SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 14: Organising and using policy dialogues to support evidence-informed policymaking

Abstract

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers.Policy dialogues allow research evidence to be considered together with the views, experiences and tacit knowledge of those who will be involved in, or affected by, future decisions about a high-priority issue. Increasing interest in the use of policy dialogues has been fuelled by a number of factors: 1. The recognition of the need for locally contextualised 'decision support' for policymakers and other stakeholders 2. The recognition that research evidence is only one input into the decision-making processes of policymakers and other stakeholders 3. The recognition that many stakeholders can add significant value to these processes, and 4. The recognition that many stakeholders can take action to address high-priority issues, and not just policymakers. In this article, we suggest questions to guide those organising and using policy dialogues to support evidence-informed policymaking. These are: 1. Does the dialogue address a high-priority issue? 2. Does the dialogue provide opportunities to discuss the problem, options to address the problem, and key implementation considerations? 3. Is the dialogue informed by a pre-circulated policy brief and by a discussion about the full range of factors that can influence the policymaking process? 4. Does the dialogue ensure fair representation among those who will be involved in, or affected by, future decisions related to the issue? 5. Does the dialogue engage a facilitator, follow a rule about not attributing comments to individuals, and not aim for consensus? 6. Are outputs produced and follow-up activities undertaken to support action?

Promoting Evidence to Policy Link on the Control of Infectious Diseases of Poverty in Nigeria: Outcome of A Multi-Stakeholders Policy Dialogue

“…27 Policy dialogue was used in this study because policy dialogues allow research evidence to be considered together with the views, experiences and tacit knowledge of those who will be involved in, or affected by, future decisions about a high priority issue. 10 The policy dialogue allowed for frank, off-therecord deliberations by following the Chatham House Rule 17 and offered a neutral forum to the policymakers and other stakeholders to discuss the policy issues based on comparative evidence and experience. Their frank comments and recommendations on the policy brief enabled the policy brief be more specifically tailored to IDP control in the context of Ebonyi State.…”

“…This outcome was expected because as in the preparation of the policy brief, the policy dialogues were conducted according to well-proven and established guidelines. 17,28,29 The major objective of adopting policy dialogue in this study was to improve the likelihood of taking up research into the policymaking process and this to a great extend was realized.…”

“…20 Multi-stakeholder policy dialogues therefore provide an important avenue for the translation of evidence into local context. Lavis and colleagues, 17 noted that policy dialogues have the potential to improve the use of research and this potential can be realized through support related directly to: (i) interactions between researchers and policymakers (and among a wider range of stakeholders who are able to take action); (ii) the timely identification and interpretation of the available research evidence (when a policy dialogue is organized urgently to address a high-priority issue), and (iii) the 'real time' identification of accord between research evidence and the beliefs, values, interests or political goals and strategies of policymakers and stakeholders.…”

“…Policy dialogues have been described as a new and evolving approach to supporting evidence-informed policymaking and they are one of many forms of political interaction that could usefully be more evidence-informed. 17 This type of dialogue often described as a deliberative process aims at strengthening the quality and rigor of policy thinking; identifying the most contextresonant framing of a particular issue; and exploring ways in which new knowledge can empower end users thereby assisting policy makers to explore strategic options for health system reform. 18 Moynihan had observed that in the consideration of policy options there exists tension between the local and the global, the center and the periphery and also indicated that evidence is often seen as "global" in nature, and putting that evidence into practice is regarded as a local affair.…”

Suporte para uso de evidências de pesquisa nas Américas através do "one-stop shop" eletrônico: EVIPNet VHL

“…EVIPNet teams have been involved in preparing evidence briefs for policy and convening deliberative (policy) dialogues that use those briefs as an input 7,8,9,10 which, taken together, address the majority of the barriers found to hinder the greater use of research evidence (i.e. research isn't highly valued, relevant or easy to use), while building on factors found to increase the likelihood that research will be used to inform policy decisions (e.g.…”