Literature DB >> 23024846

Evidence-informed Health Policy Making: The Role of Policy Brief.

Fatemeh Rajabi1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Year:  2012        PMID: 23024846      PMCID: PMC3445273     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Prev Med        ISSN: 2008-7802


× No keyword cloud information.
The ultimate goal of a health system is community health promotion in an equitable manner. Various factors in the health system are all contributed in achieving this goal. Researchers in this system attempt to produce evidence to be used by decision makers in the health system including policy makers. Policy making is a complex task and though policy makers need scientific evidence, other factors such as values governing the health system, opinions of experts and community, and many other factors influence the final policy makers’ decisions.[1-3] Spreading and applying evidence in the health system is a complicated task and various individual and organizational factors affect it.[4] To increase scientific evidence contribution in decision making, evidence-informed health policy making (EVIP) began in late 1990s. EVIP is in fact an approach to decision making, goal of which is assuring that policy makers are informed from the best available scientific evidence in decision-making process. The major characteristic of this approach is an explicit and systematic process of search, critical appraisal, and selection of scientific evidence.[56] General confession on the gap between research and practice has led that today many activities are done for filling the research and decision-making gap. Review and search of scientific databases reveal that such activities are wide ranging from activities in research and researchers’ field (push activities) to activities in the field of users, decision makers, and policy makers (pull activities). There is a great set of activities within this range in the field of facilitators of science to practice (knowledge brokers).[6-8] Despite the measures taken and progress made, yet the amount of using scientific evidence in policy makers’ decisions is not desirable. Several studies have been done aimed at identifying strategies to promote use of evidence in policy making. Various barriers have been identified in this area and multidimensional interventions are needed to promote EVIP.[910] Effective interaction between researchers and policymakers including appropriate methods of knowledge transfer to policymakers has been identified as one of the best ways of increasing use of evidence obtained in research in the policy-making process.[1112] Several studies about knowledge transfer to policy makers have indicated that policy makers prefer to have and obtain highlighted evidence needed for decision making such as advantages and disadvantages and costs of alternative interventions. In addition, they tend to have information gathered on contextual and structural features affecting local application of global evidence. Reports′ format is as important as their contents in use of evidence by policy makers. Policy makers like to have information in a brief format so that they can review it quickly and if relevant, they consider more information.[1314] By increasing knowledge in the field of transferring evidence to policy makers, a collection of papers was published in 2009 called “SUPPORT Tools for Evidence-Informed Health Policymaking (STP)” which provides strategies for enhancing EVIP as a practical and step-by-step tool. Key areas discussed in these articles include identifying needs for evidence, finding and assessing evidence, and going from evidence to decisions about health systems. Tools discussed in this collection are helpful for different audiences, including researchers, senior, and junior policy makers.[1516] The policy brief is a relatively new tool for providing scientific evidence to policy makers which is designed for facilitating knowledge transfer to policy makers and is discussed in these articles. The first section of policy brief is dedicated to identification and analysis of the problem that is carried out by the help of scientific and local evidence in interaction with policy makers and researchers. The main fact is that use of systematic reviews that are used in preparing policy brief makes evidence review processes quick and applicable.[17] And thus, policy brief timeliness increases, which improves use of evidence by policy makers.[12] Then, various options for intervention are specified using scientific evidence, and costs, benefits, loss and harms due to interventions, and other key points related to implementation of options are given for suggested interventions. Quality of scientific evidence is evaluated by researchers. It helps policy makers to address concerns about reliability and validity of research results and thus increasing their use of scientific evidence.[17] In terms of the writing format, a policy brief should be written in a graded-entry format. In other words, ideally a policy brief should be prepared in such a way that the readers can consider the whole issue and its relevance to their problem and local condition with a quick look and read more if necessary. Because readers are often busy individuals in their work, the graded-entry format has been suggested in various forms. For example, 1:3:25 is one of writing formats.[18] 1:12 or two-pager formats are other suggested ones.[19] Following evidence collection and offering to the policy maker, the next step is policy dialogue meetings which inform policy makers about opinions of different stakeholders on the options obtained from evidence. These meetings will help policy makers to make a decision which is applicable and leads to optimal outcome.[20] The policy brief has been used in different countries and obtained results have been used for increasing its efficacy.[21] Although the main audience of the policy brief are policy makers who order the issue, publication of policy briefs in peer-reviewed journals may help capacity building in this field through increasing tendency and motivation in authors and familiarizing policy makers with this tool.[22] Besides, journals must consider their different audiences by providing specific massages for them in order to promote research knowledge translation.[2324] Also, the output obtained from the evidence has usability in other countries and communities. Reviewing scientific sources shows that reports of policy brief have been published in scientific journals in addition to specific web sites.[25] For the first time in Iran, a policy brief will be published in this issue of International Journal of Preventive Medicine which is about increasing physical activity.[26] It is hoped that it will be introduction to more familiarization of the researchers and policy makers with this tool and promotion of using policy brief in EVIP in Iran.
  20 in total

Review 1.  Health policy-makers' perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review.

Authors:  Simon Innvaer; Gunn Vist; Mari Trommald; Andrew Oxman
Journal:  J Health Serv Res Policy       Date:  2002-10

Review 2.  A framework for the dissemination and utilization of research for health-care policy and practice.

Authors:  Maureen Dobbins; Donna Ciliska; Rhonda Cockerill; Jan Barnsley; Alba DiCenso
Journal:  Online J Knowl Synth Nurs       Date:  2002-11-18

3.  Policy brief on improving access to artemisinin-based combination therapies for malaria in Burkina Faso.

Authors:  Bocar Kouyaté; Victor Nana
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 2.188

4.  'Linking research to action' in Iran: two decades after integration of the Health Ministry and the medical universities.

Authors:  R Majdzadeh; S Nedjat; J L Denis; B Yazdizadeh; J Gholami
Journal:  Public Health       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 2.427

5.  Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making.

Authors:  John Lavis; Huw Davies; Andy Oxman; Jean-Louis Denis; Karen Golden-Biddle; Ewan Ferlie
Journal:  J Health Serv Res Policy       Date:  2005-07

6.  Making evidence synthesis more useful for management and policy-making.

Authors:  Trevor A Sheldon
Journal:  J Health Serv Res Policy       Date:  2005-07

7.  Knowledge translation for research utilization: design of a knowledge translation model at Tehran University of Medical Sciences.

Authors:  Reza Majdzadeh; Jila Sadighi; Saharnaz Nejat; Ali Shahidzade Mahani; Jaleh Gholami
Journal:  J Contin Educ Health Prof       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.355

8.  Policy brief on promoting physical activity among adolescents.

Authors:  Leila Mounesan; Mahdi Sepidarkish; Hamed Hosseini; Ayat Ahmadi; Gelayol Ardalan; Roya Kelishadi; Reza Majdzadeh
Journal:  Int J Prev Med       Date:  2012-09

9.  Evidence-informed health policy 1 - synthesis of findings from a multi-method study of organizations that support the use of research evidence.

Authors:  John N Lavis; Andrew D Oxman; Ray Moynihan; Elizabeth J Paulsen
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2008-12-17       Impact factor: 7.327

10.  The utilisation of health research in policy-making: concepts, examples and methods of assessment.

Authors:  Stephen R Hanney; Miguel A Gonzalez-Block; Martin J Buxton; Maurice Kogan
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2003-01-13
View more
  3 in total

1.  Policy brief on promoting physical activity among adolescents.

Authors:  Leila Mounesan; Mahdi Sepidarkish; Hamed Hosseini; Ayat Ahmadi; Gelayol Ardalan; Roya Kelishadi; Reza Majdzadeh
Journal:  Int J Prev Med       Date:  2012-09

Review 2.  Gaps between research and public health priorities in low income countries: evidence from a systematic literature review focused on Cambodia.

Authors:  Sophie Goyet; Socheat Touch; Por Ir; Sovannchhorvin SamAn; Thomas Fassier; Roger Frutos; Arnaud Tarantola; Hubert Barennes
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2015-03-11       Impact factor: 7.327

3.  Bridging the gap between science and policy: an international survey of scientists and policy makers in China and Canada.

Authors:  Bernard C K Choi; Liping Li; Yaogui Lu; Li R Zhang; Yao Zhu; Anita W P Pak; Yue Chen; Julian Little
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2016-02-06       Impact factor: 7.327

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.