EVITA 2.0, an updated framework for understanding evidence-based mental health policy agenda-setting: tested and informed by key informant interviews in a multilevel comparative case study

Votruba, Nicole; Grant, Jonathan; Thornicroft, Graham

doi:10.1186/s12961-020-00651-4

Cited by 6 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Continuing from LMICs, Votruba et al [ 74 ] present in their study the EVITA (EVIdence To Agenda setting) conceptual framework for mental health research-policy interrelationships in LMICs with some information about context, detailed as external influences and political context. In a follow-up study, they offer an updated framework for understanding evidence-based mental health policy agenda-setting [ 75 ]. In their revised framework, context is interpreted as external context and policy sphere, encompassing policy agenda, window of opportunity, political will and key individuals.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is context in knowledge translation? Results of a systematic scoping review

Schmitt,

Czabanowska,

Schröder-Bäck

2024

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge Translation (KT) aims to convey novel ideas to relevant stakeholders, motivating their response or action to improve people’s health. Initially, the KT literature focused on evidence-based medicine, applying findings from laboratory and clinical research to disease diagnosis and treatment. Since the early 2000s, the scope of KT has expanded to include decision-making with health policy implications.This systematic scoping review aims to assess the evolving knowledge-to-policy concepts, that is, macro-level KT theories, models and frameworks (KT TMFs). While significant attention has been devoted to transferring knowledge to healthcare settings (i.e. implementing health policies, programmes or measures at the meso-level), the definition of 'context' in the realm of health policymaking at the macro-level remains underexplored in the KT literature. This study aims to close the gap.A total of 32 macro-level KT TMFs were identified, with only a limited subset of them offering detailed insights into contextual factors that matter in health policymaking. Notably, the majority of these studies prompt policy changes in low- and middle-income countries and received support from international organisations, the European Union, development agencies or philanthropic entities.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is context in knowledge translation? Results of a systematic scoping review

Schmitt,

Czabanowska,

Schröder-Bäck

2024

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is a particularly poignant finding for this review as the only framework developed for mental health agenda-setting in LMICs exclusively focuses on formal scientific evidence ( Votruba et al. , 2020 ; 2021 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet, only one framework focused specifically on mental health agenda-setting in LMICs: the EVIdence To Agenda setting (EVITA) framework ( Votruba et al. , 2020 ; 2021 ). However, EVITA narrowly focuses only on research evidence.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Using evidence in mental health policy agenda-setting in low- and middle-income countries: a conceptual meta-framework from a scoping umbrella review

Brooks

Mirzoev

Chowdhury

et al. 2023

Health Policy and Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this article is to close the gap in frameworks for the use of evidence in mental health policy agenda-setting in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Agenda-setting is important because mental health remains a culturally-sensitive and neglected issue in LMICs. Moreover, effective evidence-informed agenda-setting can help achieve, and sustain, the status of mental health as a policy priority in these low resource contexts. A scoping review of reviews of evidence-to-policy frameworks was conducted which followed PRISMA guidelines. Nineteen reviews met the inclusion criteria. A meta-framework was developed from analysis and narrative synthesis of these 19 reviews which integrates the key elements identified across studies. It comprises the concepts of evidence, actors, process, context, and approach which are linked via the cross-cutting dimensions of: beliefs, values and interests; capacity; power and politics; and, trust and relationships. Five accompanying questions act as a guide for applying the meta-framework with relevance to mental health agenda-setting in LMICs. This is a novel and integrative meta-framework for mental health policy agenda-setting in LMICs and, as such, an important contribution to this under-researched area. Two major recommendations are identified from the development of the framework to enhance its implementation. First, given the paucity of formal evidence on mental health in LMICs, informal evidence based on stakeholder experience could be better utilised in these contexts. Second, the use of evidence in mental health agenda-setting in LMICs would be enhanced by involving a broader range of stakeholders in generating, communicating and promoting relevant information.

show abstract

“…It is a complex and resource‐intensive step, and the time and effort needed are often underestimated and under‐resourced (Tucker & Gallagher‐Ford, 2019). This often leads to the translation of evidence into practice being a slow process (Votruba et al., 2021), and a low level of EBP use among nurses (Megersa et al., 2023). Nurses in the US and throughout the world are not always steady in the implementation of EBP (Melnyk et al., 2017).…”

Section: Background and Significancementioning

confidence: 99%

Role of Magnet®‐recognized hospital nurse managers in implementing evidence‐based practice: A mixed‐method study

Mathew,

Cesario,

Malecha

et al. 2024

Worldviews Ev Based Nurs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundHealthcare systems recognize evidence‐based practice (EBP) as the prestigious standard for providing safe and high‐quality patient care, nursing excellence, and Magnet Recognition. Despite the well‐documented benefits, implementation of EBP is inconsistent and remains elusive in the US and throughout the world and many patients still fail to receive evidence‐based care. The literature revealed a huge gap between nursing science and practice but provided evidence that nurse managers (NMs) had a pivotal leadership role in implementing EBP.AimTo gain a deeper understanding of Magnet‐recognized hospital nurse managers' (MRHNMs) leadership roles, the influencing factors, and their experience in implementing EBP to enhance EBP initiatives and sustain Magnet recognition.MethodThis mixed‐method study guided by Goodall's (Australasian Psychiatry, 2016. 24, 231) theory of expert leadership used a sequential explanatory method with a quantitative‐driven design based on a national correlational survey augmented by a qualitative descriptive component using semi‐structured interviews.ResultsThe findings of the study demonstrated that MRHNMs had a 54.6% effective leadership role in implementing EBP and produced numerous themes indicating that MRHNMs did implement EBP with struggle. MRHNMs in this study viewed EBP as a healthcare priority and leadership of NMs is necessary to promote EBP. However, lack of knowledge, difficulties with the EBP process, time constraints, and staffing issues negatively impacted EBP. Postgraduate degree, formal EBP education, critical care units as workplace, collaboration with doctorally prepared nurses, and Magnet culture enhanced EBP among MRHNMs.Linking Evidence to ActionEBP is essential for Magnet recognition and is a hallmark of nursing excellence, however, is a complex and challenging process. The leadership of NMs is necessary to shape evidence‐based care, and NMs require EBP preparation during leadership training, necessary resources, and time to complete the EBP process. EBP cannot become a reality without leaders being engaged, supportive, and persistent.

show abstract

EVITA 2.0, an updated framework for understanding evidence-based mental health policy agenda-setting: tested and informed by key informant interviews in a multilevel comparative case study

Cited by 6 publications

References 67 publications

What is context in knowledge translation? Results of a systematic scoping review

What is context in knowledge translation? Results of a systematic scoping review

Using evidence in mental health policy agenda-setting in low- and middle-income countries: a conceptual meta-framework from a scoping umbrella review

Role of Magnet®‐recognized hospital nurse managers in implementing evidence‐based practice: A mixed‐method study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About