The importance of basing public policy on sound scientific evidence is increasingly being recognized, yet many barriers continue to slow the translation of prevention research into legislative action. This work reports on the feasibility of a model for overcoming these barriers—known as the Research-to-Policy Collaboration (RPC). The RPC employs strategic legislative needs assessments and a rapid response Researcher Network to accelerate the translation of research findings into usable knowledge for policymakers. Evaluation findings revealed that this model can successfully mobilize prevention scientists, engage legislative offices, connect policymakers and experts in prevention, and elicit congressional requests for evidence on effective prevention strategies. On average, the RPC model costs $3,510 to implement per legislative office. The RPC can elicit requests for evidence at an average cost of $444 per request. The implications of this work, opportunities for optimizing project elements, and plans for future work are discussed. Ultimately, this project signals that the use of scientific knowledge of prevention in policymaking can be greatly augmented through strategic investment in translational efforts.
There is extensive health and public health literature on the 'evidence-policy gap', exploring the frustrating experiences of scientists trying to secure a response to the problems and solutions they raise and identifying the need for better evidence to reduce policymaker uncertainty. We offer a new perspective by using policy theory to propose research with greater impact, identifying the need to use persuasion to reduce ambiguity, and to adapt to multi-level policymaking systems.We identify insights from secondary data, namely systematic reviews, critical analysis and policy theories relevant to evidence-based policymaking. The studies are drawn primarily from countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We combine empirical and normative elements to identify the ways in which scientists can, do and could influence policy.We identify two important dilemmas, for scientists and researchers, that arise from our initial advice. First, effective actors combine evidence with manipulative emotional appeals to influence the policy agenda - should scientists do the same, or would the reputational costs outweigh the policy benefits? Second, when adapting to multi-level policymaking, should scientists prioritise 'evidence-based' policymaking above other factors? The latter includes governance principles such the 'co-production' of policy between local public bodies, interest groups and service users. This process may be based primarily on values and involve actors with no commitment to a hierarchy of evidence.We conclude that successful engagement in 'evidence-based policymaking' requires pragmatism, combining scientific evidence with governance principles, and persuasion to translate complex evidence into simple stories. To maximise the use of scientific evidence in health and public health policy, researchers should recognise the tendency of policymakers to base judgements on their beliefs, and shortcuts based on their emotions and familiarity with information; learn 'where the action is', and be prepared to engage in long-term strategies to be able to influence policy; and, in both cases, decide how far you are willing to go to persuade policymakers to act and secure a hierarchy of evidence underpinning policy. These are value-driven and political, not just 'evidence-based', choices.
Background: The challenges in the utilization of scientific findings in the fields of prevention and mental health are well documented. Scholars have found significant gaps between the knowledge available and the knowledge applied in healthcare. Studies have suggested that about half of the patients receive the recommended care for their medical condition. In order to address this gap, health systems at global, national, regional and local levels have made diverse efforts to facilitate the uptake of research for example through evidence-based health policy processes. In Sweden, government agencies and health policy actors such as the National Board of Health and Welfare support and control the health care system through evidence-based policies amongst other steering tools. The overall aim of this thesis is to explore evidence-based policy processes, and to further understand barriers to implementation of policies in the fields of preventive and mental health services. Methods: A multiple case study approach was used, and data were collected from several sources. Qualitative content analysis methodology was used. Case 1 comprises the development and early implementation of national guidelines for methods of preventing disease managed by the National Board of Health and Welfare during 2007–2014. Case 2 covers the effort to improve health care for the older population that was undertaken through an agreement between the Swedish government and the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions during 2009–2014. Case 3 involves an effort to implement an adapted version of a systematic review from the Swedish agency for health technology assessment and assessment of social services on treatment of depression in primary health care. Data was collected between 2007 and 2010. In Paper 1, the policies from Case 1 and 2 were studied using a longitudinal, comparative case study approach. Data were collected through interviews, documents and observations. A conceptual model was developed based on prior frameworks. The model was used to organize and analyse the data. In Paper 2, the guideline development process (Case 1) was studied through interviews and the collection of documents. A prior framework on guideline quality was used in order to organize the data. Paper 3 investigated decision-making processes during guideline development using a longitudinal approach. Qualitative data were collected from questionnaires, documents and observations and analysed using conventional and summative content analysis. In Paper 4, the barriers to implementation were investigated through interviews and the collection of documents. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis with a conceptual model to structure the analysis. Results: The sources and procedures for policy formulation differed in Case 1 and 2, as did the approaches to promote the implementation of the policies. The policy processes were cyclical, and phases overlapped to a large degree. The policy actors intended to promote implementation, both during and after the policy formulation process. The thesis shows variation in how the key policy actors defined and used research evidence in the policy processes. In addition, other types of knowledge (e.g. politics, context, experience) served as alternative or multiple sources to inform the health policies. The composition of sources that informed the policies changed over time in Cases 1 and B. During the policy formulation and implementation process, efforts to integrate research evidence with clinical experiences and values were associated with tension and recurrent dilemmas. On the local level (i.e. primary health care centres), barriers to implementation were found related to the innovation and among health professionals, patients, in social networks as well as in the organizational, economic and political contexts. Conclusion: The concept of evidence holds a key position in terms of goals and means for knowledge based policymaking in the Swedish health system. Broad definitions of evidence – including research and non-research evidence - were requested and to various extents utilized by the policy actors in the studied cases. An explicit terminology and systematic, transparent methodology to define, identify, and assess also non-research evidence in policy processes would potentially strengthen the clarity and validity of these processes and also enhance policy implementation. Particular determinants to implementation, such as the interventions characteristic, are to a considerable degree established early in the policy process, during agenda setting and policy formulation. This early phase offers unique opportunities to assess and build capacity, initiate and facilitate implementation. Early analysis and considerations of target populations and contexts and other implementation determinants related to the specific policy scope (e.g. disease preventive guidelines) could enhance the forth-coming implementation of the policy.
AbstractThe COVID-19 pandemic transformed our understanding of the state's role during a public health crisis and introduced an array of unprecedented policy tools: ever-stricter travel restrictions, lockdowns and closures of whole branches of the economy. Evidence-based policymaking seems to be the gold standard of such high-stakes policy interventions. This article presents an empirical investigation into the regulatory impact assessments accompanying sixty-four executive acts (regulations) introducing anti-pandemic restrictions in Poland over the first year of the pandemic. To this end, the study utilises the so-called scorecard methodology, which is popular in regulatory impact assessment research. This methodology highlights the shallowness of these documents and the accompanying processes, with an absence not only of a sound evidence base behind specific anti-pandemic measures or estimates of their economic impacts, but even of the comparative data on restrictions introduced in other European Union/Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. Overall, the collected data support the hypothesis that the ad hoc pandemic management process crowded out the law-making process through tools such as regulatory impact assessments and consultations. In other words, the genuine decision-making occurred elsewhere (with the exact process being largely invisible to public opinion and scholars) and drafting legal texts simply codified these decisions, with the law-making process becoming mere window-dressing.
AbstractThis article studies how different systems of policy advice are suited to provide relevant knowledge in times of acute crisis. The notion of evidence-based policymaking (EBP) originated in the successful 1997 New Labour program in the United Kingdom to formulate policy based not on ideology but on sound empirical evidence. We provide a brief overview of the history of the concept and the current debates around it. We then outline the main characteristics of the policy advisory systems in Germany, Switzerland, and Italy through which scientific knowledge—in the form of either person-bound expertise or evidence generated through standard scientific processes—was fed into policy formulation processes before the COVID-19 crisis. Whereas EBP takes place in the form of institutionalized advisory bodies and draws on expertise rather than on evidence in Germany, the system in Switzerland focuses more on the use of evidence provided through external mandates. Italy has a hybrid politicized expert system. The article then analyzes how this different prioritization of expertise vs. evidence in the three countries affects policymakers' capacity to include scientific knowledge in policy decisions in times of acute crisis. The comparison of the three countries implies that countries with policy advisory systems designed to use expertise are better placed to incorporate scientific knowledge into their decisions in times of acute crisis than are countries with policy advisory systems that relied primarily on evidence before the COVID-19 crisis.
Abstract This article studies how different systems of policy advice are suited to provide relevant knowledge in times of acute crisis. The notion of evidence-based policymaking (EBP) originated in the successful 1997 New Labour program in the United Kingdom to formulate policy based not on ideology but on sound empirical evidence. We provide a brief overview of the history of the concept and the current debates around it. We then outline the main characteristics of the policy advisory systems in Germany, Switzerland, and Italy through which scientific knowledge—in the form of either person-bound expertise or evidence generated through standard scientific processes—was fed into policy formulation processes before the COVID-19 crisis. Whereas EBP takes place in the form of institutionalized advisory bodies and draws on expertise rather than on evidence in Germany, the system in Switzer- land focuses more on the use of evidence provided through external mandates. Italy has a hybrid politicized expert system. The article then analyzes how this different prioritization of expertise vs. evidence in the three countries affects policymakers' capacity to include scientific knowledge in policy decisions in times of acute crisis. The comparison of the three countries implies that countries with policy advisory systems designed to use expertise are better placed to incorporate scientific knowledge into their decisions in times of acute crisis than are countries with policy advisory systems that relied primarily on evidence before the COVID-19 crisis.
This article studies how different systems of policy advice are suited to provide relevant knowledge in times of acute crisis. The notion of evidence-based policymaking (EBP) originated in the successful 1997 New Labour program in the United Kingdom to formulate policy based not on ideology but on sound empirical evidence. We provide a brief overview of the history of the concept and the current debates around it. We then outline the main characteristics of the policy advisory systems in Germany, Switzerland, and Italy through which scientific knowledge—in the form of either person-bound expertise or evidence generated through standard scientific processes—was fed into policy formulation processes before the COVID-19 crisis. Whereas EBP takes place in the form of institutionalized advisory bodies and draws on expertise rather than on evidence in Germany, the system in Switzerland focuses more on the use of evidence provided through external mandates. Italy has a hybrid politicized expert system. The article then analyzes how this different prioritization of expertise vs. evidence in the three countries affects policymakers' capacity to include scientific knowledge in policy decisions in times of acute crisis. The comparison of the three countries implies that countries with policy advisory systems designed to use expertise are better placed to incorporate scientific knowledge into their decisions in times of acute crisis than are countries with policy advisory systems that relied primarily on evidence before the COVID-19 crisis. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11615-022-00382-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
This article studies how different systems of policy advice are suited to provide relevant knowledge in times of acute crisis. The notion of evidence-based policymaking (EBP) originated in the successful 1997 New Labour program in the United Kingdom to formulate policy based not on ideology but on sound empirical evidence. We provide a brief overview of the history of the concept and the current debates around it. We then outline the main characteristics of the policy advisory systems in Germany, Switzerland, and Italy through which scientific knowledge—in the form of either person-bound expertise or evidence generated through standard scientific processes—was fed into policy formulation processes before the COVID-19 crisis. Whereas EBP takes place in the form of institutionalized advisory bodies and draws on expertise rather than on evidence in Germany, the system in Switzerland focuses more on the use of evidence provided through external mandates. Italy has a hybrid politicized expert system. The article then analyzes how this different prioritization of expertise vs. evidence in the three countries affects policymakers' capacity to include scientific knowledge in policy decisions in times of acute crisis. The comparison of the three countries implies that countries with policy advisory systems designed to use expertise are better placed to incorporate scientific knowledge into their decisions in times of acute crisis than are countries with policy advisory systems that relied primarily on evidence before the COVID-19 crisis.
This article discusses the strained nature of the relationship between the research/analytic world and the policy/political world. The research/analytic world in general and the statistical community in particular are portrayed as not wanting to be pulled into partisan politics. At the same time, the policy makers are portrayed as not seeing that statistical analysis is essential to confronting difficult real-world decisions. The article points out that there is a fundamental pressure pushing the two together: the federal budget. It shows that over the past decade or two, funding for statistical agencies has been under increasing pressure to show the "return on investment" of the taxpayers' dollars. The article suggests that the way out of this problem is by becoming an essential partner with the policy makers in dealing with the challenging issues that they face by supporting and advancing evidence-based policymaking.
This article discusses the strained nature of the relationship between the research/analytic world and the policy/political world. The research/analytic world in general and the statistical community in particular are portrayed as not wanting to be pulled into partisan politics. At the same time, the policy makers are portrayed as not seeing that statistical analysis is essential to confronting difficult real-world decisions. The article points out that there is a fundamental pressure pushing the two together: the federal budget. It shows that over the past decade or two, funding for statistical agencies has been under increasing pressure to show the "return on investment" of the taxpayers' dollars. The article suggests that the way out of this problem is by becoming an essential partner with the policy makers in dealing with the challenging issues that they face by supporting and advancing evidence-based policymaking. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright The American Academy of Political and Social Science.]
