Knowledge utilization in the regulatory state: an empirical examination of Schrefler’s typology

Zarkin, Michael J.

doi:10.1080/01442872.2020.1772220

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This study confirms that policymaking about HSMP happens in a politicized environment with many different actors, interests, and values [ 32 , 59 – 64 ]. Concerning the implementation of EIPM support measures in health administrations, this finding suggests that fostering the engagement with and use of evidence depends on the buy-in of administration leaders [ 5 , 65 , 66 ], be it straight-forward measures such as promoting or demanding the use of evidence in administrations processes and mission statements, to more complex changes like adapting the organizational culture towards EIPM [ 4 , 5 , 20 ]. Thus, future research will have to show how administration staff can influence their political leaders in a way that investing in EIPM serves the needs of individual civil servants and the administration’s agency, effectiveness, and impact [ 67 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring evidence use and capacity for health services management and planning in Swiss health administrations: A mixed-method interview study

Baumann,

Wyss

2024

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Health administrations require evidence, meaning robust information, data, and research, on health services and systems. Little is known about the resources and processes available within administrations to support evidence-informed policymaking. This study assessed Swiss health administrations’ capacity for evidence use and investigated civil servants’ needs and perspectives regarding the role and use of evidence in health services management and planning. Methods In this mixed-method study, we interviewed civil servants from Swiss German-speaking cantonal health administrations. We quantitatively assessed administrations’ organization-level capacity by applying six structured interviews using an existing measurement tool (ORACLe). Individual-level needs and perspectives regarding evidence use and capacity were qualitatively explored with twelve in-depth interviews that were analyzed using the framework method. Findings Respondents indicated moderate evidence-use capacity in all administrations. Administrations displayed a similar pattern of high and low capacity in specific capacity areas, generally with considerable variation within administrations. Most administrations indicated high capacity for producing or commissioning evidence and close relationships with research. They showed limited capacity in the documentation of processes and availability of tools, programs, or training opportunities. Administrations place the responsibility for engagement with evidence at the level of individual civil servants rather than at the organizational level. Although administrations highly value evidence-informed policymaking and consider it vital to effective health services management and planning, they face significant constraints in accessing evidence-specific resources and receive little organizational support. Administrations rely on external capacity to compensate for these limitations and engage with evidence pragmatically. Conclusion Our findings indicate moderate and improvable capacity for evidence use in Swiss health administrations that place limited value on organizational support. Besides strengthening organizational support, leadership buy-in, particular staff needs, and balancing the implementation of specific measures with the provision of more general resources should be considered to unlock the potential of strengthened engagement with evidence.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring evidence use and capacity for health services management and planning in Swiss health administrations: A mixed-method interview study

Baumann,

Wyss

2024

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Technocratic Decision-Making in Times of Crisis? The Use of Data for Scientific Policy Advice in Germany’s COVID-19 Management

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

COVID-19 has demonstrated the importance of data for scientific policy advice. Mechanisms by which data is generated, shared, and ultimately lead to policy responses are crucial for enhancing transparency and legitimacy of decisions. At the same time, the volume, complexity and volatility of data are growing. Against this background, mechanisms, actors, and problems of data-driven scientific policy advice are analysed. The study reveals role conflicts, ambiguities, and tensions in the interaction between scientific advisors and policy-makers. The assumption of a technocratic model, promoted by well-established structures and functioning processes of data-driven government, cannot be confirmed. Reality largely corresponds to the pragmatic model, in parts also the decisionist model, albeit with dysfunctional characteristics.

show abstract

Policy Studies during an age of uncertainty

James

2020

Policy Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge utilization in the regulatory state: an empirical examination of Schrefler’s typology

Cited by 5 publications

References 24 publications

Exploring evidence use and capacity for health services management and planning in Swiss health administrations: A mixed-method interview study

Exploring evidence use and capacity for health services management and planning in Swiss health administrations: A mixed-method interview study

Technocratic Decision-Making in Times of Crisis? The Use of Data for Scientific Policy Advice in Germany’s COVID-19 Management

Policy Studies during an age of uncertainty

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About