Dataset Information

Domains and processes for institutionalizing evidence-informed health policy-making: a critical interpretive synthesis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

While calls for institutionalization of evidence-informed policy-making (EIP) have become stronger in recent years, there is a paucity of methods that governments and organizational knowledge brokers can use to sustain and integrate EIP as part of mainstream health policy-making. The objective of this paper was to conduct a knowledge synthesis of the published and grey literatures to develop a theoretical framework with the key features of EIP institutionalization.

Methods

We applied a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) that allowed for a systematic, yet iterative and dynamic analysis of heterogeneous bodies of literature to develop an explanatory framework for EIP institutionalization. We used a "compass" question to create a detailed search strategy and conducted electronic searches to identify papers based on their potential relevance to EIP institutionalization. Papers were screened and extracted independently and in duplicate. A constant comparative method was applied to develop a framework on EIP institutionalization. The CIS was triangulated with the findings of stakeholder dialogues that involved civil servants, policy-makers and researchers.

Results

We identified 3001 references, of which 88 papers met our eligibility criteria. This CIS resulted in a definition of EIP institutionalization as the "process and outcome of (re-)creating, maintaining and reinforcing norms, regulations, and standard practices that, based on collective meaning and values, actions as well as endowment of resources, allow evidence to become-over time-a legitimate and taken-for-granted part of health policy-making". The resulting theoretical framework comprised six key domains of EIP institutionalization that capture both structure and agency: (1) governance; (2) standards and routinized processes; (3) partnership, collective action and support; (4) leadership and commitment; (5) resources; and (6) culture. Furthermore, EIP institutionalization is being achieved through five overlapping stages: (i) precipitating events; (ii) de-institutionalization; (iii) semi-institutionalization (comprising theorization and diffusion); (iv) (re)-institutionalization; and (v) renewed de-institutionalization processes.

Conclusions

This CIS advances the theoretical and conceptual discussions on EIP institutionalization, and provides new insights into an evidence-informed framework for initiating, strengthening and/or assessing efforts to institutionalize EIP.

SUBMITTER: Kuchenmuller T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8894559 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Domains and processes for institutionalizing evidence-informed health policy-making: a critical interpretive synthesis.

Kuchenmüller Tanja T Boeira Laura L Oliver Sandy S Moat Kaelan K El-Jardali Fadi F Barreto Jorge J Lavis John J

Health research policy and systems 20220304 1

<h4>Background</h4>While calls for institutionalization of evidence-informed policy-making (EIP) have become stronger in recent years, there is a paucity of methods that governments and organizational knowledge brokers can use to sustain and integrate EIP as part of mainstream health policy-making. The objective of this paper was to conduct a knowledge synthesis of the published and grey literatures to develop a theoretical framework with the key features of EIP institutionalization.<h4>Methods< ...[more]

PMID: 35246139

Similar Datasets

Project description:Most policy analysis methods and approaches are applied retrospectively. As a result, there have been calls for more documentation of the political-economy factors central to health care reforms in real-time. We sought to highlight the methods and previous applications of prospective policy analysis (PPA) in the literature to document purposeful use of PPA and reflect on opportunities and drawbacks. We used a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) approach as our initial scoping revealed that PPA is inconsistently defined in the literature. While we found several examples of PPA, all were researcher-led, most were published recently and few described mechanisms for engagement in the policy process. In addition, methods used were often summarily described and reported on relatively short prospective time horizons. Most of the studies stemmed from high-income countries and, across our sample, did not always clearly outline the rationale for a PPA and how this analysis was conceptualized. That only about one-fifth of the articles explicitly defined PPA underscores the fact that researchers and practitioners conducting PPA should better document their intent and reflect on key elements essential for PPA. Despite a wide recognition that policy processes are dynamic and ideally require multifaceted and longitudinal examination, the PPA approach is not currently frequently documented in the literature. However, the few articles reported in this paper might overestimate gaps in PPA applications. More likely, researchers are embedded in policy processes prospectively but do not necessarily write their articles from that perspective, and analyses led by non-academics might not make their way into the published literature. Future research should feature examples of testing and refining the proposed framework, as well as designing and reporting on PPA. Even when policy-maker engagement might not be feasible, real-time policy monitoring might have value in and of itself.

Project description:BackgroundGlobal health partnerships (GHPs) are situated in complex political and economic relationships and involve partners with different needs and interests (e.g., government agencies, non-governmental organizations, corporations, universities, professional associations, philanthropic organizations and communities). As part of a mixed methods study designed to develop an equity-sensitive tool to support more equity-centred North-South GHPs, this critical interpretive synthesis examined reported assessments of GHPs.ResultsWe examined 30 peer-reviewed articles for power dynamics, equity and inequities, and contradictions or challenges encountered in North-South partnerships. Among articles reviewed, authors most often situated GHPs around a topical focus on research, capacity-building, clinical, or health services issues, with the 'work' of the partnership aiming to foster skills or respond to community needs. The specific features of GHPs that were assessed varied widely, with consistently-reported elements including the early phases of partnering; governance issues; the day-to-day work of partnerships; the performance, impacts and benefits of GHPs; and issues of inclusion. Articles shared a general interest in partnering processes and often touched briefly on issues of equity; but they rarely accounted for the complexity of sociopolitical and historical contexts shaping issues of equity in GHPs. Further, assessments of GHPs were often reported without inclusion of voices from all partners or named beneficiaries. GHPs were frequently portrayed as inherently beneficial for Southern partners, without attention to power dynamics and inequities (North-South, South-South). Though historical and political dynamics of the Global North and South were inconsistently examined as influential forces in GHPs, such dynamics were frequently portrayed as complex and characterized by asymmetries in power and resources. Generally, assessments of GHPs paid little attention to the macroeconomic forces in the power and resource dynamics of GHPs highlights the importance of considering the broader political. Our findings suggest that GHPs can serve to entrench both inequitable relationships and unfair distributions of power, resources, and wealth within and between countries (and partners) if inequitable power relationships are left unmitigated.ConclusionsWe argue that specific practices could enhance GHPs' contributions to equity, both in their processes and outcomes. Enhancing partnering practices to focus on inclusion, responsiveness to North-South and South-South inequities, and recognition of GHPs as situated in a broader (and inequitable) political economy. A relational and equity-centred approach to assessing GHPs would place social justice, humility and mutual benefits as central practices-that is, regular, routine things that partners involved in partnering do intentionally to make GHPs function well. Practicing equity in GHPs requires continuous efforts to explicitly acknowledge and examine the equity implications of all aspects of partnering.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough values underpin the goals pursued in health systems, including how health systems benefit the population, it is often not clear how values are incorporated into policy decision-making about health systems. The challenge is to encompass social/citizen values, health system goals, and financial realities and to incorporate them into the policy-making process. This is a challenge for all health systems and of particular importance for Latin American (LA) countries. Our objective was to understand how and under what conditions societal values inform decisions about health system financing in LA countries.MethodsA critical interpretive synthesis approach was utilised for this work. We searched 17 databases in December 2016 to identify articles written in English, Spanish or Portuguese that focus on values that inform the policy process for health system financing in LA countries at the macro and meso levels. Two reviewers independently screened records and assessed them for inclusion. One researcher conceptually mapped the included articles, created structured summaries of key findings from each, and selected a purposive sample of articles to thematically synthesise the results across the domains of agenda-setting/prioritisation, policy development and implementation.ResultsWe identified 5925 references, included 199 papers, and synthesised 68 papers. We identified 116 values and developed a framework to explain how values have been used to inform policy decisions about financing in LA countries. This framework has four categories - (1) goal-related values (i.e. guiding principles of the health system); (2) technical values (those incorporated into the instruments adopted by policy-makers to ensure a sustainable and efficient health system); (3) governance values (those applied in the policy process to ensure a transparent and accountable process of decision-making); and (4) situational values (a broad category of values that represent competing strategies to make decisions in the health systems, their influence varying according to the four factors).ConclusionsIt is an effort to consolidate and explain how different social values are considered and how they support policy decision-making about health system financing. This can help policy-makers to explicitly incorporate values into the policy process and understand how values are supporting the achievement of policy goals in health system financing.Trial registrationThe protocol was registered with PROSPERO, ID=CRD42017057049 .

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.

Project description:BackgroundEvidence-informed policy-making (EIPM) requires a set of individual and organizational capacities, linked with background factors and needs. The identification of essential knowledge, skills and attitudes for EIPM can support the development of competency profiles and their application in different contexts.PurposeTo identify elements of competency (knowledge, skills and attitudes) for EIPM, according to different professional profiles (researcher, health professional, decision-maker and citizen).MethodsRapid umbrella review. A structured search was conducted and later updated in two comprehensive repositories (BVSalud and PubMed). Review studies with distinctive designs were included, published from 2010 onwards, without language restrictions. Assessment of the methodological quality of the studies was not performed. A meta-aggregative narrative synthesis was used to report the findings.ResultsTen reviews were included. A total of 37 elements of competency were identified, eight were categorized as knowledge, 19 as skills and 10 as attitudes. These elements were aggregated into four competency profiles: researcher, health professional, decision-maker and citizen. The competency profiles included different sets of EIPM-related knowledge, skills and attitudes.Strengths and limitationsThis study is innovative because it aggregates different profiles of competency from a practical perspective, favouring the application of its results in different contexts to support EIPM. Methodological limitations are related to the shortcuts adopted in this review: complementary searches of the grey literature were not performed, and the study selection and data extraction were not conducted in duplicate.Final considerationsCONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: EIPM requires the development of individual and organizational capacities. This rapid review contributes to the discussion on the institutionalization of EIPM in health systems. The competency profiles presented here can support discussions about the availability of capacity and the need for its development in different contexts.

Project description:BackgroundIn response to worldwide calls for the need to support evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM), more countries are increasingly interested in enhancing their efforts to use research to inform policy-making. In order to inform the efforts of those asked to lead the support of EIPM, our aim is to develop a conceptual framework to guide the process of establishing a policy support organization (PSO).MethodsWe conducted a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS). We conducted a two steps literature review. In the second step, we systematically searched OVID EMBASE, PsychInfo, HealthStar, CINAHL, Web of Science, Social Science Abstract, Health Systems Evidence, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global databases for documents reporting the establishment of PSOs and the contextual factors influencing the process of establishing these organizations. We assessed the eligibility of the retrieved articles and synthesized the findings iteratively.ResultsWe included 52 documents in the synthesis. Our findings suggest that a PSO establishment process has four interconnected stages: awareness, development, assessment, and maturation. The process of establishing a PSO is iterative and influenced by political, research and health systems contextual factors, which determine the availability of the resources and the trust between researchers and policy-makers. The contextual factors have an impact on each other, and the challenges that arise from one factor can be mitigated by other factors.ConclusionFor those interested in establishing a PSO, our framework provides a road map for identifying the most appropriate starting point and the factors that might influence the establishment process. Leaders of such PSOs can use our findings to expand or refine their scope of work. Given that this framework focuses only on PSOs in the health sector, an important next step for research would be to include other sectors from social systems and identify any additional insight that can enhance our framework.

Project description:BackgroundPractical solutions are needed to support the appropriate use of available health system resources as countries are continually pressured to 'do more with less' in health care. Increasingly, health systems and organizations are exploring the reassessment of possibly obsolete, inefficient, or ineffective health system resources and potentially redirecting funds to those that are more effective and efficient. Such processes are often referred to as 'disinvestment'. Our objective is to gain further understanding about: 1) whether how and under what conditions health systems decide to pursue disinvestment; 2) how health systems have chosen to undertake disinvestment; and 3) how health systems have implemented their disinvestment approach.Methods/designWe will use a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) approach, to develop a theoretical framework based on insights drawn from a range of relevant sources. We will conduct systematic searches of databases as well as purposive searches to identify literature to fill conceptual gaps that may emerge during our inductive process of synthesis and analysis. Two independent reviewers will assess search results for relevance and conceptually map included references. We will include all empirical and non-empirical articles that focus on disinvestment at a system level. We will then extract key findings from a purposive sample of articles using frameworks related to government agendas, policy development and implementation, and health system contextual factors and then synthesize and integrate the findings to develop a framework about our core areas of interest. Lastly, we will convene a stakeholder dialogue with Canadian and international policymakers and other stakeholders to solicit targeted feedback about the framework (e.g., by identifying any gaps in the literature that we may want to revisit before finalizing it) and deliberating about barriers for developing and implementing approaches to disinvestment, strategies to address these barriers and about next steps that could be taken by different constituencies.DiscussionDisinvestment is an emerging field and there is a need for evidence to inform the prioritization, development, and implementation of strategies in different contexts. Our CIS and the framework developed through it will support the actions of those involved in the prioritization, development, and implementation of disinvestment initiatives.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42014013204.

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.

Project description:BackgroundEnsuring 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionThe 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.

Dataset Information

Domains and processes for institutionalizing evidence-informed health policy-making: a critical interpretive synthesis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Domains and processes for institutionalizing evidence-informed health policy-making: a critical interpretive synthesis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets