An evaluation of the evidence brief for policy development process in WHO EVIPNet Europe countries.

BACKGROUND: Evidence briefs for policy (EBPs) represent a potentially powerful tool for supporting evidence-informed policy-making. Since 2012, WHO Evidence-Informed Policy Network (EVIPNet) Europe has been supporting Member States in developing EBPs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the process of developing EBPs in Estonia, Hungary and Slovenia. METHODS: We used a rapid appraisal approach, combining semi-structured interviews and document review, guided by the Medical Research Council (MRC) process evaluation framework. Interviews were conducted with a total of 20 individuals familiar with the EBP process in the three study countries. Data were analysed thematically, and emerging themes were related back to the MRC framework components (implementation, mechanisms of impact, and context). We also reflected on the appropriateness of this evaluation approach for EVIPNet teams without evaluation research expertise to conduct themselves. RESULTS: The following themes emerged as important to the EBP development process: how the focus problem is prioritized, who initiates this process, EBP team composition, EBP team leadership, availability of external support in the process, and the culture of policy-making in a country. In particular, the EBP process seemed to be supported by early engagement of the Ministry of Health and other stakeholders as initiators, clear EBP team roles and expectations, including a strong leader, external support to strengthen EBP team capacity and cultural acceptance of the necessity of evidence-informed policy-making. Overall, the evaluation approach was considered feasible by the EBP teams and captured rich qualitative data, but may be limited by the absence of external reviewers and long lag times between the EBP process and the evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: This process occurs in a complex system and must be conceptualized in each country and each EBP project in a way that fits local policy-making culture, priorities, leadership and team styles, roles and available resources. The use of a rapid appraisal approach, combining qualitative interviews and document review, is a feasible method of process evaluation for EVIPNet member countries

Factors to Consider During Identification and Invitation of Individuals in a Multi-stakeholder Research Partnership

BACKGROUND: Health research teams increasingly partner with stakeholders to produce research that is relevant, accessible, and widely used. Previous work has covered stakeholder group identification. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop factors for health research teams to consider during identification and invitation of individual representatives in a multi-stakeholder research partnership, with the aim of forming equitable and informed teams. DESIGN: Consensus development. PARTICIPANTS: We involved 16 stakeholders from the international Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium, including patients and the public, providers, payers of health services/purchasers, policy makers, programme managers, peer review editors, and principal investigators. APPROACH: We engaged stakeholders in factor development and as co-authors of this manuscript. Using a modified Delphi approach, we gathered stakeholder views concerning a preliminary list of 18 factors. Over two feedback rounds, using qualitative and quantitative analysis, we concentrated these into ten factors. KEY RESULTS: We present seven highly desirable factors: ‘expertise or experience’, ‘ability and willingness to represent the stakeholder group’, ‘inclusivity (equity, diversity and intersectionality)’, ‘communication skills’, ‘commitment and time capacity’, ‘financial and non-financial relationships and activities, and conflict of interest’, ‘training support and funding needs’. Additionally, three factors are desirable: ‘influence’, ‘research relevant values’, ‘previous stakeholder engagement’. CONCLUSIONS: We present factors for research teams to consider during identification and invitation of individual representatives in a multi-stakeholder research partnership. Policy makers and guideline developers may benefit from considering the factors in stakeholder identification and invitation. Research funders may consider stipulating consideration of the factors in funding applications. We outline how these factors can be implemented and exemplify how their use has the potential to improve the quality and relevancy of health research. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-022-07411-w

National studies as a component of the World Health Organization initiative to estimate the global and regional burden of foodborne disease

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) initiative to estimate the global burden of foodborne diseases established the Foodborne Diseases Burden Epidemiology Reference Group (FERG) in 2007. In addition to global and regional estimates, the initiative sought to promote actions at a national level. This involved capacity building through national foodborne disease burden studies, and encouragement of the use of burden information in setting evidence-informed policies. To address these objectives a FERG Country Studies Task Force was established and has developed a suite of tools and resources to facilitate national burden of foodborne disease studies. This paper describes the process and lessons learned during the conduct of pilot country studies under the WHO FERG initiative. Findings: Pilot country studies were initiated in Albania, Japan and Thailand in 2011 and in Uganda in 2012. A brief description of each study is provided. The major scientific issue is a lack of data, particularly in relation to disease etiology, and attribution of disease burden to foodborne transmission. Situation analysis, knowledge translation, and risk communication to achieve evidence-informed policies require specialist expertise and resources. Conclusions: The FERG global and regional burden estimates will greatly enhance the ability of individual countries to fill data gaps and generate national estimates to support efforts to reduce the burden of foodborne disease

Knowledge Translation: Key Concepts, Terms and Activities

This chapter examines the key concepts and terms used in the knowledge translation literature and provides some useful definitions. The dominant metaphors that underpin knowledge translation theory and the assumptions on which these are built are critically explored. The chapter goes on to give some examples of the main activities and approaches used to share knowledge and provides some practical examples of each. Overall, it will be argued that there is a strong link between the type of evidence being shared, with whom it is shared, for what purpose, and the actual methods for knowledge translation that are adopted

Qualitative assessment of opportunities and challenges to improve evidence-informed health policy-making in Hungary – an EVIPNet situation analysis pilot

Abstract Background In evidence-informed policy-making (EIP), major knowledge gaps remain in understanding the context and possibilities for institutionalisation of knowledge translation. In 2014, the WHO Evidence-informed Policy Network (EVIPNet) Europe initiated a number of pilot countries, with Hungary among them, to engage in a ‘situation analysis’ (SA) in order to fill some of those gaps. This contribution discusses the results of the SA in Hungary on research–policy interactions, facilitating factors and potential barriers to establish a knowledge translation platform (KTP). Methods In line with the EVIPNet Europe SA Manual, a document analysis, 13 interviews, 3 focus group discussions with 21 participants, and an online survey with 31 respondents were carried out from April to October, 2015. A SA aims to assess the context in which EIP takes form and seeks opportunities to establish a KTP, so information was gathered on the current practice of EIP and knowledge translation, its relevant actors, enablers and barriers for EIP, and opinions on a future KTP. Methodological and researcher triangulation resulted in a narrative synthesis of data, including a comparison with literature. A stakeholder consultation was organised to validate findings. Results This study reveals that stakeholders show commitment to produce and use research evidence in Hungarian health policy-making. All stakeholders endorsed the idea of strengthening the systematic use of evidence in decision-making and favoured the idea of establishing a KTP. In line with literature on other countries, some good practices exist on the uptake of evidence in policy-making; however, a systematic approach of developing, translating and using research evidence in health policy processes is lacking. EIP is currently hampered by scattered capacity, coordination problems, high fluctuation in government, an often legalistic and a more ‘symbolic’ rather than practical support for knowledge translation and EIP. The article summarises recommendations on a Hungarian KTP. Conclusions Pragmatic adaptation of the SA Manual to local needs proved to be a useful mechanism to provide insight into the Hungarian EIP field and the establishment of a potential KTP. Despite the success of a KTP pilot, it remains unclear how a KTP in Hungary will be institutionalised in a sustainable way

National strategies for knowledge translation in health policy-making: A scoping review of grey literature

Abstract Background and objectives Without strategic actions in its support, the translation of scientific research evidence into health policy is often absent or delayed. This review systematically maps and assesses national-level strategic documents in the field of knowledge translation (KT) for health policy, and develops a practical template that can support Evidence-informed Policy Network (EVIPNet) Europe countries in producing national strategies for evidence-informed policy-making. Methods Websites of organizations with strategic responsibilities in KT were electronically searched, on the basis of pre-defined criteria, in July–August 2017, and an updated search was carried out in April–June 2021. We included national strategies or elements of national strategies that dealt with KT activities, as well as similar strategies of individual institutions with a national policy focus. Two reviewers screened the strategies for inclusion. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Results A total of 65 unique documents were identified, of which 17 were eligible and analysed for their structure and content. Of the 17, 1 document was a national health KT action plan and 6 documents were institution-level KT strategies. The remaining 10 strategies, which were also included were 2 national health strategies, 5 national health research strategies and 3 national KT strategies (not specific to the field of health alone). In all, 13 structural elements and 7 major themes of health policy KT strategies were identified from the included documents. Conclusion KT in health policy, as emerged from the national strategies that our mapping identified, is based on the production and accessibility of policy-relevant research, its packaging for policy-making and the activities related to knowledge exchange. KT strategies may play different roles in the complex and context-specific process of policy-making. Our findings show that the main ideas of health-specific evidence-informed policy literature appear in these strategies, but their effectiveness depends on the way stakeholders use them. Specific knowledge-brokering institutions and organizational capacity, advocacy about the use of evidence, and close collaboration and co-decision-making with key stakeholders are essential in furthering the policy uptake of research results

The Global Burden of Disease assessments--WHO is responsible?

The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) concept has been used by the World Health Organization (WHO) for its reporting on health information for nearly 10 years. The GBD approach results in a single summary measure of morbidity, disability, and mortality, the so-called disability-adjusted life year (DALY). To ensure transparency and objectivity in the derivation of health information, WHO has been urged to use reference groups of external experts to estimate burden of disease. Under the leadership and coordination of WHO, expert groups have been appraising and abstracting burden of disease information. Examples include the Child Health Epidemiology Reference Group (CHERG), the Malaria Monitoring and Evaluation Reference Group (MERG), and the recently established Foodborne Disease Burden Epidemiology Reference Group (FERG). The structure and functioning of and lessons learnt by these groups are described in this paper. External WHO expert groups have provided independent scientific health information while operating under considerable differences in structure and functioning. Although it is not appropriate to devise a single "best practice" model, the common thread described by all groups is the necessity of WHO's leadership and coordination to ensure the provision and dissemination of health information that is to be globally accepted and valued

Legislative Documents

Also, variously referred to as: House bills; House documents; House legislative documents; legislative documents; General Court documents

Legislative Documents

Also, variously referred to as: House bills; House documents; House legislative documents; legislative documents; General Court documents