Use of research results in policy decision-making, formulation, and implementation: a review of the literature

Almeida, C.M.V.B.; Báscolo, Ernesto

doi:10.1590/s0102-311x2006001300002

Cited by 100 publications

(107 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…First, measurement should involve attempts to separate the effect of research on policy inputs, such as position statements, outputs, such as regulatory change, and outcomes, such as improved air quality or safer public transport (Renkow and Byerlee, 2014;Hazell and Slade, 2014;Gaunand et al 2017;Almeida and Báscolo, 2006). This analytical differentiation is vital to measurement.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge management for policy impact: the case of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) employs over 2000 scientists and seeks to maximise the value and impact of research in the EU policy process. To that end, its Knowledge management for policy (KMP) initiative synthesised the insights of a large amount of interdisciplinary work on the 'evidence-policy interface' to promote a new skills and training agenda. It developed this training initially for Commission staff, but many of its insights are relevant to organisations which try to combine research, policymaking, management, and communication skills to improve the value and use of research in policy. We recommend that such organisations should develop teams of researchers, policymakers, and 'knowledge brokers' to produce eight key practices: (1) research synthesis, to generate 'state of the art' knowledge on a policy problem; (2) management of expert communities, to maximise collaboration; (3) understanding policymaking, to know when and how to present evidence; (4) interpersonal skills, to focus on relationships and interaction; (5) engagement, to include citizens and stakeholders; (6) effective communication of knowledge; (7) monitoring and evaluation, to identify the impact of evidence on policy; and (8) policy advice, to know how to present knowledge effectively and ethically. No one possesses all skills relevant to all these practices. Rather, we recommend that organisations at the evidence-policy interface produce teams of people with different backgrounds, perspectives, and complementary skills.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge management for policy impact: the case of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Policy makers have to sell, argue, advocate, and get reelected in light of their available political capital (26). The evidence for a particular action does not necessarily lead to policy change (3,147). Public health agencies often face obstacles from other stakeholders in proposing or implementing new evidence-based practices.…”

Section: Political Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence-Based Public Health: A Fundamental Concept for Public Health Practice

Brownson¹,

Fielding

Maylahn³

2009

Annu. Rev. Public Health

918

678

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the many accomplishments of public health, a greater attention to evidence-based approaches is warranted. This article reviews the concepts of evidence-based public health (EBPH), on which formal discourse originated about a decade ago. Key components of EBPH include making decisions on the basis of the best available scientific evidence, using data and information systems systematically, applying program-planning frameworks, engaging the community in decision making, conducting sound evaluation, and disseminating what is learned. Three types of evidence have been presented on the causes of diseases and the magnitude of risk factors, the relative impact of specific interventions, and how and under which contextual conditions interventions were implemented. Analytic tools (e.g., systematic reviews, economic evaluation) can be useful in accelerating the uptake of EBPH. Challenges and opportunities (e.g., political issues, training needs) for disseminating EBPH are reviewed. The concepts of EBPH outlined in this article hold promise to better bridge evidence and practice. 175

show abstract

“…Prior study has indicated that the policy making and research processes are heavily influenced by context (Rü tten et al 2003;Almeida and Báscolo 2006;Contandriopoulos et al 2010), and that policy making setting may be a factor in research utilization (Weiss 1978;James and Jorgensen 2009). In this study, we developed a conceptual framework to evaluate context, content, and rationale of the policy process simultaneously (Figure 3).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Use of research data in policy making has previously been characterized as instrumental (i.e., direct, actionable), conceptual (i.e., diffuse, gradually enlightening), or symbolic (i.e., strategic, tactical) (Pelz 1978;Weiss 1979;Trostle, Bronfman, and Langer 1999;Hanney et al 2003;Almeida and Báscolo 2006). We explore the symbolic use of research evidence.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

ComparativeLogic Modelingfor Policy Analysis: The Case of HIV Testing Policy Change at the Department of Veterans Affairs

Langer

Gifford

Chan

2011

Health Services Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. Logic models have been used to evaluate policy programs, plan projects, and allocate resources. Logic Modeling for policy analysis has been used rarely in health services research but can be helpful in evaluating the content and rationale of health policies. Comparative Logic Modeling is used here on human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) policy statements from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). We created visual representations of proposed HIV screening policy components in order to evaluate their structural logic and research-based justifications. Data Sources and Study Design. We performed content analysis of VA and CDC HIV testing policy documents in a retrospective case study. Data Collection. Using comparative Logic Modeling, we examined the content and primary sources of policy statements by the VA and CDC. We then quantified evidence-based causal inferences within each statement. Principal Findings. VA HIV testing policy structure largely replicated that of the CDC guidelines. Despite similar design choices, chosen research citations did not overlap. The agencies used evidence to emphasize different components of the policies. Conclusion. Comparative Logic Modeling can be used by health services researchers and policy analysts more generally to evaluate structural differences in health policies and to analyze research-based rationales used by policy makers.

show abstract

Use of research results in policy decision-making, formulation, and implementation: a review of the literature

Abstract: This paper offers a critical review of the theo-

Cited by 100 publications

References 31 publications

Knowledge management for policy impact: the case of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre

Knowledge management for policy impact: the case of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre

Evidence-Based Public Health: A Fundamental Concept for Public Health Practice

ComparativeLogic Modelingfor Policy Analysis: The Case of HIV Testing Policy Change at the Department of Veterans Affairs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About