The major barriers to evidence-informed conservation policy and possible solutions.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Rose DC
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6473637 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Sep-Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
The major barriers to evidence-informed conservation policy and possible solutions.
Rose David C DC Sutherland William J WJ Amano Tatsuya T González-Varo Juan P JP Robertson Rebecca J RJ Simmons Benno I BI Wauchope Hannah S HS Kovacs Eszter E Durán América Paz AP Vadrot Alice B M ABM Wu Weiling W Dias Maria P MP Di Fonzo Martina M I MMI Ivory Sarah S Norris Lucia L Nunes Matheus Henrique MH Nyumba Tobias Ochieng TO Steiner Noa N Vickery Juliet J Mukherjee Nibedita N
Conservation letters 20180508 5
Conservation policy decisions can suffer from a lack of evidence, hindering effective decision-making. In nature conservation, studies investigating why policy is often not evidence-informed have tended to focus on Western democracies, with relatively small samples. To understand global variation and challenges better, we established a global survey aimed at identifying top barriers and solutions to the use of conservation science in policy. This obtained the views of 758 people in policy, pract ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundCurrent incentive programmes are not sufficient to motivate researchers and policy-makers to use research evidence in policy-making. We conducted a mixed-methods design to identify context-based policy options for strengthening motivations among health researchers and policy-makers to support evidence-informed health policy-making (EIHP) in Iran.MethodsThis study was conducted in 2019 in two phases. In the first phase, we conducted a scoping review to extract interventions implemented or proposed to strengthen motivations to support EIHP. Additionally, we employed a comparative case study design for reviewing the performance evaluation (PE) processes in Iran and other selected countries to determine the current individual and organizational incentives to encourage EIHP. In the second phase, we developed two policy briefs and then convened two policy dialogues, with 12 and 8 key informants, respectively, where the briefs were discussed. Data were analysed using manifest content analysis in order to propose contextualized policy options.ResultsThe policy options identified to motivate health researchers and policy-makers to support EIHP in Iran were: revising the criteria of academic PE; designing appropriate incentive programmes for nonacademic researchers; developing an indicator for the evaluation of research impact on policy-making or health outcomes; revising the current policies of scientific journals; revising existing funding mechanisms; presenting the knowledge translation plan when submitting a research proposal, as a mandatory condition; encouraging and supporting mechanisms for increasing interactions between policy-makers and researchers; and revising some administrative processes (e.g. managers and staff PEs; selection, appointment, and changing managers and reward mechanisms).ConclusionsThe current individual or organizational incentives are mainly focused on publications, rather than encouraging researchers and policy-makers to support EIHP. Relying more on incentives that consider the other impacts of research (e.g. impacts on health system and policy, or health outcomes) is recommended. These incentives may encourage individuals and organizations to be more involved in conducting research evidence, resulting in promoting EIHP.Trial registrationNA.
| S-EPMC8186173 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe institutionalization of evidence-informed health policy-making (EIHP) is complex and complicated. It is complex because it has many players and is complicated because its institutionalization will require many changes that will be challenging to make. Like many other issues, strengthening EIHP needs a road map, which should consider challenges and address them through effective, harmonized and contextualized strategies. This study aims to develop a road map for enhancing EIHP in Iran based on steps of planning.MethodsThis study consisted of three phases: (1) identifying barriers to EIHP, (2) recognizing interventions and (3) measuring the use of evidence in Iran's health policy-making. A set of activities was established for conducting these, including foresight, systematic review and policy dialogue, to identify the current and potential barriers for the first phase. For the second phase, an evidence synthesis was performed through a scoping review, by searching the websites of benchmark institutions which had good examples of EIHP practices in order to extract and identify interventions, and through eight policy dialogues and two broad opinion polls to contextualize the list of interventions. Simultaneously, two qualitative-quantitative studies were conducted to design and use a tool for assessing EIHP in the third phase.ResultsWe identified 97 barriers to EIHP and categorized them into three groups, including 35 barriers on the "generation of evidence" (push side), 41 on the "use of evidence" (pull side) and 21 on the "interaction between these two" (exchange side). The list of 41 interventions identified through evidence synthesis and eight policy dialogues was reduced to 32 interventions after two expert opinion polling rounds. These interventions were classified into four main strategies for strengthening (1) the education and training system (6 interventions), (2) the incentives programmes (7 interventions), (3) the structure of policy support organizations (4 interventions) and (4) the enabling processes to support EIHP (15 interventions).ConclusionThe policy options developed in the study provide a comprehensive framework to chart a path for strengthening the country's EIHP considering both global practices and the context of Iran. It is recommended that operational plans be prepared for road map interventions, and the necessary resources provided for their implementation. The implementation of the road map will require attention to the principles of good governance, with a focus on transparency and accountability. Video abstract.
| S-EPMC8760808 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. Policy dialogues allow research evidence to be considered together with the views, experiences and tacit knowledge of those who will be involved in, or affected by, future decisions about a high-priority issue. Increasing interest in the use of policy dialogues has been fuelled by a number of factors: 1. The recognition of the need for locally contextualised 'decision support' for policymakers and other stakeholders 2. The recognition that research evidence is only one input into the decision-making processes of policymakers and other stakeholders 3. The recognition that many stakeholders can add significant value to these processes, and 4. The recognition that many stakeholders can take action to address high-priority issues, and not just policymakers. In this article, we suggest questions to guide those organising and using policy dialogues to support evidence-informed policymaking. These are: 1. Does the dialogue address a high-priority issue? 2. Does the dialogue provide opportunities to discuss the problem, options to address the problem, and key implementation considerations? 3. Is the dialogue informed by a pre-circulated policy brief and by a discussion about the full range of factors that can influence the policymaking process? 4. Does the dialogue ensure fair representation among those who will be involved in, or affected by, future decisions related to the issue? 5. Does the dialogue engage a facilitator, follow a rule about not attributing comments to individuals, and not aim for consensus? 6. Are outputs produced and follow-up activities undertaken to support action?
| S-EPMC3271825 | biostudies-other
Project description:This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. Policy briefs are a relatively new approach to packaging research evidence for policymakers. The first step in a policy brief is to prioritise a policy issue. Once an issue is prioritised, the focus then turns to mobilising the full range of research evidence relevant to the various features of the issue. Drawing on available systematic reviews makes the process of mobilising evidence feasible in a way that would not otherwise be possible if individual relevant studies had to be identified and synthesised for every feature of the issue under consideration. In this article, we suggest questions that can be used to guide those preparing and using policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking. These are: 1. Does the policy brief address a high-priority issue and describe the relevant context of the issue being addressed? 2. Does the policy brief describe the problem, costs and consequences of options to address the problem, and the key implementation considerations? 3. Does the policy brief employ systematic and transparent methods to identify, select, and assess synthesised research evidence? 4. Does the policy brief take quality, local applicability, and equity considerations into account when discussing the synthesised research evidence? 5. Does the policy brief employ a graded-entry format? 6. Was the policy brief reviewed for both scientific quality and system relevance?
| S-EPMC3271824 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundPrevious surveys of organizations that support the development of evidence-informed health policies have focused on organizations that produce clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) or undertake health technology assessments (HTAs). Only rarely have surveys focused at least in part on units that directly support the use of research evidence in developing health policy on an international, national, and state or provincial level (i.e., government support units, or GSUs) that are in some way successful or innovative or that support the use of research evidence in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).MethodsWe drew on many people and organizations around the world, including our project reference group, to generate a list of organizations to survey. We modified a questionnaire that had been developed originally by the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation in Europe (AGREE) collaboration and adapted one version of the questionnaire for organizations producing CPGs and HTAs, and another for GSUs. We sent the questionnaire by email to 176 organizations and followed up periodically with non-responders by email and telephone.ResultsWe received completed questionnaires from 152 (86%) organizations. More than one-half of the organizations (and particularly HTA agencies) reported that examples from other countries were helpful in establishing their organization. A higher proportion of GSUs than CPG- or HTA-producing organizations involved target users in the selection of topics or the services undertaken. Most organizations have few (five or fewer) full-time equivalent (FTE) staff. More than four-fifths of organizations reported providing panels with or using systematic reviews. GSUs tended to use a wide variety of explicit valuation processes for the research evidence, but none with the frequency that organizations producing CPGs, HTAs, or both prioritized evidence by its quality. Between one-half and two-thirds of organizations do not collect data systematically about uptake, and roughly the same proportions do not systematically evaluate their usefulness or impact in other ways.ConclusionThe findings from our survey, the most broadly based of its kind, both extend or clarify the applicability of the messages arising from previous surveys and related documentary analyses, such as how the 'principles of evidence-based medicine dominate current guideline programs' and the importance of collaborating with other organizations. The survey also provides a description of the history, structure, processes, outputs, and perceived strengths and weaknesses of existing organizations from which those establishing or leading similar organizations can draw.
| S-EPMC2646748 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Ensuring health policies are informed by evidence still remains a challenge despite efforts devoted to this aim. Several tools and approaches aimed at fostering evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM) have been developed, yet there is a lack of availability of indicators specifically devoted to assess and support EIPM. The present study aims to overcome this by building a set of measurable indicators for EIPM intended to infer if and to what extent health-related policies are, or are expected to be, evidence-informed for the purposes of policy planning as well as formative and summative evaluations. METHODS:The indicators for EIPM were developed and validated at international level by means of a two-round internet-based Delphi study conducted within the European project 'REsearch into POlicy to enhance Physical Activity' (REPOPA). A total of 82 researchers and policy-makers from the six European countries (Denmark, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania, the United Kingdom) involved in the project and international organisations were asked to evaluate the relevance and feasibility of an initial set of 23 indicators developed by REPOPA researchers on the basis of literature and knowledge gathered from the previous phases of the project, and to propose new indicators. RESULTS:The first Delphi round led to the validation of 14 initial indicators and to the development of 8 additional indicators based on panellists' suggestions; the second round led to the validation of a further 11 indicators, including 6 proposed by panellists, and to the rejection of 6 indicators. A total of 25 indicators were validated, covering EIPM issues related to human resources, documentation, participation and monitoring, and stressing different levels of knowledge exchange and involvement of researchers and other stakeholders in policy development and evaluation. CONCLUSION:The study overcame the lack of availability of indicators to assess if and to what extent policies are realised in an evidence-informed manner thanks to the active contribution of researchers and policy-makers. These indicators are intended to become a shared resource usable by policy-makers, researchers and other stakeholders, with a crucial impact on fostering the development of policies informed by evidence.
| S-EPMC5984390 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Human trafficking is a critical social issue characterized by chronic trauma among victims, and frequently preceded by traumatic experiences that contribute to risk of victimization. Therefore, the research-based practice of trauma-informed care is a highly appropriate lens for both prevention and intervention. This work examines federal legislation in the United States related to human trafficking for references to trauma, as well as how the use of research could implicitly direct public policy responses toward trauma-informed approaches. Legislation on human trafficking has risen substantially since 1989, and the use of research and trauma language within these policies has also observed substantial increases. While the use of trauma language was associated with limited progression in the policy process, legislation using research language was more likely to pass out of Committee and become enacted. Moreover, legislation may leverage research in ways that have the potential to bolster trauma-informed practice among human trafficking victims. Specifically, research can be used to describe the problem and causal mechanisms (e.g., impact of trauma), guide "best practice" for service delivery, and generate knowledge through studies and evaluations that guide future policy. Therefore, human trafficking legislation that implicitly guides trauma-informed practice via the use of research may be particularly promising for the field.
| S-EPMC8522583 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Access to reliable and timely information ensures that decision-makers can operate effectively. The motivations and challenges of parliamentarians and policy-makers in accessing evidence have been well documented in the policy literature. However, there has been little focus on research-providers. Understanding both the demand- and the supply-side of research engagement is imperative to enhancing impactful interactions. Here, we examine the broader experiences, motivations and challenges of UK-based research professionals engaging with research-users relevant to policy-making and scrutiny in the UK using a nationwide online questionnaire. The context of the survey partly involved contributing to the UK Evidence Information Service (EIS), a proposed rapid match-making service to facilitate interaction between parliamentary arenas that use evidence and research-providers. Our findings reveal, at least for this sub-sample who responded, that there are gender-related differences in policy-related experience, motivations, incentives and challenges for research professionals to contribute to evidence-informed decision-making through initiatives such as the EIS. Male and female participants were equally likely to have policy experience; however, males reported both significantly broader engagement with the research-users included in the survey and significantly higher levels of engagement with each research-user. Reported incentives for engagement included understanding what the evidence will be used for, guidance on style and content of contribution, and acknowledgement of contributions by the policymaker or elected official. Female participants were significantly more likely to select the guidance-related options. The main reported barrier was workload. We discuss how academia-policy engagement initiatives can best address these issues in ways that enhance the integration of research evidence with policy and practice across the UK.
| S-EPMC6435130 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of this study was to discover how individuals with autism succeed in entering the job market. We therefore sought to identify expected and occurred barriers, keeping them from taking up and staying in employment as well as to identify the solutions used to overcome these barriers. Sixty-six employed individuals with autism--17 of them with autism-specific employment--participated in an online survey. Results showed a variety of possible barriers. Individuals in autism-specific employment named formality problems--problems with organizational and practical process-related aspects of the job entry--most frequently while individuals in non-autism-specific employment mentioned social problems--obstacles concerning communication and human interaction--most. In terms of solutions, both groups used their own resources as much as external help, but differed in their specific strategies. In addition, correlations of an autism-specific employment with general and occupational self-efficacy as well as life and job satisfaction were examined. Possible implications of the results are discussed with regard to problem solving behavior and the use of strengths.
| S-EPMC4713226 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrevious efforts to produce case descriptions have typically not focused on the organizations that produce research evidence and support its use. External evaluations of such organizations have typically not been analyzed as a group to identify the lessons that have emerged across multiple evaluations. Case descriptions offer the potential for capturing the views and experiences of many individuals who are familiar with an organization, including staff, advocates, and critics.MethodsWe purposively sampled a subgroup of organizations from among those that participated in the second (interview) phase of the study and (once) from among other organizations with which we were familiar. We developed and pilot-tested a case description data collection protocol, and conducted site visits that included both interviews and documentary analyses. Themes were identified from among responses to semi-structured questions using a constant comparative method of analysis. We produced both a brief (one to two pages) written description and a video documentary for each case.ResultsWe conducted 51 interviews as part of the eight site visits. Two organizational strengths were repeatedly cited by individuals participating in the site visits: use of an evidence-based approach (which was identified as being very time-consuming) and existence of a strong relationship between researchers and policymakers (which can be challenged by conflicts of interest). Two organizational weaknesses - a lack of resources and the presence of conflicts of interest - were repeatedly cited by individuals participating in the site visits. Participants offered two main suggestions for the World Health Organization (and other international organizations and networks): 1) mobilize one or more of government support, financial resources, and the participation of both policymakers and researchers; and 2) create knowledge-related global public goods.ConclusionThe findings from our case descriptions, the first of their kind, intersect in interesting ways with the messages arising from two systematic reviews of the factors that increase the prospects for research use in policymaking. Strong relationships between researchers and policymakers bodes well given such interactions appear to increase the prospects for research use. The time-consuming nature of an evidence-based approach, on the other hand, suggests the need for more efficient production processes that are 'quick and clean enough.' Our case descriptions and accompanying video documentaries provide a rich description of organizations supporting the use of research evidence, which can be drawn upon by those establishing or leading similar organizations, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.
| S-EPMC2639616 | biostudies-literature