Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers

McCaughey, Deirdre; Bruning, Nealia S.

doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-39

Cited by 132 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 73 publications

(225 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several detailed case studies also show how evidence-informed policymaking is impacted by the organizational and political context within specific government departments. Examples of these are Shaxson et al (2016) and McCaughey and Bruning (2010).…”

Section: Developing a Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

Storytelling and evidence-based policy: lessons from the grey literature

Davidson

2017

Palgrave Commun

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A number of authors interested in how to translate evidence into policy identify the importance of policy narrative and argue that advocates of scientific evidence need to tell good stories to grab the attention and appeal to the emotions of policymakers. Yet, this general call for better narratives is incomplete without concrete examples and evidence of their effectiveness. This article shows how these processes are described in the "grey" literature-defined as literature which is produced by all levels of government, academics, business and industry, but which is not controlled by commercial publishers. This literature is often missed by scientists but more important to activists and advocates within social movements and the non-profit sector who frequently engage with or seek to influence policymakers. The article outlines some of the ways in which an understanding of policymaker psychology and factors such as group dynamics and political context are reflected in the grey literature, and the implications of this for understanding the role of storytelling in political advocacy. It highlights practical advice about storytelling that emerges from the literature, and presents four case studies illustrating aspects of storytelling in action. It concludes by identifying the implications for scientists and other advocates of "evidence informed policymaking", practitioners and policymakers.

show abstract

Section: Developing a Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

Storytelling and evidence-based policy: lessons from the grey literature

Davidson

2017

Palgrave Commun

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, in situations where people have to achieve multiple objectives within a set timeframe, they may 'satisfice' (i.e. choose the first alternative that meets or satisfies the minimum criteria for meeting their objectives) 14 , be unsure which objectives to prioritise, or make mental shortcuts such as "drawing on emotions, gut feelings, deeply held beliefs, and habits". 15 In other words, the ability to make rational decisions is bounded.…”

Section: Information Processing and Behavioural Sciencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…14 Behavioural approaches to EIPM are therefore also useful to understand potential phenomena of group decision making, such as groupthink, where the dynamics of a group lead to suboptimal decisions 16 , and nonrational escalation of commitment, where an individual becomes more committed to a particular course of action because of the resources and group commitment already invested in it. 17 Each of these elements can challenge how to think about decision making in policy, but also presents opportunities for research and action.…”

Section: Information Processing and Behavioural Sciencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges of integrating evidence into health policy and planning: linking multiple disciplinary approaches

Schneider

Blyth

2017

Public Health Res Pr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To explore the challenges that arise through the multidisciplinary nature of evidence informed policy making (EIPM).Type of program or service: Education and practice for EIPM. Methods:This article summarises and compares four disciplinary approaches to EIPM with highly contrasting starting points: behavioural science, policy science, critical theory and intervention research. Key insights and theories are highlighted to provide a gateway into each, and to complement what is already known about the evidence needs of policy makers in terms of high-quality, timely and well-communicated research evidence. Lessons learnt:The extension of the evidence based medicine approach to EIPM has created interest in the processes of use of evidence in health policy and planning. Research in this field has spanned multiple disciplines; however, the disciplines use very different research methods and begin with different basic assumptions. Thus, despite the multidisciplinary nature of EIPM, true interdisciplinary research and action remain a challenge. We conclude with a set of key questions that can be used as a gateway to interdisciplinary EIPM in the future.

show abstract

“…[34] The intrusion of the personal beliefs and values of powerful people into the bureaucratic process influenced the extent that evidence was believed. [35] Court and Young have written that research is more influential in policy making if it fits into the values and beliefs of the policy makers, is presented in such a way to be interesting to them, and there are shared networks, trust and good communication. "But these conditions are rarely met in practice."…”

Section: Cultural Barriersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bureaucratic Barriers to Evidence-based Tobacco Control Policy: A Tasmanian Case Study

Barnsley¹,

Walters²,

Wood‐Baker³

2015

ujph

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim was to examine bureaucratic barriers to implementing strategies for tobacco control in Tasmania. We analysed documents provided by government agencies under Right to Information legislation; documents provided by non-government organisations (NGOs), newspaper reports, websites and Hansards relevant for the period 1997 to 2010. Responsible Tasmanian bureaucratic organisations have had a culture of avoiding responsibility for high smoking rates, their processes being excessively complex, under-resourced in expertise and funding for mass media campaigns, having poor accountability mechanisms, failed to adhere to international standards in dealings with the tobacco industry, failed to follow evidence-based public policy despite being aware of its existence, were distracted by immediate needs, experienced passive and active obstruction from other government agencies, and did not adequately inform the Parliament about measures which might reduce smoking rates. The operation and culture of the Tasmanian bureaucracy has been a significant barrier to evidence-based tobacco control public policy. This deficiency was not confined to the Department of Health and Human Services, but also included the Departments of Premier and Cabinet and Treasury. Major barriers to evidence-based tobacco control have existed within the bureaucratic systems in Tasmania in the period 1997 to 2010. They were excessively process-driven, complex structures, with lack of "evidence transfer", antipathetic in culture and had scant resources. Similar barriers exist in some other jurisdictions. All this served to undermine the effectiveness of public-health expert-driven action.

show abstract

Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers

Cited by 132 publications

References 73 publications

Storytelling and evidence-based policy: lessons from the grey literature

Storytelling and evidence-based policy: lessons from the grey literature

Challenges of integrating evidence into health policy and planning: linking multiple disciplinary approaches

Bureaucratic Barriers to Evidence-based Tobacco Control Policy: A Tasmanian Case Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About