Pub Date : 2020-11-01DOI: 10.1332/174426419x15643724702722
S. Ball, J. Feitsma
‘Behavioural Insights’ has emerged as an increasingly popular approach to policy making in governments across the globe. Practitioners largely present a frontstage narrative of Behavioural Insights as a coherent concept but this article challenges such a description. We explore how efforts to develop a global Behavioural Insights community are subject to an ongoing process of policy translation. To show how this translation works, we juxtapose findings from two independent ethnographic research projects on Behavioural Insights practitioners: one on practitioners in Australian federal government, the other on practitioners in Dutch local and central government. This exploratory study highlights that Behavioural Insights at one level possesses some consistencies, including a shared use of a family of tools and artefacts. At the same time the field is marked by contingencies, particularly with respect to the methods used. These contingencies raise puzzling questions about the identity of Behavioural Insights and whether its presentation as a coherent whole is of more value in a discursive sense than in a practical one.
{"title":"The boundaries of Behavioural Insights: observations from two ethnographic studies","authors":"S. Ball, J. Feitsma","doi":"10.1332/174426419x15643724702722","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426419x15643724702722","url":null,"abstract":"‘Behavioural Insights’ has emerged as an increasingly popular approach to policy making in governments across the globe. Practitioners largely present a frontstage narrative of Behavioural Insights as a coherent concept but this article challenges such a description. We explore how efforts to develop a global Behavioural Insights community are subject to an ongoing process of policy translation. To show how this translation works, we juxtapose findings from two independent ethnographic research projects on Behavioural Insights practitioners: one on practitioners in Australian federal government, the other on practitioners in Dutch local and central government. This exploratory study highlights that Behavioural Insights at one level possesses some consistencies, including a shared use of a family of tools and artefacts. At the same time the field is marked by contingencies, particularly with respect to the methods used. These contingencies raise puzzling questions about the identity of Behavioural Insights and whether its presentation as a coherent whole is of more value in a discursive sense than in a practical one.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"16 1","pages":"559-577"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43097069","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 : 2020-11-01DOI: 10.1332/174426419X15623134271106
Lucy Melville-Richards, J. Rycroft-Malone, C. Burton, Joyce E. Wilkinson
Background: In healthcare, bridging the research-to-practice gap is a top priority. Knowledge mobilisation scholars suggest that this gap can be closed through collaboration between knowledge users and producers. The concept of boundary objects – shared things and ideas that enable communication – has gained popularity across various collaborative work practices, but their potential within knowledge mobilisation in health care is understudied. An ongoing challenge for designers of boundary objects is how to create objects that are valued and shared both in principle and in practice.Aims and objectives: This paper reports on a study of boundary objects used during knowledge mobilisation through NHS-university partnerships called Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs). The distinction is investigated between boundary objects-in-theory and boundary objects-in-use, considering whether the latter possess specific characteristics which make them more effective during knowledge mobilisation.Methods: A qualitative case study of three CLAHRCs was conducted. Twenty-one people employed as ‘boundary spanners’ were interviewed to explore whether boundary objects played a role in knowledge mobilisation.Findings: The most effective boundary objects-in-use were co-produced through a process of bricolage. These possessed high levels of meaningfulness and resonance, and reconciled multiple user perspectives. Together these properties contributed to the overall authenticity of boundary objects-in-use.Discussion and conclusion: This paper helps to explain why designated boundary objects frequently fail in practice, and why there is a need to focus on understanding boundary objects based on symbolic, rather than structural, dimensions.
{"title":"Making authentic: exploring boundary objects and bricolage in knowledge mobilisation through National Health Service-university partnerships","authors":"Lucy Melville-Richards, J. Rycroft-Malone, C. Burton, Joyce E. Wilkinson","doi":"10.1332/174426419X15623134271106","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426419X15623134271106","url":null,"abstract":"Background: In healthcare, bridging the research-to-practice gap is a top priority. Knowledge mobilisation scholars suggest that this gap can be closed through collaboration between knowledge users and producers. The concept of boundary objects – shared things and ideas that enable communication – has gained popularity across various collaborative work practices, but their potential within knowledge mobilisation in health care is understudied. An ongoing challenge for designers of boundary objects is how to create objects that are valued and shared both in principle and in practice.Aims and objectives: This paper reports on a study of boundary objects used during knowledge mobilisation through NHS-university partnerships called Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs). The distinction is investigated between boundary objects-in-theory and boundary objects-in-use, considering whether the latter possess specific characteristics which make them more effective during knowledge mobilisation.Methods: A qualitative case study of three CLAHRCs was conducted. Twenty-one people employed as ‘boundary spanners’ were interviewed to explore whether boundary objects played a role in knowledge mobilisation.Findings: The most effective boundary objects-in-use were co-produced through a process of bricolage. These possessed high levels of meaningfulness and resonance, and reconciled multiple user perspectives. Together these properties contributed to the overall authenticity of boundary objects-in-use.Discussion and conclusion: This paper helps to explain why designated boundary objects frequently fail in practice, and why there is a need to focus on understanding boundary objects based on symbolic, rather than structural, dimensions.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"16 1","pages":"517-539"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47734653","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 : 2020-11-01DOI: 10.1332/174426419X15623126267993
Scott Tindal
Organising and participating in Knowledge Exchange (KE) events represent a considerable commitment by social science academics. Yet academics’ participation in KE activities is not professionally rewarded as are other academic endeavours, so why do they do it? Understanding academics’ perspectives regarding their own motivations for engaging in KE activities is a lacuna within the literature which this article begins to address. Drawing on qualitative interview data with social scientists working within the Centre for Population Change (CPC), the analysis presented in this paper develops a typology of academics’ motivations for committing to organise and host KE events. These are: (1) contractual obligation to research funders; (2) professional self-interest; (3) to recompense society. Their narratives are interpreted through a conceptual framework of the institutionalisation of KE practices through the impact agenda which has shifted institutional expectations and professional norms regarding ‘good academic practice’ within contemporary academia. This paper concludes that the institutional, political, and cultural landscape in which KE events exist has considerable consequences for how academics come to commit to such activities. Understanding this environment can add to our understanding of why academics participate in KE events, and thus why they happen at all.
{"title":"Why do social scientists organise knowledge exchange events? A qualitative interview study","authors":"Scott Tindal","doi":"10.1332/174426419X15623126267993","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426419X15623126267993","url":null,"abstract":"Organising and participating in Knowledge Exchange (KE) events represent a considerable commitment by social science academics. Yet academics’ participation in KE activities is not professionally rewarded as are other academic endeavours, so why do they do it? Understanding academics’ perspectives regarding their own motivations for engaging in KE activities is a lacuna within the literature which this article begins to address. Drawing on qualitative interview data with social scientists working within the Centre for Population Change (CPC), the analysis presented in this paper develops a typology of academics’ motivations for committing to organise and host KE events. These are: (1) contractual obligation to research funders; (2) professional self-interest; (3) to recompense society. Their narratives are interpreted through a conceptual framework of the institutionalisation of KE practices through the impact agenda which has shifted institutional expectations and professional norms regarding ‘good academic practice’ within contemporary academia. This paper concludes that the institutional, political, and cultural landscape in which KE events exist has considerable consequences for how academics come to commit to such activities. Understanding this environment can add to our understanding of why academics participate in KE events, and thus why they happen at all.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"16 1","pages":"541-558"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41716474","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 : 2020-11-01DOI: 10.1332/174426420x15868720780747
N. Nichols, Jayne A. Malenfant, Kaitlin Schwan
Background: Timely access to relevant and trustworthy research findings is an important facilitator of research use. But the relational aspects of evidence generation, mobilisation and use have been insufficiently explored.Aims and objectives: Our aim is to describe the strategic communicative and relational work of two intermediary organisations playing thought leadership roles within a large, heterogeneous and loosely configured network comprised of individuals and organisations from the following sectors: academia, frontline service delivery, philanthropic funding, advocacy organisations and government.Methods: The data for this project were generated as part of a study of the ways social science research influences policy, practice and systems-change processes. Proceeding from the standpoints of people who generate and/or engage with research in an effort to address homelessness in Canada, this article focuses on the intersections of research, strategic communication and policy making.Findings: Our findings suggest that strategic communication and knowledge exchange play integral roles in efforts to create evidence-based policy change. These communicative activities take the form of public-facing political and/or media engagement strategies, traditional knowledge mobilisation activities and continuous informal and timely exchanges of information between trusted allies.Discussion and conclusions: Our study reveals the importance of a heterogeneous network structure, with formal and informal alliances between individuals and organisations, as well as key intermediary organisations through which knowledge can be strategically mobilised within the network to serve policy change aims. Furthermore, our study suggests that interest in evidence-led governance is shifting the boundaries between research, advocacy and government action.
{"title":"Networks and evidence-based advocacy: influencing a policy subsystem","authors":"N. Nichols, Jayne A. Malenfant, Kaitlin Schwan","doi":"10.1332/174426420x15868720780747","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426420x15868720780747","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Timely access to relevant and trustworthy research findings is an important facilitator of research use. But the relational aspects of evidence generation, mobilisation and use have been insufficiently explored.Aims and objectives: Our aim is to describe\u0000 the strategic communicative and relational work of two intermediary organisations playing thought leadership roles within a large, heterogeneous and loosely configured network comprised of individuals and organisations from the following sectors: academia, frontline service delivery, philanthropic\u0000 funding, advocacy organisations and government.Methods: The data for this project were generated as part of a study of the ways social science research influences policy, practice and systems-change processes. Proceeding from the standpoints of people who generate and/or engage\u0000 with research in an effort to address homelessness in Canada, this article focuses on the intersections of research, strategic communication and policy making.Findings: Our findings suggest that strategic communication and knowledge exchange play integral roles in efforts to create\u0000 evidence-based policy change. These communicative activities take the form of public-facing political and/or media engagement strategies, traditional knowledge mobilisation activities and continuous informal and timely exchanges of information between trusted allies.Discussion and conclusions:\u0000 Our study reveals the importance of a heterogeneous network structure, with formal and informal alliances between individuals and organisations, as well as key intermediary organisations through which knowledge can be strategically mobilised within the network to serve policy change aims.\u0000 Furthermore, our study suggests that interest in evidence-led governance is shifting the boundaries between research, advocacy and government action.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"16 1","pages":"639-659"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48789877","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 : 2020-11-01DOI: 10.1332/204080519X15619879036817
P. V. D. Graaf, M. Cheetham, A. Lake, M. Welford, R. Rushmer, J. Shucksmith, Avril Rhodes
Background: Fuse was established in 2008 as one of five public health research centres of excellence in the UK funded by the UK Clinical Research Centres collaboration. The centre works across five universities in the North East of England. This is an innovative collaboration and enables the pooling of research expertise. A prime focus of the centre is not just the production of excellent research, but also its translation into usable evidence, a dual focus that remains uncommon.Aims/objectives: This practice paper outlines Fuse’s approach to knowledge exchange (KE) by reflecting on ten years of collaborative research between academics and policy and practice partners in the North East of England. We will describe the principles and assumption underlying our approach and outline a conceptual model of four steps in Fuse’s KE process to develop collaborative research and achieve meaningful impact on policy and practice.Key conclusions: Our model describes a fluid and dynamic approach to knowledge exchange broken down in four steps in the KE process that are concurrent, iterative and vary in intensity over time: awareness raising; knowledge sharing; making evidence fit for purpose; and supporting uptake and implementation of evidence. These steps support the relational context of KE. Relationship building and maintenance is essential for all stages of KE to develop trust and explore the meaning and usefulness of evidence in a multi-directional information flow that supports the co-creating and application of evidence.
{"title":"Mobilising knowledge in public health: reflections on ten years of collaborative working in Fuse, the Centre for Translational Research in Public Health","authors":"P. V. D. Graaf, M. Cheetham, A. Lake, M. Welford, R. Rushmer, J. Shucksmith, Avril Rhodes","doi":"10.1332/204080519X15619879036817","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/204080519X15619879036817","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Fuse was established in 2008 as one of five public health research centres of excellence in the UK funded by the UK Clinical Research Centres collaboration. The centre works across five universities in the North East of England. This is an innovative collaboration\u0000 and enables the pooling of research expertise. A prime focus of the centre is not just the production of excellent research, but also its translation into usable evidence, a dual focus that remains uncommon.Aims/objectives: This practice paper outlines Fuse’s approach to knowledge\u0000 exchange (KE) by reflecting on ten years of collaborative research between academics and policy and practice partners in the North East of England. We will describe the principles and assumption underlying our approach and outline a conceptual model of four steps in Fuse’s KE process\u0000 to develop collaborative research and achieve meaningful impact on policy and practice.Key conclusions: Our model describes a fluid and dynamic approach to knowledge exchange broken down in four steps in the KE process that are concurrent, iterative and vary in intensity over time:\u0000 awareness raising; knowledge sharing; making evidence fit for purpose; and supporting uptake and implementation of evidence. These steps support the relational context of KE. Relationship building and maintenance is essential for all stages of KE to develop trust and explore the meaning and\u0000 usefulness of evidence in a multi-directional information flow that supports the co-creating and application of evidence.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"16 1","pages":"673-685"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45928592","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 : 2020-11-01DOI: 10.1332/174426420X15825349063428
Nick Andrews, J. Gabbay, Andreé Le-May, E. Miller, A. Petch, M. O'Neill
Background:Evidence-based practice in social care and health is widely promoted. Making it a reality remains challenging, partly because practitioners generally see practice-based knowledge as more relevant than empirical research. A further challenge regarding the creative, contextual use of research and other evidence including lived experience and practice-based knowledge is that practitioners, especially in frontline care services, are often seen not as innovators, but recipients of rules and guidelines or followers of pre-determined plans. Likewise, older people are not generally recognised as co-creators of knowledge, learning and development but as passive recipients of care, or objects of research.Aims:This study aimed to address the above issues, through a collaborative and appreciative endeavour involving researchers; social care and health practitioners; managers; older people and carers in 6 sites across Wales and Scotland.Methods:We used participatory action research methodology, applying a dialogic storytelling approach, which enabled participants to explore and address 7 already published research-based ‘Challenges’ regarding what matters most to older people with high-support needs.Findings:Participants discovered and addressed five elements required in developing evidence-enriched practice; the creation of supportive and relationship-centred research and practice environments; the valuing of diverse types of evidence; the use of engaging narratives to capture and share evidence; the use of dialogue-based approaches to learning and development; and the recognition and resolution of systemic barriers to development.Discussion and conclusion:Although existing literature covers each element, this project was novel in collectively exploring and addressing all five elements together, and in its use of multiple forms of story, which engaged hearts and minds, positive outcomes were achieved.
{"title":"Story, dialogue and caring about what matters to people: progress towards evidence-enriched policy and practice","authors":"Nick Andrews, J. Gabbay, Andreé Le-May, E. Miller, A. Petch, M. O'Neill","doi":"10.1332/174426420X15825349063428","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426420X15825349063428","url":null,"abstract":"Background:Evidence-based practice in social care and health is widely promoted. Making it a reality remains challenging, partly because practitioners generally see practice-based knowledge as more relevant than empirical research. A further challenge regarding the creative, contextual use of research and other evidence including lived experience and practice-based knowledge is that practitioners, especially in frontline care services, are often seen not as innovators, but recipients of rules and guidelines or followers of pre-determined plans. Likewise, older people are not generally recognised as co-creators of knowledge, learning and development but as passive recipients of care, or objects of research.Aims:This study aimed to address the above issues, through a collaborative and appreciative endeavour involving researchers; social care and health practitioners; managers; older people and carers in 6 sites across Wales and Scotland.Methods:We used participatory action research methodology, applying a dialogic storytelling approach, which enabled participants to explore and address 7 already published research-based ‘Challenges’ regarding what matters most to older people with high-support needs.Findings:Participants discovered and addressed five elements required in developing evidence-enriched practice; the creation of supportive and relationship-centred research and practice environments; the valuing of diverse types of evidence; the use of engaging narratives to capture and share evidence; the use of dialogue-based approaches to learning and development; and the recognition and resolution of systemic barriers to development.Discussion and conclusion:Although existing literature covers each element, this project was novel in collectively exploring and addressing all five elements together, and in its use of multiple forms of story, which engaged hearts and minds, positive outcomes were achieved.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46826655","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 : 2020-11-01DOI: 10.1332/174426419x15752577942927
Dylan L. Yingling, D. Mallinson
Background: Though evidence-based policy (EBP) has attracted considerable attention from the public, academics, and governments, prior studies have revealed little about how political parties, institutions, and policy context shape the adoption and implementation of these policies in the American states.Aims and objectives: Develop objective criteria for measuring these policies, as well as a hierarchy which describes the features that make some policies more advanced. This paper presents the first comprehensive study on EBP in the American states.Methods: Using assessments by the Pew and MacArthur foundations to measure EBP in the states for four topics: criminal justice, juvenile justice, behavioural health, and child welfare. Assess the relationship between EBP use and state political and institutional factors.Results: Democratic governors, Republican legislatures, state innovativeness are significant predictors of EBP engagement.Discussion and conclusions: This research makes a substantial contribution to the study of EBP and opens new avenues for future research on the political, cultural, and institutional factors that influence EBP adoption and implementation. In an era of extreme partisanship, our study finds that EBP is a policy niche where actors and institutions across political parties use research evidence to inform effective and efficient policies in ways that maximise the electoral incentives that such policies can offer.
{"title":"Explaining variation in evidence-based policy making in the American states","authors":"Dylan L. Yingling, D. Mallinson","doi":"10.1332/174426419x15752577942927","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426419x15752577942927","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Though evidence-based policy (EBP) has attracted considerable attention from the public, academics, and governments, prior studies have revealed little about how political parties, institutions, and policy context shape the adoption and implementation of these policies\u0000 in the American states.Aims and objectives: Develop objective criteria for measuring these policies, as well as a hierarchy which describes the features that make some policies more advanced. This paper presents the first comprehensive study on EBP in the American states.Methods:\u0000 Using assessments by the Pew and MacArthur foundations to measure EBP in the states for four topics: criminal justice, juvenile justice, behavioural health, and child welfare. Assess the relationship between EBP use and state political and institutional factors.Results: Democratic\u0000 governors, Republican legislatures, state innovativeness are significant predictors of EBP engagement.Discussion and conclusions: This research makes a substantial contribution to the study of EBP and opens new avenues for future research on the political, cultural, and institutional\u0000 factors that influence EBP adoption and implementation. In an era of extreme partisanship, our study finds that EBP is a policy niche where actors and institutions across political parties use research evidence to inform effective and efficient policies in ways that maximise the electoral\u0000 incentives that such policies can offer.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"16 1","pages":"579-596"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42238904","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 : 2020-09-07DOI: 10.1332/174426420x15967828803210
J. Parkhurst, L. Ghilardi, J. Webster, Jenna Hoyt, Jenny Hill, C. Lynch
Background: Conceptualisations of what it means to use evidence in policymaking often appear divided between two extremes. On the one side are works presenting it as the implementation of research findings ‐ particularly evaluations of intervention effect. In contrast stand theoretically informed works exploring the multiple meanings of evidence use, political complexities, and the constructed nature of research evidence itself. The first perspective has been criticised as over-simplistic, while the latter can make it difficult to answer questions of what might be good, or improved, uses of evidence in policymaking.Methods: To further debate, this paper develops a ‘programmatic approach’ to evidence use, drawing on theories of institutional decision making and empirical work on evidence use within 11 National Malaria Control Programmes in Africa. We apply the programmatic approach by investigating the key goals and tasks of programme officials, recognising that these will shape the routines and logics followed affecting evidence utilisation. We then map out the forms, sources, features, and applications of evidence that serve programme officials in their goals.Findings: In the case of malaria programmes, evidence use was understood in relation to tasks including: advocacy for funding, budget allocation, regulation development, national planning, and identification of information gaps ‐ all of which might require different evidence sources, forms, and applications.Discussion and conclusions: Ultimately the programmatic approach aims to facilitate clearer understanding of what uses of evidence are appropriate to policymakers, while also allowing critical reflection on whether such uses are ‘good’ from both programme and broader social perspectives.
{"title":"Understanding evidence use from a programmatic perspective: conceptual development and empirical insights from national malaria control programmes","authors":"J. Parkhurst, L. Ghilardi, J. Webster, Jenna Hoyt, Jenny Hill, C. Lynch","doi":"10.1332/174426420x15967828803210","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426420x15967828803210","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Conceptualisations of what it means to use evidence in policymaking often appear divided between two extremes. On the one side are works presenting it as the implementation of research findings ‐ particularly evaluations of intervention effect. In contrast\u0000 stand theoretically informed works exploring the multiple meanings of evidence use, political complexities, and the constructed nature of research evidence itself. The first perspective has been criticised as over-simplistic, while the latter can make it difficult to answer questions of what\u0000 might be good, or improved, uses of evidence in policymaking.Methods: To further debate, this paper develops a ‘programmatic approach’ to evidence use, drawing on theories of institutional decision making and empirical work on evidence use within 11 National Malaria\u0000 Control Programmes in Africa. We apply the programmatic approach by investigating the key goals and tasks of programme officials, recognising that these will shape the routines and logics followed affecting evidence utilisation. We then map out the forms, sources, features, and applications\u0000 of evidence that serve programme officials in their goals.Findings: In the case of malaria programmes, evidence use was understood in relation to tasks including: advocacy for funding, budget allocation, regulation development, national planning, and identification of information\u0000 gaps ‐ all of which might require different evidence sources, forms, and applications.Discussion and conclusions: Ultimately the programmatic approach aims to facilitate clearer understanding of what uses of evidence are appropriate to policymakers, while also allowing critical\u0000 reflection on whether such uses are ‘good’ from both programme and broader social perspectives.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2020-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46362051","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 : 2020-08-01DOI: 10.1332/174426418X15409834211096
Allison B. Dymnicki, Robin Bzura, D. Osher, A. Wandersman, D. Duplantier, Michelle J. Boyd, Amanda Cash, Lindsey Hutchison
Background:Federal agencies and other funders seeking to maximise their impact aim to understand factors associated with implementing evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to address health problems. Challenges exist, however, in synthesising information from different disciplines and reaching agreement about these factors due to different terminology, frameworks, and measures being used in different fields. Methods:A mixed-methods approach was used to identifying a set of implementation constructs helpful for selecting, monitoring, and supporting federal grantees in health and human service settings. Three phases of research were conducted: a literature review, structured expert interviews, and consensus building. Interviews with implementation experts were used to validate a set of implementation constructs identified in the literature review as strongly and consistently related to successful implementation of EBIs in international contexts. A modified Delphi approach was used with a technical working group (TWG) of federal staff to agree on the constructs most relevant for federally funded EBIs. Findings:This process yielded 11 constructs related to either the intervention, the intersection between the invention and context, or the implementation process. These constructs are areas of interest when integrating research evidence into routine practice. Expert interviewees recommended establishing clear, consistent construct definitions before developing valid, feasible measures of the constructs. In contrast to the numerous and specific constructs advanced by researchers, federal TWG members favoured fewer constructs with more generalisability. Discussion and conclusions:This article demonstrates the translation work required for policy contexts and highlights a successful approach to translate evidence from implementation science research for federal staff.
{"title":"Important implementation constructs for federal agencies in health and human service settings that are selecting, monitoring, and supporting grantees","authors":"Allison B. Dymnicki, Robin Bzura, D. Osher, A. Wandersman, D. Duplantier, Michelle J. Boyd, Amanda Cash, Lindsey Hutchison","doi":"10.1332/174426418X15409834211096","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426418X15409834211096","url":null,"abstract":"Background:Federal agencies and other funders seeking to maximise their impact aim to understand factors associated with implementing evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to address health problems. Challenges exist, however, in synthesising information from different disciplines\u0000 and reaching agreement about these factors due to different terminology, frameworks, and measures being used in different fields. Methods:A mixed-methods approach was used to identifying a set of implementation constructs helpful for selecting, monitoring, and supporting\u0000 federal grantees in health and human service settings. Three phases of research were conducted: a literature review, structured expert interviews, and consensus building. Interviews with implementation experts were used to validate a set of implementation constructs identified in the literature\u0000 review as strongly and consistently related to successful implementation of EBIs in international contexts. A modified Delphi approach was used with a technical working group (TWG) of federal staff to agree on the constructs most relevant for federally funded EBIs. Findings:This\u0000 process yielded 11 constructs related to either the intervention, the intersection between the invention and context, or the implementation process. These constructs are areas of interest when integrating research evidence into routine practice. Expert interviewees recommended establishing\u0000 clear, consistent construct definitions before developing valid, feasible measures of the constructs. In contrast to the numerous and specific constructs advanced by researchers, federal TWG members favoured fewer constructs with more generalisability. Discussion and conclusions:This\u0000 article demonstrates the translation work required for policy contexts and highlights a successful approach to translate evidence from implementation science research for federal staff.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"16 1","pages":"375-392"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2020-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48888289","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 : 2020-08-01DOI: 10.1332/174426420x15808913064302
Andreea Salajan, S. Tsolova, M. Ciotti, Jonathan E. Suk
Background:Infectious disease outbreaks require decision makers to make rapid decisions under time pressure and situations of scientific uncertainty, and yet the role of evidence usage in these contexts is poorly understood. Aims and objectives:To define and contextualise the role of scientific evidence in the governance of infectious disease outbreaks and to identify recommendations for overcoming common barriers to evidence-informed decision making. Methods:A scoping review and an expert workshop to provide additional input into recommendations on enhancing evidence uptake during infectious disease outbreaks taking place in European settings. Findings:Forty-nine records reporting on multiple decision-making processes during infectious disease outbreaks of the past ten years were included in the study. Decision makers prioritise expert advice, epidemiological data and mathematical modelling data for risk characterisation and management, but tend to be challenged by scientific uncertainties, which allow for conflicting interpretations of evidence and for public criticism and contestation of decision-making processes. There are concrete opportunities for optimising evidence usage to improve public health policy and practice through investment in decision-making competencies, relationship building, and promoting transparent decision-making processes. Discussion and conclusions:It is not necessarily a disregard of evidence that puts a strain on decision making in health crises, but rather competing interests and the lack of clear, unambiguous and rapidly available evidence for risk characterisation and effectiveness of response measures.The relationship between science and public health decision making is relatively understudied but is deserving of greater attention, so as to ensure that the pursuit of evidence for decision making does not challenge timely and effective crisis management.
{"title":"To what extent does evidence support decision making during infectious disease outbreaks? A scoping literature review","authors":"Andreea Salajan, S. Tsolova, M. Ciotti, Jonathan E. Suk","doi":"10.1332/174426420x15808913064302","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426420x15808913064302","url":null,"abstract":"Background:Infectious disease outbreaks require decision makers to make rapid decisions under time pressure and situations of scientific uncertainty, and yet the role of evidence usage in these contexts is poorly understood. Aims and objectives:To define\u0000 and contextualise the role of scientific evidence in the governance of infectious disease outbreaks and to identify recommendations for overcoming common barriers to evidence-informed decision making. Methods:A scoping review and an expert workshop to provide additional\u0000 input into recommendations on enhancing evidence uptake during infectious disease outbreaks taking place in European settings. Findings:Forty-nine records reporting on multiple decision-making processes during infectious disease outbreaks of the past ten years were included\u0000 in the study. Decision makers prioritise expert advice, epidemiological data and mathematical modelling data for risk characterisation and management, but tend to be challenged by scientific uncertainties, which allow for conflicting interpretations of evidence and for public criticism and\u0000 contestation of decision-making processes. There are concrete opportunities for optimising evidence usage to improve public health policy and practice through investment in decision-making competencies, relationship building, and promoting transparent decision-making processes. Discussion\u0000 and conclusions:It is not necessarily a disregard of evidence that puts a strain on decision making in health crises, but rather competing interests and the lack of clear, unambiguous and rapidly available evidence for risk characterisation and effectiveness of response measures.The\u0000 relationship between science and public health decision making is relatively understudied but is deserving of greater attention, so as to ensure that the pursuit of evidence for decision making does not challenge timely and effective crisis management.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"16 1","pages":"453-475"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2020-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1332/174426420x15808913064302","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43654551","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：