STUDY OBJECTIVE: To garner research leaders' perceptions and experiences of the types of evidence that influence policy on health inequalities, and their reflections on how the flow of such research evidence could be increased. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Qualitative two day residential workshop with senior research leaders, most of whom were currently involved in evaluations of the health effects of major policies. In four in depth sessions, facilitated by the authors in turn, focused questions were presented to participants to reveal their views and experiences concerning evidence synthesis for policy on inequalities. These were analysed thematically. MAIN RESULTS: Five types of evidence for policy on health inequalities were felt to be particularly persuasive with policymakers: observational evidence showing the existing of a problem; narrative accounts of the impacts of policies from the household perspective; controlled evaluations; natural policy experiments; and historical evidence. Methods of improving the availability and use of these sources of information were put forward. CONCLUSIONS: This paper and its companion have considered the current evidence base for policies to reduce health inequalities, and how this could be improved. There is striking congruence between the views of the researchers in this study and policy advisers in paper 1, suggesting that a common understanding may be emerging. The findings suggest significant potential for rapid progress to be made in developing both evidence based policy, and policy relevant evidence to tackle inequalities in health.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To garner research leaders' perceptions and experiences of the types of evidence that influence policy on health inequalities, and their reflections on how the flow of such research evidence could be increased. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Qualitative two day residential workshop with senior research leaders, most of whom were currently involved in evaluations of the health effects of major policies. In four in depth sessions, facilitated by the authors in turn, focused questions were presented to participants to reveal their views and experiences concerning evidence synthesis for policy on inequalities. These were analysed thematically. MAIN RESULTS: Five types of evidence for policy on health inequalities were felt to be particularly persuasive with policymakers: observational evidence showing the existing of a problem; narrative accounts of the impacts of policies from the household perspective; controlled evaluations; natural policy experiments; and historical evidence. Methods of improving the availability and use of these sources of information were put forward. CONCLUSIONS: This paper and its companion have considered the current evidence base for policies to reduce health inequalities, and how this could be improved. There is striking congruence between the views of the researchers in this study and policy advisers in paper 1, suggesting that a common understanding may be emerging. The findings suggest significant potential for rapid progress to be made in developing both evidence based policy, and policy relevant evidence to tackle inequalities in health.
Authors: Mark Petticrew; Margaret Whitehead; Sally J Macintyre; Hilary Graham; Matt Egan Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: S Darby; E Whitley; P Silcocks; B Thakrar; M Green; P Lomas; J Miles; G Reeves; T Fearn; R Doll Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 1998-08 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Matt Egan; Mark Petticrew; David Ogilvie; Val Hamilton; Frances Drever Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Mary J Renfrew; Lisa Dyson; Gill Herbert; Alison McFadden; Felicia McCormick; James Thomas; Helen Spiby Journal: Health Expect Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 3.377