New directions in evidence-based policy research: a critical analysis of the literature.

Despite 40 years of research into evidence-based policy (EBP) and a continued drive from both policymakers and researchers to increase research uptake in policy, barriers to the use of evidence are persistently identified in the literature. However, it is not clear what explains this persistence - whether they represent real factors, or if they are artefacts of approaches used to study EBP. Based on an updated review, this paper analyses this literature to explain persistent barriers and facilitators. We critically describe the literature in terms of its theoretical underpinnings, definitions of 'evidence', methods, and underlying assumptions of research in the field, and aim to illuminate the EBP discourse by comparison with approaches from other fields. Much of the research in this area is theoretically naive, focusing primarily on the uptake of research evidence as opposed to evidence defined more broadly, and privileging academics' research priorities over those of policymakers. Little empirical data analysing the processes or impact of evidence use in policy is available to inform researchers or decision-makers. EBP research often assumes that policymakers do not use evidence and that more evidence - meaning research evidence - use would benefit policymakers and populations. We argue that these assumptions are unsupported, biasing much of EBP research. The agenda of 'getting evidence into policy' has side-lined the empirical description and analysis of how research and policy actually interact in vivo. Rather than asking how research evidence can be made more influential, academics should aim to understand what influences and constitutes policy, and produce more critically and theoretically informed studies of decision-making. We question the main assumptions made by EBP researchers, explore the implications of doing so, and propose new directions for EBP research, and health policy

A translational framework for public health research

<p><b>Background</b></p> <p>The paradigm of translational medicine that underpins frameworks such as the Cooksey report on the funding of health research does not adequately reflect the complex reality of the public health environment. We therefore outline a translational framework for public health research.</p> <p><b>Discussion</b></p> <p>Our framework redefines the objective of translation from that of institutionalising effective interventions to that of improving population health by influencing both individual and collective determinants of health. It incorporates epidemiological perspectives with those of the social sciences, recognising that many types of research may contribute to the shaping of policy, practice and future research. It also identifies a pivotal role for evidence synthesis and the importance of non-linear and intersectoral interfaces with the public realm.</p> <p><b>Summary</b></p> <p>We propose a research agenda to advance the field and argue that resources for 'applied' or 'translational' public health research should be deployed across the framework, not reserved for 'dissemination' or 'implementation'.</p&gt

The use of evidence in public governmental reports on health policy: an analysis of 17 Norwegian official reports (NOU)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Governments increasingly require policy documents to be evidence-based. This paper analyses the use of scientific evidence in such documents by reviewing reports from government-appointed committees in Norway to assess the committees' handling of questions of effect.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study uses the 'Index of Scientific Quality' (ISQ) to analyse all Norwegian official reports (NOUs) that were: (1) published by the Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services during 1994-1998 (N = 20); and (2) concerned with questions of effect either because these were included in the mandate or as a result of the committee's interpretation of the mandate. The ISQ is based on scientific criteria common in all research concerning questions of effect. The primary outcome measure is an ISQ score on a five-point scale.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Three reports were excluded because their mandates, or the committees' interpretations of them, did not address questions of effect. For the remaining 17 NOUs in our study, overall ISQ scores were low for systematic literature search and for explicit validation of research. Two reports had an average score of three or higher, while scores for five other reports were not far behind. How committees assessed the relevant factors was often unclear.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The reports' evaluations of health evidence in relation to questions of effect lacked transparency and, overall, showed little use of systematic processes. A systematic, explicit and transparent approach, following the standards laid down in the ISQ, may help generate the evidence-based decision-making that Norway, the UK, the EU and the WHO desire and seek. However, policy-makers may find the ISQ criteria for assessing the scientific quality of a report too narrow to adequately inform policy-making.</p

The utilisation of health research in policy-making: Concepts, examples and methods of assessment

The importance of health research utilisation in policy-making, and of understanding the mechanisms involved, is increasingly recognised. Recent reports calling for more resources to improve health in developing countries, and global pressures for accountability, draw greater attention to research-informed policy-making. Key utilisation issues have been described for at least twenty years, but the growing focus on health research systems creates additional dimensions. The utilisation of health research in policy-making should contribute to policies that may eventually lead to desired outcomes, including health gains. In this article, exploration of these issues is combined with a review of various forms of policy-making. When this is linked to analysis of different types of health research, it assists in building a comprehensive account of the diverse meanings of research utilisation. Previous studies report methods and conceptual frameworks that have been applied, if with varying degrees of success, to record utilisation in policy-making. These studies reveal various examples of research impact within a general picture of underutilisation. Factors potentially enhancing utilisation can be identified by exploration of: priority setting; activities of the health research system at the interface between research and policy-making; and the role of the recipients, or 'receptors', of health research. An interfaces and receptors model provides a framework for analysis. Recommendations about possible methods for assessing health research utilisation follow identification of the purposes of such assessments. Our conclusion is that research utilisation can be better understood, and enhanced, by developing assessment methods informed by conceptual analysis and review of previous studies

Dynamics of interprofessional teamwork: Why three logics are better than one

Much research has used three logics to understand the dynamics of interprofessionalism: 1) assimilation, that is, adapting the work of others; 2) segregation, where professional roles are separated and boundaries defended; and 3) integration, a perspective on the complementarity of professional roles. However, we found no studies analysing all three logics in connection with each other. Based on an ethnographic study of interprofessional teamwork in the field of mental health and substance use in Norway, this article explores the dynamics of interprofessionalism from all three perspectives. The data collection consisted of 14 observation sessions and 18 in-depth interviews of professionals in the field of health and social work. Investigating how, when and why each logic came into play, the results show the importance of including all three logics to leverage each one's purpose and function, and how they appear almost simultaneously in many situations. By investigating all three logics, the paper provides a broader, more comprehensive view of interprofessional teamwork

Contrasting supply-side, demand-side and combined approaches to Labour market integration

In social policy discussions about activation or ALMP (Active Labour Market Policies), most attention is paid to supply-side approaches, directed towards jobless individuals. In these discussions, little attention is given to demand-side approaches aimed at activating employers, or combined workplaceoriented approaches that combine supply and demand-side elements. The aim of this article is to introduce demand-side and combined approaches developed within the fields of disability policy and vocational rehabilitation to scholarly discussions about activation and ALMP. By comparing these three approaches, we show that demand-side and combined approaches challenge key assumptions underlying the dominant supply-side approaches. They do so by representing different views of a) work – as a right instead of a duty; b) the problem of reduced work capacity – not as individual failure, but rather as a prejudice in attitudes among employers or as a gap between capacities and demands; c) the employers and the labour market – as transformable instead of fixed. Supply-side, demand-side and combined workplace-oriented approaches share the aim of labour market integration; however, their developments seem to have taken place largely in isolation from each other. We argue that when brought together they could form a more comprehensive base for further development of labour market integration

New directions in evidence-based policy research: a critical analysis of the literature

Despite 40 years of research into evidence-based policy (EBP) and a continued drive from both policymakers and researchers to increase research uptake in policy, barriers to the use of evidence are persistently identified in the literature. However, it is not clear what explains this persistence - whether they represent real factors, or if they are artefacts of approaches used to study EBP. Based on an updated review, this paper analyses this literature to explain persistent barriers and facilitators. We critically describe the literature in terms of its theoretical underpinnings, definitions of 'evidence', methods, and underlying assumptions of research in the field, and aim to illuminate the EBP discourse by comparison with approaches from other fields. Much of the research in this area is theoretically naive, focusing primarily on the uptake of research evidence as opposed to evidence defined more broadly, and privileging academics' research priorities over those of policymakers. Little empirical data analysing the processes or impact of evidence use in policy is available to inform researchers or decision-makers. EBP research often assumes that policymakers do not use evidence and that more evidence - meaning research evidence - use would benefit policymakers and populations. We argue that these assumptions are unsupported, biasing much of EBP research. The agenda of 'getting evidence into policy' has side-lined the empirical description and analysis of how research and policy actually interact in vivo. Rather than asking how research evidence can be made more influential, academics should aim to understand what influences and constitutes policy, and produce more critically and theoretically informed studies of decision-making. We question the main assumptions made by EBP researchers, explore the implications of doing so, and propose new directions for EBP research, and health policy