence agreed upon as the most appropriate. • Different stakeholders attach more importance to different types of evidence. • Policies whose implementations impact on several institutions and systems are likely to require more evidence, compared to those where implementation only requires minimal adjustments in the current practice. •The quality of evidence is a very important aspect which creates more confidence in the results, and increases the likelihood of knowledge translation.• In order to ensure that policy-makers receive evidence that meets their expectations, information on their needs is necessary. This could be in the form of national research agendas and/or, needs assessment findings. Such an initiative would need to be routine and the needs should be updated regularly involving a dialogue between research producers, and policy-makers as research users. Implications for publicMultiple forms of evidence inform policy development and are indeed deemed appropriate by policy actors. In this regard, the community also has information that can guide policy development in the form of community complaints, for example. Structures and mechanisms need to be put in place to enable community participation in forums where different types of evidence are discussed in order to come up with the best policy options.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence for informing health policy development in Low-income Countries (LICs): perspectives of policy actors in Uganda

Nabyonga‐Orem

Mijumbi-Deve

2015

Int J Health Policy Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[10][11][12][13][14] In this case the various tenets from philosophy of science determine what is evidence and can be summarized as knowledge that is:…”

Section: Conceptualizing and Combining Evidence For Health System Guimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…8 The research community's view of evidence, although not uniform, is narrower and generally restricted to information generated through a prescribed set of processes and procedures recognized as scientific. [10][11][12][13][14] In this case the various tenets from philosophy of science determine what is evidence and can be summarized as knowledge that is:…”

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

“…Absolute inequality may change without change in relative inequalities (Ravallion, 2003). A generalized theory of inequality transitions or life cycle of inequality transition has applied to a broad range of domains: change in the shape and composition of between-nations or global inequality, within national inequalities and social inequalities (Whitehead et al, 2004).…”

Section: Health Inequalitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Demographic Convergence and its Linkage with Health Inequalities in India

Goli

2014

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence for public health policy on inequalities: 2: Assembling the evidence jigsaw

Cited by 203 publications

References 9 publications

Evidence for informing health policy development in Low-income Countries (LICs): perspectives of policy actors in Uganda

Evidence for informing health policy development in Low-income Countries (LICs): perspectives of policy actors in Uganda

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

Demographic Convergence and its Linkage with Health Inequalities in India

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About