Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.1332/174426421x16420923635594
Ashley Schram, B. Townsend, T. Mackean, T. Freeman, Matt Fisher, P. Harris, M. Whitehead, H. van Eyk, F. Baum, S. Friel
Background: Insufficient progress has been made towards reducing health inequities, due in part to a lack of action on the root causes of health inequities. At present, there is a limited evidence base to guide policy decision making in this space.Key points for discussion: This paper proposes new principles for researchers to conduct health equity policy evaluation. Four key principles are presented: (1) where to evaluate – shifting from familiar to unfamiliar terrain; (2) who to evaluate – shifting from structures of vulnerability to structures of privilege; (3) what to evaluate – shifting from simple figures to complex constructs; and (4) how to evaluate – shifting from ‘gold standard’ to more appropriate ‘fit-for-purpose’ designs. These four principles translate to modifying the policy domains investigated, the populations targeted, the indicators selected, and the methods employed during health equity policy evaluation. The development and implementation of these principles over a five-year programme of work is demonstrated through case studies which reflect the principles in practice.Conclusions and implications: The principles are shared to encourage other researchers to develop evaluation designs of sufficient complexity that they can advance the contribution of health equity policy evaluation to structural policy reforms. As a result, policies and actions on the social determinants of health might be better oriented to achieve the redistribution of power and resources needed to address the root causes of health inequities.Key messagesReducing health inequities requires policy reforms that redistribute power and resources.Guidance on evaluating policy for health equity to shape structural policy reform is limited.Four principles are offered to guide who and what is evaluated, and how and where evaluation occurs.Use of these principles may enhance the impact of policy evaluation in reducing health inequities.
{"title":"Promoting action on structural drivers of health inequity: principles for policy evaluation","authors":"Ashley Schram, B. Townsend, T. Mackean, T. Freeman, Matt Fisher, P. Harris, M. Whitehead, H. van Eyk, F. Baum, S. Friel","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16420923635594","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16420923635594","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Insufficient progress has been made towards reducing health inequities, due in part to a lack of action on the root causes of health inequities. At present, there is a limited evidence base to guide policy decision making in this space.Key points for discussion: This paper proposes new principles for researchers to conduct health equity policy evaluation. Four key principles are presented: (1) where to evaluate – shifting from familiar to unfamiliar terrain; (2) who to evaluate – shifting from structures of vulnerability to structures of privilege; (3) what to evaluate – shifting from simple figures to complex constructs; and (4) how to evaluate – shifting from ‘gold standard’ to more appropriate ‘fit-for-purpose’ designs. These four principles translate to modifying the policy domains investigated, the populations targeted, the indicators selected, and the methods employed during health equity policy evaluation. The development and implementation of these principles over a five-year programme of work is demonstrated through case studies which reflect the principles in practice.Conclusions and implications: The principles are shared to encourage other researchers to develop evaluation designs of sufficient complexity that they can advance the contribution of health equity policy evaluation to structural policy reforms. As a result, policies and actions on the social determinants of health might be better oriented to achieve the redistribution of power and resources needed to address the root causes of health inequities.Key messagesReducing health inequities requires policy reforms that redistribute power and resources.Guidance on evaluating policy for health equity to shape structural policy reform is limited.Four principles are offered to guide who and what is evaluated, and how and where evaluation occurs.Use of these principles may enhance the impact of policy evaluation in reducing health inequities.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66287612","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.1332/174426421x16432180922551
Katey Thom, Stella Black, D. Burnside, Jessica Hastings
Background: Ninety-one per cent of Aotearoa New Zealand prisoners have been diagnosed with either a mental health or substance use disorder within their lifetime. Challenges exist in how to meet their needs. Diverse purakau (stories) of success in whanau ora (wellbeing) and stopping offending are missing from academic and public discourse that should direct law and policy changes.Aims and objectives: We describe a kaupapa Maori co-production project called He Ture Kia Tika/Let the Law be Right. We highlight how kaumatua (Maori indigenous elders), academics, and practitioners merged their voices with people with lived experiences of mental health, addiction, and incarceration to create justice policy and solutions.Methods: We focus on the theory and application of our co-production, directed by kaupapa Maori methodology. We describe the work of a co-design group that actively guides the project, from inception towards completion, using rangahau kawa (research protocols) as culturally clear guidelines and ethically safe practices. We then detail our processes involved in the collection of co-created purakau (storytelling) with 40 whanau (family) participants, and describe our continued collaboration to ensure law and policy recommendations are centred on lived experiences.Findings: Kaupapa Maori informed co-production ensured rangahau kawa (research protocol and guidelines) were created that gave clear direction for an engagement at all levels of the project. We see this as bringing to life co-production, moving beyond theory to the practicalities of ‘being’ and ‘doing’ with each other in safe, ethical ways for all.Discussions and conclusions: A strong association exists between unmet mental health needs and reoffending. Tackling cultural, health, social and justice issues requires a multi-layered approach from a range of rangatira (leaders including kaumatua/elders) and tohunga, or experts, of their lived experiences to inform future policy and law reform.Key messagesThe rationale for the paper draws on the expertise of those with lived experiences to determine how research can be co-designed and co-produced.The paper outlines how kaupapa Maori (cultural approach) can direct co-production.The co-creation of a research kawa (protocol) provided culturally clear guidelines and safe practices.Kaupapa Maori co-production details the creative processes used in co-creating whanau korero purakau (participant storytelling).
背景:91%的新西兰奥特罗阿囚犯在其一生中被诊断患有精神健康或物质使用障碍。如何满足他们的需求存在挑战。学术和公共话语本应指导法律和政策的变化，但却缺少在幸福和停止冒犯方面取得成功的各种故事。目的和目标:我们描述了一个kaupapa毛利人合作制作项目，名为He Ture Kia Tika/让法律正确。我们强调kaumatua(毛利土著长老)、学者和从业者如何将他们的声音与有精神健康、成瘾和监禁经历的人结合起来，以制定司法政策和解决方案。方法:我们以考帕帕毛利方法论为指导，重点研究我们合作制作的理论和应用。我们描述了一个共同设计小组的工作，他们积极指导项目，从开始到完成，使用rangahau kawa(研究协议)作为文化上清晰的指导方针和道德上安全的实践。然后，我们详细介绍了我们与40名whanau(家庭)参与者共同创作的purakau(讲故事)的收集过程，并描述了我们的持续合作，以确保法律和政策建议以生活经验为中心。结果:考帕帕毛利人知情的合作制作确保了rangahau kawa(研究协议和指导方针)的制定，为项目各级的参与提供了明确的方向。我们认为这是将合作生产带入生活，超越理论，以安全、道德的方式为所有人“存在”和“做”。讨论与结论:未满足的心理健康需求与再犯之间存在着强烈的联系。解决文化、卫生、社会和司法问题需要一系列rangatira(包括kaumatua/长老在内的领导人)和tohunga(或专家)采取多层次的方法，以他们的生活经验为未来的政策和法律改革提供信息。关键信息本文的基本原理借鉴了那些有生活经验的人的专业知识，以确定如何共同设计和共同生产研究。这篇论文概述了kaupapa Maori(文化方法)如何指导合作制作。共同制定的研究协议提供了文化上清晰的指导方针和安全的做法。Kaupapa毛利人合作制作详细介绍了共同创作whanau korero purakau(参与式讲故事)的创作过程。
{"title":"He Ture Kia Tika/Let the Law Be Right: informing evidence-based policy through kaupapa Maori and co-production of lived experience","authors":"Katey Thom, Stella Black, D. Burnside, Jessica Hastings","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16432180922551","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16432180922551","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Ninety-one per cent of Aotearoa New Zealand prisoners have been diagnosed with either a mental health or substance use disorder within their lifetime. Challenges exist in how to meet their needs. Diverse purakau (stories) of success in whanau ora (wellbeing) and stopping offending are missing from academic and public discourse that should direct law and policy changes.Aims and objectives: We describe a kaupapa Maori co-production project called He Ture Kia Tika/Let the Law be Right. We highlight how kaumatua (Maori indigenous elders), academics, and practitioners merged their voices with people with lived experiences of mental health, addiction, and incarceration to create justice policy and solutions.Methods: We focus on the theory and application of our co-production, directed by kaupapa Maori methodology. We describe the work of a co-design group that actively guides the project, from inception towards completion, using rangahau kawa (research protocols) as culturally clear guidelines and ethically safe practices. We then detail our processes involved in the collection of co-created purakau (storytelling) with 40 whanau (family) participants, and describe our continued collaboration to ensure law and policy recommendations are centred on lived experiences.Findings: Kaupapa Maori informed co-production ensured rangahau kawa (research protocol and guidelines) were created that gave clear direction for an engagement at all levels of the project. We see this as bringing to life co-production, moving beyond theory to the practicalities of ‘being’ and ‘doing’ with each other in safe, ethical ways for all.Discussions and conclusions: A strong association exists between unmet mental health needs and reoffending. Tackling cultural, health, social and justice issues requires a multi-layered approach from a range of rangatira (leaders including kaumatua/elders) and tohunga, or experts, of their lived experiences to inform future policy and law reform.Key messagesThe rationale for the paper draws on the expertise of those with lived experiences to determine how research can be co-designed and co-produced.The paper outlines how kaupapa Maori (cultural approach) can direct co-production.The co-creation of a research kawa (protocol) provided culturally clear guidelines and safe practices.Kaupapa Maori co-production details the creative processes used in co-creating whanau korero purakau (participant storytelling).","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85651693","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.1332/174426421x16437342906266
R. Webber, R. Partridge, C. Grindell
Background: Evidence-based guidelines provide clinicians with best practice recommendations but not the means to implement them. Although co-design is increasingly promoted as a way to improve implementation there is frequently insufficient detail provided to understand its contribution. The presented case study addresses this by providing a detailed account of how a specific co-design approach contributed to an improving back pain education project in line with national guidance.Aim: The aim was to use creative co-design to produce prototype evidence-based back pain educational resources that were sensitive to context.Objectives:Assemble a group of relevant stakeholders for a series of workshops.Use creative activities that encourage divergent and convergent thinking to iteratively understand the problem and develop prototype solutions.Thematically analyse outputs of each workshop to determine content of subsequent workshops.Present a final prototype ready for implementation.Key conclusions:This approach produced an innovative system of thematically linked back pain educational resources that were contextually sensitive, evidence-based and ready for implementation.Research knowledge was successfully blended with stakeholder experiential knowledge.The creative methods helped diverse stakeholders develop trusting relationships and ensured everyone’s experiences and ideas were included.The process of co-creation and the objects created had vital roles in surfacing and understanding stakeholder knowledge, promoting innovation and facilitating implementation.The design process facilitated an evolving understanding of a complex problem alongside prototype development.It is recommended that these methods be considered by other project teams.Key messagesTo bring about meaningful change, evidence-based guidelines need to be implemented in ways that are sensitive to context and the complexity of healthcare.Co-production has the potential to produce better solutions but has its own challenges.Creative co-design can be an effective approach for overcoming these challenges.
{"title":"The creative co-design of low back pain education resources","authors":"R. Webber, R. Partridge, C. Grindell","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16437342906266","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16437342906266","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Evidence-based guidelines provide clinicians with best practice recommendations but not the means to implement them. Although co-design is increasingly promoted as a way to improve implementation there is frequently insufficient detail provided to understand its contribution. The presented case study addresses this by providing a detailed account of how a specific co-design approach contributed to an improving back pain education project in line with national guidance.Aim: The aim was to use creative co-design to produce prototype evidence-based back pain educational resources that were sensitive to context.Objectives:Assemble a group of relevant stakeholders for a series of workshops.Use creative activities that encourage divergent and convergent thinking to iteratively understand the problem and develop prototype solutions.Thematically analyse outputs of each workshop to determine content of subsequent workshops.Present a final prototype ready for implementation.Key conclusions:This approach produced an innovative system of thematically linked back pain educational resources that were contextually sensitive, evidence-based and ready for implementation.Research knowledge was successfully blended with stakeholder experiential knowledge.The creative methods helped diverse stakeholders develop trusting relationships and ensured everyone’s experiences and ideas were included.The process of co-creation and the objects created had vital roles in surfacing and understanding stakeholder knowledge, promoting innovation and facilitating implementation.The design process facilitated an evolving understanding of a complex problem alongside prototype development.It is recommended that these methods be considered by other project teams.Key messagesTo bring about meaningful change, evidence-based guidelines need to be implemented in ways that are sensitive to context and the complexity of healthcare.Co-production has the potential to produce better solutions but has its own challenges.Creative co-design can be an effective approach for overcoming these challenges.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82162978","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.1332/174426421x16420955772641
J. Bandola-Gill, Megan Arthur, R. Leng
Background: ‘Co-production’ is one of the key concepts in evidence-informed policy and practice – in terms of both its theoretical importance and its practical applications - being consistently discussed as the most effective strategy for mobilising evidence in policy and practice contexts. The concept of co-production was developed (almost) independently across multiple disciplines and has been employed in various policy and practice fields including environment, sustainability, and health.Aims and objectives: This paper surveys the literature to identify different meanings of co-production across different disciplinary bodies of knowledge. Such exploration is aimed at identifying the key points of convergence and divergence across different disciplinary and theoretical traditions.Methods: We performed a systematic search of Web of Science via a query designed to capture literature likely focusing on co-production, and then manually examined each document for relevance. Citation network analysis was then used to ‘map’ this literature by grouping papers into clusters based on the density of citation links between papers. The top-cited papers within each cluster were thematically analysed.Findings: This research identified five meanings of co-production, understood as a science-politics relationship, as knowledge democracy, as transdisciplinarity, as boundary management, and as an evidence-use intervention.Discussion and conclusions: Even though different clusters of scholarship exploring co-production are closely connected, this concept is mobilised to capture phenomena at different levels of abstraction – from post-structuralist theories of knowledge and power to specific strategies to be employed by researchers and policymakers.Key messagesThe paper identifies five meanings of co-production: understood as a science-politics relationship, as knowledge democracy, as transdisciplinarity, as boundary management, and as an evidence-use intervention.Co-production is a multi-level phenomenon occurring at the level of socio-political systems, the level of institutions, and the level of situated practices.The paper identifies a need for definitional transparency and cross-disciplinary learning about co-production.
背景:“合作生产”是循证政策和实践中的关键概念之一——就其理论重要性和实际应用而言——作为在政策和实践背景下动员证据的最有效战略一直被讨论。合作生产的概念(几乎)是跨多个学科独立开发的，并已应用于各种政策和实践领域，包括环境、可持续性和健康。目的和目标:本文调查了文献，以确定跨不同学科知识体系的合作生产的不同含义。这种探索的目的是确定不同学科和理论传统之间的趋同和分歧的关键点。方法:我们通过一个查询对Web of Science进行了系统搜索，该查询旨在捕获可能关注合作制作的文献，然后手动检查每个文档的相关性。然后使用引文网络分析，根据论文之间的引文链接密度将论文分组，从而“绘制”这些文献。对每个聚类中被引用最多的论文进行了主题分析。研究发现:本研究确定了合作生产的五种含义，即科学-政治关系、知识民主、跨学科、边界管理和证据使用干预。讨论和结论:尽管探索合作生产的不同学术集群紧密相连，但这一概念被用来捕捉不同抽象层次的现象——从知识和权力的后结构主义理论到研究人员和政策制定者所采用的具体策略。本文确定了合作生产的五种含义:理解为科学-政治关系、知识民主、跨学科、边界管理和证据使用干预。合作生产是一种多层次的现象，发生在社会政治制度、制度和实践层面。这篇论文指出，需要对合作制作的定义透明度和跨学科学习。
{"title":"What is co-production? Conceptualising and understanding co-production of knowledge and policy across different theoretical perspectives","authors":"J. Bandola-Gill, Megan Arthur, R. Leng","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16420955772641","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16420955772641","url":null,"abstract":"Background: ‘Co-production’ is one of the key concepts in evidence-informed policy and practice – in terms of both its theoretical importance and its practical applications - being consistently discussed as the most effective strategy for mobilising evidence in policy and practice contexts. The concept of co-production was developed (almost) independently across multiple disciplines and has been employed in various policy and practice fields including environment, sustainability, and health.Aims and objectives: This paper surveys the literature to identify different meanings of co-production across different disciplinary bodies of knowledge. Such exploration is aimed at identifying the key points of convergence and divergence across different disciplinary and theoretical traditions.Methods: We performed a systematic search of Web of Science via a query designed to capture literature likely focusing on co-production, and then manually examined each document for relevance. Citation network analysis was then used to ‘map’ this literature by grouping papers into clusters based on the density of citation links between papers. The top-cited papers within each cluster were thematically analysed.Findings: This research identified five meanings of co-production, understood as a science-politics relationship, as knowledge democracy, as transdisciplinarity, as boundary management, and as an evidence-use intervention.Discussion and conclusions: Even though different clusters of scholarship exploring co-production are closely connected, this concept is mobilised to capture phenomena at different levels of abstraction – from post-structuralist theories of knowledge and power to specific strategies to be employed by researchers and policymakers.Key messagesThe paper identifies five meanings of co-production: understood as a science-politics relationship, as knowledge democracy, as transdisciplinarity, as boundary management, and as an evidence-use intervention.Co-production is a multi-level phenomenon occurring at the level of socio-political systems, the level of institutions, and the level of situated practices.The paper identifies a need for definitional transparency and cross-disciplinary learning about co-production.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66287758","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.1332/174426421x16397411532296
S. Blum, V. Pattyn
Background: While current public policy scholarship can take advantage of a decades-long accumulated knowledge base on the relationship between evidence and policy, it is hard to keep the overview across different literatures. Over time, the ever more differentiated branches of public policy research have developed their own perspectives, languages, and conceptualisations of ‘evidence’ and ‘policy’, as well as their connections.Aims and objectives: Existing reviews have stressed that studies often do not provide clear definitions of ‘policy’ or ‘evidence’, and have outlined the importance of investigating underlying conceptualisations in the literature. Against this backdrop, this article investigates how present-day public policy scholarship approaches the concepts of ‘evidence’, ‘policy’, and their connections.Methods: We conducted a qualitative systematic review following the PRISMA method. Using a keyword search, we identified relevant articles (n=85) in eleven Q1 and Q2 policy journals included in Web of Science in the period 2015 to 2019.Findings: The synthesis confirms that ‘evidence’ and ‘policy’ are often not clearly defined, yet different trends regarding understandings can be identified. There are two approaches taken on the evidence and policy connection: a ‘use of evidence’ or a ‘use for policy’ perspective.Discussion and conclusions: Research on evidence and policy would benefit from more explicit conceptual discussions. This review may provide a heuristic for explicating conceptual choices when working with the notions of ‘evidence’, ‘policy’, and their connections. It also suggests several avenues that are worth exploring in future research.Key messagesReview studies of evidence and policy research have stressed the need of investigating underlying conceptualisations.This article presents the results of a qualitative systematic PRISMA review.The synthesis reveals significant differences in the conceptualisations of evidence and policy.Their connections are approached either from a ‘use of evidence’ or a ‘use for policy’ perspective.
背景:虽然当前的公共政策研究可以利用数十年来积累的证据与政策之间关系的知识基础，但很难在不同的文献中保持概述。随着时间的推移，越来越分化的公共政策研究分支已经发展出自己的观点、语言和“证据”和“政策”的概念，以及它们之间的联系。目的和目标:现有的综述强调，研究往往没有提供“政策”或“证据”的明确定义，并概述了调查文献中潜在概念的重要性。在此背景下，本文探讨了当今公共政策学术如何处理“证据”、“政策”的概念及其联系。方法:采用PRISMA方法进行定性系统评价。通过关键词搜索，我们在2015年至2019年期间Web of Science收录的11份Q1和Q2政策期刊中找到了相关文章(n=85)。结论:该综合报告证实，“证据”和“政策”往往没有明确定义，但可以确定不同的理解趋势。关于证据和政策的联系有两种方法:“使用证据”或“使用政策”的观点。讨论和结论:对证据和政策的研究将受益于更明确的概念性讨论。这篇综述可以为解释“证据”、“政策”及其联系的概念时的概念选择提供启发。它还提出了一些值得在未来研究中探索的途径。关键信息对证据和政策研究的回顾研究强调了调查潜在概念的必要性。本文介绍了一项定性系统PRISMA综述的结果。这份综合报告揭示了证据和政策概念化方面的重大差异。它们之间的联系是从“证据的使用”或“政策的使用”的角度来看待的。
{"title":"How are evidence and policy conceptualised, and how do they connect? A qualitative systematic review of public policy literature","authors":"S. Blum, V. Pattyn","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16397411532296","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16397411532296","url":null,"abstract":"Background: While current public policy scholarship can take advantage of a decades-long accumulated knowledge base on the relationship between evidence and policy, it is hard to keep the overview across different literatures. Over time, the ever more differentiated branches of public policy research have developed their own perspectives, languages, and conceptualisations of ‘evidence’ and ‘policy’, as well as their connections.Aims and objectives: Existing reviews have stressed that studies often do not provide clear definitions of ‘policy’ or ‘evidence’, and have outlined the importance of investigating underlying conceptualisations in the literature. Against this backdrop, this article investigates how present-day public policy scholarship approaches the concepts of ‘evidence’, ‘policy’, and their connections.Methods: We conducted a qualitative systematic review following the PRISMA method. Using a keyword search, we identified relevant articles (n=85) in eleven Q1 and Q2 policy journals included in Web of Science in the period 2015 to 2019.Findings: The synthesis confirms that ‘evidence’ and ‘policy’ are often not clearly defined, yet different trends regarding understandings can be identified. There are two approaches taken on the evidence and policy connection: a ‘use of evidence’ or a ‘use for policy’ perspective.Discussion and conclusions: Research on evidence and policy would benefit from more explicit conceptual discussions. This review may provide a heuristic for explicating conceptual choices when working with the notions of ‘evidence’, ‘policy’, and their connections. It also suggests several avenues that are worth exploring in future research.Key messagesReview studies of evidence and policy research have stressed the need of investigating underlying conceptualisations.This article presents the results of a qualitative systematic PRISMA review.The synthesis reveals significant differences in the conceptualisations of evidence and policy.Their connections are approached either from a ‘use of evidence’ or a ‘use for policy’ perspective.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66287243","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.1332/174426421x16390538025881
Isabella Pistone, Allan Lidström, Ingemar Bohlin, Thomas Schneider, T. Zuiderent-Jerak, M. Sager
Background: Although increasingly accepted in some corners of social work, critics have claimed that evidence-based practice (EBP) methodologies run contrary to local care practices and result in an EBP straitjacket and epistemic injustice. These are serious concerns, especially in relation to already marginalised clients.Aims and objectives: Against the backdrop of criticism against EBP, this study explores the ramifications of the Swedish state-governed knowledge infrastructure, ‘management-by-knowledge’, for social care practices at two care units for persons with intellectual disabilities.Methods: Data generated from ethnographic observations and interviews were analysed by applying a conceptual framework of epistemic injustice; also analysed were national, regional and local knowledge products within management-by-knowledge related to two daily activity (DA) units at a social care provider in Sweden.Findings: In this particular case of disability care, no obvious risks of epistemic injustice were discovered in key knowledge practices of management-by-knowledge. Central methodologies of national agencies did include perspectives from social workers and clients, as did regional infrastructures. Locally, there were structures in place that focused on creating a dynamic interplay between knowledge coming from various forms of evidence, including social workers’ and clients’ own knowledge and experience.Discussion and conclusions: Far from being a straitjacket, in the case studied management-by-knowledge may be understood as offering fluid support. Efforts which aim at improving care for people with disabilities might benefit from organisational support structures that enable dynamic interactions between external knowledge and local practices.Key messagesExamining one case of disability care in Sweden, both social workers’ and clients’ experiences were included in EBP infrastructures.In this study, Swedish EBP infrastructures functioned more like fluid support than a straitjacket.Organisational structures that combine different knowledge sources at service providers can minimise the risk of epistemic injustice within social care.
{"title":"Evidence-based practice and management-by-knowledge of disability care: rigid constraint or fluid support?","authors":"Isabella Pistone, Allan Lidström, Ingemar Bohlin, Thomas Schneider, T. Zuiderent-Jerak, M. Sager","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16390538025881","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16390538025881","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Although increasingly accepted in some corners of social work, critics have claimed that evidence-based practice (EBP) methodologies run contrary to local care practices and result in an EBP straitjacket and epistemic injustice. These are serious concerns, especially in relation to already marginalised clients.Aims and objectives: Against the backdrop of criticism against EBP, this study explores the ramifications of the Swedish state-governed knowledge infrastructure, ‘management-by-knowledge’, for social care practices at two care units for persons with intellectual disabilities.Methods: Data generated from ethnographic observations and interviews were analysed by applying a conceptual framework of epistemic injustice; also analysed were national, regional and local knowledge products within management-by-knowledge related to two daily activity (DA) units at a social care provider in Sweden.Findings: In this particular case of disability care, no obvious risks of epistemic injustice were discovered in key knowledge practices of management-by-knowledge. Central methodologies of national agencies did include perspectives from social workers and clients, as did regional infrastructures. Locally, there were structures in place that focused on creating a dynamic interplay between knowledge coming from various forms of evidence, including social workers’ and clients’ own knowledge and experience.Discussion and conclusions: Far from being a straitjacket, in the case studied management-by-knowledge may be understood as offering fluid support. Efforts which aim at improving care for people with disabilities might benefit from organisational support structures that enable dynamic interactions between external knowledge and local practices.Key messagesExamining one case of disability care in Sweden, both social workers’ and clients’ experiences were included in EBP infrastructures.In this study, Swedish EBP infrastructures functioned more like fluid support than a straitjacket.Organisational structures that combine different knowledge sources at service providers can minimise the risk of epistemic injustice within social care.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66287397","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.1332/174426421x16445109542161
M. Owens, Sally Ngo, Sue Grinnell, Dana Pearlman, B. Bekemeier, Sarah Cusworth Walker
Background: Not attending to local political climate negatively impacts the implementation and sustainability of evidence-informed models of health service. Policy codesign aims to align policy, systems, and community from the ‘ground up’, with structured information gathering, synthesis and creative design methods that incorporate relevant scientific evidence.Aims and objectives: This paper provides an example of policy codesign to develop a jail-based re-entry programme for adults with opioid use disorder in a rural county in the US.Methods: The design process adapted Theory U, a systems planning framework to include a rapid evidence review. The process included five sessions from July-September 2020. Mixed methods were used to collect data from the design team (n=5), community at large (n=10), and potential consumers (n=14). Qualitative and descriptive analyses assessed satisfaction with the design process, and the acceptability and perceived feasibility of programme implementation.Findings: Satisfaction with the design process was high among design team members. Acceptability and perceived feasibility of the designed programme were ‘very high’ across all respondents. The community implemented the designed programme, which aligned with the extant evidence base, although design team members did not explicitly acknowledge research as a source of design. This suggests that the process achieved creative control, and qualitative findings support the teams’ sense of shared ownership.Discussion and conclusions: Policy codesign is a promising strategy for integrating the evidence base with community creativity in policy and systems-level planning. Further research is needed to understand which elements optimised design members’ absorption of the evidence base, shared sense making, and creative control.Key messagesPolicy codesign aims to align policy, systems, and community from the ‘ground up’.Policy codesign was used to develop a jail-based programme for people with substance use disorder.The designed jail-based re-entry programme was rated as highly acceptable and feasible.The programme was consistent with evidence-based approaches and was successfully implemented.
{"title":"Co-producing evidence-informed criminal legal re-entry policy with the community: an application of policy codesign","authors":"M. Owens, Sally Ngo, Sue Grinnell, Dana Pearlman, B. Bekemeier, Sarah Cusworth Walker","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16445109542161","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16445109542161","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Not attending to local political climate negatively impacts the implementation and sustainability of evidence-informed models of health service. Policy codesign aims to align policy, systems, and community from the ‘ground up’, with structured information gathering, synthesis and creative design methods that incorporate relevant scientific evidence.Aims and objectives: This paper provides an example of policy codesign to develop a jail-based re-entry programme for adults with opioid use disorder in a rural county in the US.Methods: The design process adapted Theory U, a systems planning framework to include a rapid evidence review. The process included five sessions from July-September 2020. Mixed methods were used to collect data from the design team (n=5), community at large (n=10), and potential consumers (n=14). Qualitative and descriptive analyses assessed satisfaction with the design process, and the acceptability and perceived feasibility of programme implementation.Findings: Satisfaction with the design process was high among design team members. Acceptability and perceived feasibility of the designed programme were ‘very high’ across all respondents. The community implemented the designed programme, which aligned with the extant evidence base, although design team members did not explicitly acknowledge research as a source of design. This suggests that the process achieved creative control, and qualitative findings support the teams’ sense of shared ownership.Discussion and conclusions: Policy codesign is a promising strategy for integrating the evidence base with community creativity in policy and systems-level planning. Further research is needed to understand which elements optimised design members’ absorption of the evidence base, shared sense making, and creative control.Key messagesPolicy codesign aims to align policy, systems, and community from the ‘ground up’.Policy codesign was used to develop a jail-based programme for people with substance use disorder.The designed jail-based re-entry programme was rated as highly acceptable and feasible.The programme was consistent with evidence-based approaches and was successfully implemented.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"328 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76366776","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.1332/174426421x16474564583952
Anne Spaa, N. Spencer, Abigail C. Durrant, John Vines
Background: Co-creation in policymaking is of increasing interest to national governments, and designers play a significant role in its introduction.Aims and objectives: We discuss instances from our fieldwork that demonstrated how UK Policy Lab used design methods to gain insight into the design-oriented methods introduced to policymakers’ practices, and how these may influence conventional policy design processes.Methods: This paper reports on the learnings from a two-month participant observation at UK Policy Lab conducted in early 2019.Findings: We found that, beyond human-centred and future-oriented practices, the designers working at this unit appropriate design as a reflective practice for the context of policymaking. We discuss how the use of visual and creative methods of design are utilised by policy designers to facilitate co-creative reflective practices, and how these make a valuable contribution to policymaking practices in UK Government.Discussion and conclusions: As deliberation and decision making is influenced both by what is thought about as well as who is doing the thinking, reflective practices allow notions and assumptions to be unpicked. Moreover, when done as a group activity, reflection leads to a co-production of a deepened understanding of policy challenges.Consequently, we argue, the reflective practices introduced by Policy Lab are an essential contribution to developing a co-creation tradition in evidence-informed policymaking processes.Key messagesBeyond human-centred and future-oriented methods, UK Policy Lab appropriates design as a reflective practice, to contribute to policymaking by supporting deliberation and decision making.Creative and visual methods from design enable collaborative policymaking processes, as they externalise thinking and surface overlaps and differences among policymakers’ perspectives.We argue that design can support the reflective practice of policymakers, highlighting explicit and implicit frames structuring decision making.
{"title":"Creative and collaborative reflective thinking to support policy deliberation and decision making","authors":"Anne Spaa, N. Spencer, Abigail C. Durrant, John Vines","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16474564583952","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16474564583952","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Co-creation in policymaking is of increasing interest to national governments, and designers play a significant role in its introduction.Aims and objectives: We discuss instances from our fieldwork that demonstrated how UK Policy Lab used design methods to gain insight into the design-oriented methods introduced to policymakers’ practices, and how these may influence conventional policy design processes.Methods: This paper reports on the learnings from a two-month participant observation at UK Policy Lab conducted in early 2019.Findings: We found that, beyond human-centred and future-oriented practices, the designers working at this unit appropriate design as a reflective practice for the context of policymaking. We discuss how the use of visual and creative methods of design are utilised by policy designers to facilitate co-creative reflective practices, and how these make a valuable contribution to policymaking practices in UK Government.Discussion and conclusions: As deliberation and decision making is influenced both by what is thought about as well as who is doing the thinking, reflective practices allow notions and assumptions to be unpicked. Moreover, when done as a group activity, reflection leads to a co-production of a deepened understanding of policy challenges.Consequently, we argue, the reflective practices introduced by Policy Lab are an essential contribution to developing a co-creation tradition in evidence-informed policymaking processes.Key messagesBeyond human-centred and future-oriented methods, UK Policy Lab appropriates design as a reflective practice, to contribute to policymaking by supporting deliberation and decision making.Creative and visual methods from design enable collaborative policymaking processes, as they externalise thinking and surface overlaps and differences among policymakers’ perspectives.We argue that design can support the reflective practice of policymakers, highlighting explicit and implicit frames structuring decision making.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85279605","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.1332/174426421x16445093010411
E. MacKillop, James Downe
Background: Government-funded knowledge brokering organisations (KBOs) are an increasingly prevalent yet under-researched area. Working in the space between knowledge and policy, yet framing themselves as different from think tanks and academic research centres, these organisations broker evidence into policy.Aims and objectives: This article examines how three organisations on different continents develop similar narratives and strategies to attempt to inform policymaking and build legitimacy.Methods: Using documentary analysis and semi-structured interviews, it shows how the organisations construct their credibility and legitimacy, and make sense of their emergence, activities and relationships with policymakers.Findings: The study responds to the lack of political focus on many existing studies, examining how KBOs make sense of their origins and roles, articulating notions of evidence, and mobilising different types of legitimacies to do so. The research also addresses an empirical gap surrounding the emergence and activities of KBOs (not individuals), analysing organisations on three different continents.Discussion and conclusions: KBOs developed similar narratives of origins and functions, despite emerging in different contexts. Furthermore, they build their legitimacy/ies in similar ways. Our research improves our understanding of how a new ‘tool’ in the evidence-informed policymaking (EIPM) arsenal – KBOs – is being mobilised by different governments in similar ways.Key messagesGovernment-funded KBOs are an increasingly prevalent yet under-researched area. KBOs mobilise similar emergence narratives in different contexts. Credibility is built by KBOs in changing ways, tapping into legitimacies, hinging on their origins, contexts, tools and staff. KBOs are a new EIPM tool that seems to be mobilised in similar ways by different governments.
{"title":"Knowledge brokering organisations: a new way of governing evidence","authors":"E. MacKillop, James Downe","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16445093010411","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16445093010411","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Government-funded knowledge brokering organisations (KBOs) are an increasingly prevalent yet under-researched area. Working in the space between knowledge and policy, yet framing themselves as different from think tanks and academic research centres, these organisations broker evidence into policy.Aims and objectives: This article examines how three organisations on different continents develop similar narratives and strategies to attempt to inform policymaking and build legitimacy.Methods: Using documentary analysis and semi-structured interviews, it shows how the organisations construct their credibility and legitimacy, and make sense of their emergence, activities and relationships with policymakers.Findings: The study responds to the lack of political focus on many existing studies, examining how KBOs make sense of their origins and roles, articulating notions of evidence, and mobilising different types of legitimacies to do so. The research also addresses an empirical gap surrounding the emergence and activities of KBOs (not individuals), analysing organisations on three different continents.Discussion and conclusions: KBOs developed similar narratives of origins and functions, despite emerging in different contexts. Furthermore, they build their legitimacy/ies in similar ways. Our research improves our understanding of how a new ‘tool’ in the evidence-informed policymaking (EIPM) arsenal – KBOs – is being mobilised by different governments in similar ways.Key messagesGovernment-funded KBOs are an increasingly prevalent yet under-researched area. KBOs mobilise similar emergence narratives in different contexts. Credibility is built by KBOs in changing ways, tapping into legitimacies, hinging on their origins, contexts, tools and staff. KBOs are a new EIPM tool that seems to be mobilised in similar ways by different governments.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"145 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86779403","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Background: Brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners (BIBS) bridge research and policy or practice, and can elevate the role of evidence in decision-making. However, there is limited integration of the literature across different sectors to understand the strategies that BIBS use, the skills needed to carry out these strategies, and the expected outcomes of these strategies. Aims and Objectives: In this review, we characterize the strategies, skills, and outcomes of BIBS across the literature in education, environmental, health and other relevant sectors. Methods: We included 185 conceptual and review papers written in English that included descriptions or conceptualizations of BIBS in the context of knowledge transfer or research use in the education, environmental, health, or other relevant sectors (e.g., social services, international development). For each included paper, we extracted and coded information on sector, BIBS strategies, skills, and outcomes. Findings: Our review revealed five strategies used by BIBS that were emphasized in the literature. Specifically, 79.5% of papers mentioned facilitating relationships, 75.7% mentioned disseminating evidence, 56.8% mentioned finding alignment, 48.6% mentioned capacity building, and 37.3% mentioned advising decisions as strategies used by BIBS. Additionally, papers described skills and expected outcomes that were common across these strategies as well as those that were unique to specific strategies. Discussion and Conclusions: We discuss implications of these findings for understanding how BIBS interface with knowledge users and producers as well as directions for future research on BIBS and the professionalization of BIBS roles.
{"title":"Understanding Brokers, Intermediaries, and Boundary Spanners: A Multi-Sectoral Review of Strategies, Skills, and Outcomes","authors":"J. Neal, Stephen M. Posner, Brian Brutzman","doi":"10.31234/osf.io/bn7ya","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/bn7ya","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners (BIBS) bridge research and policy or practice, and can elevate the role of evidence in decision-making. However, there is limited integration of the literature across different sectors to understand the strategies that BIBS use, the skills needed to carry out these strategies, and the expected outcomes of these strategies. Aims and Objectives: In this review, we characterize the strategies, skills, and outcomes of BIBS across the literature in education, environmental, health and other relevant sectors. Methods: We included 185 conceptual and review papers written in English that included descriptions or conceptualizations of BIBS in the context of knowledge transfer or research use in the education, environmental, health, or other relevant sectors (e.g., social services, international development). For each included paper, we extracted and coded information on sector, BIBS strategies, skills, and outcomes. Findings: Our review revealed five strategies used by BIBS that were emphasized in the literature. Specifically, 79.5% of papers mentioned facilitating relationships, 75.7% mentioned disseminating evidence, 56.8% mentioned finding alignment, 48.6% mentioned capacity building, and 37.3% mentioned advising decisions as strategies used by BIBS. Additionally, papers described skills and expected outcomes that were common across these strategies as well as those that were unique to specific strategies. Discussion and Conclusions: We discuss implications of these findings for understanding how BIBS interface with knowledge users and producers as well as directions for future research on BIBS and the professionalization of BIBS roles.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45990100","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：