75 research outputs found

    What we have learned about policy-research linkage from providing a rapid response facility for international healthcare comparisons to the Department of Health in England

    No full text
    In this paper we reflect on our experience of providing a rapid response facility for international healthcare policy comparisons to the English Department of Health. We examine the challenges of developing sustained relationships with policy officials while providing an 'on-demand' service in an environment with high turnover of policies and staff. It may be easier for policy makers to draw on researchers in such a setting than for researchers to foster 'linkage and exchange' relationships with policy makers. Under the facility, knowledge transfer has mostly been from researchers to policy officials, affording us little insight into the policy process or the impact of our work

    Evidence Advisory System Briefing Notes: Germany

    Get PDF
    There has been a growing global concern for improving the use of evidence to inform health policy in recent years. Increasingly there is recognition that individual projects or programmes building evidence synthesis skills, may be limited in their effect without a broader consideration of the systems in place which ‘embed’ or ‘institutionalise’ evidence informed policy making practices (Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research and WHO 2007). The GRIP-Health programme is a five-year project supported by the European Research Council which studies the political nature of health policy to understand how to best improve the use of evidence. This explicitly political lens enables us to focus on the contested nature of health issues as well as the institutions that shape the use of evidence in health policy making. We understand institutions as including both formal structures and rules, as well as informal norms and practices (Lowndes and Roberts 2013). The GRIP-Health programme follows the World Health Organization’s view that Ministries of Health remain the ultimate stewards of a nation’s health, and further play a key role in providing information to guide health decisions (World Health Organization 2000, Alvarez-Rosette, Hawkins, and Parkhurst 2013). As such, GRIP-Health is particularly concerned with the structures and rules created by government to gather, synthesise, or otherwise provide evidence to inform policy making. This working paper is one of a series of six briefs covering a set of countries in which the GRIP-Health programme is undertaking research. This brief presents an overview of what is termed the ‘Evidence Advisory System’ (EAS) for health policy making within the country of interest, which is taken to encompass the key entry points through which research evidence can make its way into relevant health policy decisions. This can include both formal (government mandated) and informal structures, rules, and norms in place. Individual reports in this series can be useful for those considering how to improve evidence use in specific country settings, while taken together the reports identify the differences that can be seen across contexts, permitting reflection or comparison across countries about how evidence advisory systems are structured – including which responsibilities are given to different types of bodies, and how well evidence advice aligns with decision making authority structures

    Advice on commissioning external academic evaluations of policy pilots in health and social care: a discussion paper

    Get PDF
    This discussion document aims to provide guidance to those thinking of initiating policy pilots and commissioning or requesting others to commission their evaluations. It addresses a number of issues that are specific to policy piloting and that need to be considered before selecting pilot sites and commissioning evaluation. Much advice on evaluation today is focused on advocating the adoption of specific study designs – especially randomised controlled trial (RCTs). While RCTs will be relevant to consider for specific purposes, as we discuss below, they may well not be the best option for the evaluation of policy pilots. We therefore aim to encourage consideration of a range of evaluation designs so as to capitalise fully on the opportunities for learning from policy piloting but, more importantly, to encourage more thinking about other aspects of commissioning evaluations of policy pilots. The advice is primarily designed for national level staff involved in policy making, programme management, monitoring and analysis, and responsible for initiating policy-relevant pilots and commissioning their evaluations

    Analysing evidence use in national health policy-making - an institutional approach

    Get PDF

    Direct Payments in Residential Care Trailblazer Programme Evaluation Preliminary report

    Get PDF
    This report is the first from the independent evaluation of the ‘trailblazers’. It is based on a scoping study carried out over the summer and autumn of 2013 consisting of a literature review, documentary analysis, interviews (June-September), collation of routine data and collection of descriptive data from trailblazers on their schemes for DPs

    Direct Payments in Residential Care Trailblazer Programme Evaluation. Preliminary Report.

    Get PDF

    Evaluation of Direct Payments in Residential Care. Final Report

    Get PDF

    Evalution of the Direct Payments in Residential Care Trailblazers. Interim Report.

    Get PDF
    • …
    corecore