Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy?

Health Research Policy and Systems

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Cairney, Paul ^a   Oliver, Kathryn ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Complex government; Evidence based medicine; Evidence based policymaking; Implementation science; Improvement science; Policy ambiguity; Scottish government; Storytelling; United Kingdom government

Indexed keywords

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND; CANADA; DECISION MAKING; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION; PUBLIC HEALTH; SCIENTIST; STORYTELLING; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES; AUSTRALIA; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; MANAGEMENT; NEW ZEALAND;

AUSTRALIA; CANADA; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; NEW ZEALAND; POLICY MAKING; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES;

EID: 85018286808     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14784505     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12961-017-0192-x     Document Type: Article

References (109)

1. Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):2. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/14/2.
2. Oliver K, Lorenc T, Innvær S. New directions in evidence-based policy research: a critical analysis of the literature. Health Res Policy Syst. 2014;12:34. http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1478-4505-12-34.pdf.
3. Cairney P. The politics of evidence-based policymaking. London: Palgrave Pivot; 2016.
4. Cairney P, Oliver K, Wellstead A. To bridge the divide between evidence and policy: reduce ambiguity as much as uncertainty. Public Adm Rev. 2016;76(3):399-402.
5. Embrett M, Randall G. Social determinants of health and health equity policy research. Soc Sci Med. 2014;108:147-55.
6. Lomas J, Brown A. Research and advice giving. Milbank Q. 2009;87(4):903-26.
7. Elliott H, Popay J. How are policy makers using evidence? J Epidemiol Community Health. 2000;54(6):461-8.
8. Stoker G. Translating experiments into policy. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci. 2010;628(1):47-58.
9. Bédard P, Ouimet M. Cognizance and consultation of randomized controlled trials among ministerial policy analysts. Rev Policy Res. 2012;29(5):625-44.
10. Cairney P. Understanding public policy: theories and issues. Basingstoke: Palgrave; 2012.
11. Cairney P, Studlar D, Mamudu H. Global tobacco control: power, policy, governance and transfer. Basingstoke: Palgrave; 2012.
12. Cairney P. Evidence-based best practice is more political than it looks: a case study of the 'Scottish Approach'. Evidence and Policy. 2016. Early View Open Access.
13. Simon H. Administrative Behavior. 3rd ed. London: Macmillan; 1976.
14. Cairney P. How can policy theory have an impact on policy making? Teaching Public Administration. 2015;33(1):22-39.
15. Botterill L, Hindmoor A. Turtles all the way down: bounded rationality in an evidence-based age. Policy Stud. 2012;33(5):367-79.
16. Kahneman D. Thinking Fast and Slow (UK edition). London: Penguin; 2012.
17. Haidt J. The emotional dog and its rational tail. Psychol Rev. 2001;108(4):814-34.
18. Lewis P. Policy thinking, fast and slow. American Political Science Association 2013 Annual Meeting. 2013. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2300479.
19. Alter A, Oppenheimer D. Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personal Soc Psychol Rev. 2009;13(3):219-35.
20. Pierce J, Siddiki S, Jones M, Schumacher K, Pattison A, Peterson H. Social construction and policy design. Policy Stud J. 2014;42(1):1-29.
21. Schneider A, Ingram H. Policy design for democracy. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas; 1997.
22. Dearing JW, Rogers EM. Agenda setting. London: Sage; 1996.
23. Baumgartner F, Jones B. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: Chicago University Press; 1993.
24. Kingdon J. Agendas, alternatives and public policies. 1st ed. New York: Harper Collins; 1984.
25. Zahariadis N. The multiple streams framework. In: Sabatier P, editor. Theories of the policy process. Cambridge: Westview; 2007.
26. True JL, Jones BD, Baumgartner FR. Punctuated equilibrium theory. In: Sabatier P, editor. Theories of the policy process. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Westview Press; 2007.
27. Weible C, Heikkila T, deLeon P, Sabatier P. Understanding and influencing the policy process. Policy Sci. 2012;45(1):1-21.
28. Pielke RA. The honest broker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
29. Cairney P. Principles of science advice to government: key problems and feasible solutions. International Network for Government Science Advice, 2016c. http://www.ingsa.org/ingsa-blog/principles-of-science-advice-to-government-key-problems-and-feasible-solutions/.
30. Hunt JW. 2. Applying American behavioral science: Some cross-cultural problems. Organ Dyn. 1981;10(1):55-62.
31. Carlisle S. Health promotion, advocacy and health inequalities: a conceptual framework. Health Promot Int. 2000;15(4):369-76.
32. Stewart E, Smith KE. Black magic and gold dust. Evidence Policy. 2015;11(3):415-37.
33. Cohen BE, Marshall SG. Does public health advocacy seek to redress health inequities? A scoping review. Health Soc Care Commun. 2017;25(2):309-28.
34. Gilbert N. Advocacy research and social policy. Crime Justice. 1997;22:101-48.
35. Bovaird T. Beyond engagement and participation. Public Adm Rev. 2007;67(5):846-60.
36. Durose C, Needham C, Mangan C, Rees J. Generating 'good enough' evidence for co-production. Evid Policy. 2017;13(1):135-51.
37. Iedema R, Sorensen R, Jorm C, Piper D. Co-producing care. In: Sorensen R, Iedema R, editors. Managing clinical processes in health services. Chatswood, NSW: Elsevier; 2008. p. 105-20.
38. Ostrom E. Crossing the great divide. World Dev. 1996;24(6):1073-87.
39. Barber R, Beresford P, Boote J, Cooper C, Faulkner A. Evaluating the impact of service user involvement on research: a prospective case study. Int J Consum Stud. 2011;35(6):609-15.
40. Barber R, Boote J, Parry G, Cooper C, Yeeles P. Evaluating the impact of public involvement on research. In: Barnes M, Cotterell P. Critical perspectives on user involvement. Bristol: Policy Press at the University of Bristol; 2012.
41. Beresford P. Service users' knowledges and social work theory: Conflict or collaboration? Br J Soc Work. 2000;30(4):489-503.
42. Boote J, Telford R, Cooper C. Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda. Health Policy. 2002;61(2):213-36.
43. Goodyear-Smith F, Jackson C, Greenhalgh T. Co-design and implementation research: challenges and solutions for ethics committees. BMC Med Ethics. 2015;16(1):1.
44. Gupta A, Blewett J. Involving services users in social work training on the reality of family poverty: A case study of a collaborative project. Soc Work Educ. 2008;27(5):459-73.
45. Stewart R, Liabo K. Involvement, expertise and research quality. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2012;17(4):248-51.
46. Christie D, Strange V, Allen E, Oliver S, Wong IC, Smith F, Cairns J, Thompson R, Hindmarsh P, O'Neill S, Bull C, Viner R, Elbourne D. Maximising engagement, motivation and long term change in a Structured Intensive Education Programme in Diabetes for children, young people and their families. BMC Pediatr. 2009;9:57.
47. Telford R, Boote JD, Cooper CL. What does it mean to involve consumers successfully in NHS research? Health Expect. 2004;7(3):209-20.
48. Jackson CL, Greenhalgh T. Co-creation: a new approach to optimising research impact. Med J Aust. 2015;203(7):2.
49. Davenport S, Davies J, Grimes C. Collaborative research programmes. Technovation. 1998;19(1):31-40.
50. Evans S, Scarbrough H. Supporting knowledge translation through collaborative translational research initiatives. Soc Sci Med. 2014;106:119-27.
51. Hinchcliff R, Greenfield D, Braithwaite J. Is it worth engaging in multi-stakeholder health services research collaborations? Int J Qual Health Care. 2014;26(2):124-8.
52. Lencucha R, Kothari A, Hamel N. Extending collaborations for knowledge translation. Evid Policy J Res Debate Pract. 2010;6(1):61-75.
53. Oborn E, Barrett M, Prince K, Racko G. Balancing exploration and exploitation in transferring research into practice. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):104.
54. Ovretveit J, Hempel S, Magnabosco JL, Mittman BS, Rubenstein LV, Ganz DA. Guidance for research-practice partnerships (R-PPs) and collaborative research. J Health Organ Manage. 2014;28(1):115-26.
55. James Lind Alliance. http://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk. Accessed 31 March 2016
56. Wood M. Holding back the tide: depoliticisation, resilience and the herceptin post-code lottery crisis. Br J Polit Int Relat. 2015;17(4):644-64.
57. Jasanoff S, editor. States of knowledge. London: Routledge; 2004.
58. Martin S. Co-production of social research. Public Money Manage. 2010;30(4):211-8.
59. Chapman S. Advocacy for public health: a primer. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58(5):361.
60. Douglas HE. The moral responsibilities of scientists (tensions between autonomy and responsibility). Am Philosoph Q. 2003;40(1):59-68.
61. Geyer R, Cairney P. Handbook on complexity and public policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2015.
62. Colebatch H. Beyond the policy cycle. Crow's Nest, New South Wales: Allen & Unwin; 2006.
63. Everett S. The policy cycle. Aust J Public Adm. 2003;62(2):65-70.
64. Howard C. Policy cycle: a model of post-machiavellian policy making? Aust J Pub Adm. 2005;3:3-13.
65. John P. Analysing public policy. 2nd ed. London: Routledge; 2012.
66. Sabatier P. The need for better theories. In: Sabatier P, editor. Theories of the policy process 2. Cambridge: Westview; 2007.
67. Birkland T. After Disaster. Washington: Georgetown University Press; 1997.
68. Hall P. Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state. Comp Politics. 1993;25(2):275-96.
69. Ostrom E. Institutional rational choice. In: Sabatier P, editor. Theories of the policy process 2. Cambridge: Westview Press; 2007.
70. Cairney P. What is complex government and what can we do about it? Public Money Manage. 2015;35(1):3-6.
71. Cairney P, Heikkila T. A comparison of theories of the policy process. In: Sabatier P, Weible C, editors. Theories of the policy process. 3rd ed. Chicago: Westview Press; 2014.
72. Cartwright N, Hardie J. Evidence-based policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012.
73. Kingdon J. Agendas, alternatives and public policies. 2nd ed. New York: Harper Collins; 1995.
74. Cairney P. What is evolutionary theory and how does it inform policy studies? Policy Polit. 2013;41(2):279-98.
75. Cairney P, Jones M. Kingdon's multiple streams approach: what is the empirical impact of this universal theory? Policy Stud J. 2016;44(1):37-58.
76. Mintrom M, Norman P. Policy entrepreneurship and policy change. Policy Studies J. 2009;37(4):649-67.
77. Smith K. Beyond evidence based policy in public health. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2013.
78. Stoker G. Why policymakers ignore evidence. 2013. http://publicpolicy.southampton.ac.uk/why-policymakers-ignore-evidence/.
79. Dobrow MJ, Goel V, Lemieux-Charles L, Black NA. The impact of context on evidence utilization. Soc Sci Med. 2006;63(7):1811-24.
80. Nutley S, Powell A, Davies H. What counts as good evidence. London: Alliance for Useful Evidence; 2013. http://www.alliance4usefulevidence.org/assets/What-Counts-as-Good-Evidence-WEB.pdf.
81. Pawson R. Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. London: Sage; 2006.
82. Petticrew M, Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences. Oxford: Blackwell; 2006.
83. Axford N, Pawson R. Are randomised control trials essential in policy making? SRA: Research Matters. 2014. http://the-sra.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/SRA-Research-Matters-June-2014.pdf.
84. Nilsson M, Jordan A, Turnpenny J, Hertin J, Nykvist B, Russel D. The use and non-use of policy appraisal tools in public policy making: An analysis of three European countries and the European Union. Policy Sci. 2008;41(4):335-55.
85. Haynes L, Goldacre B, Torgerson D. Test, learn, adapt: developing public policy with randomised controlled trials. London: Cabinet Office; 2012.
86. Newman J. Boundary troubles: working the academic-policy interface. Policy Polit. 2011;39(4):473-84.
87. Stevens A. Telling policy stories: an ethnographic study of the use of evidence in policymaking in the UK. J Soc Policy. 2011;40(2):237-55.
88. Pearce W, Raman S. The new randomised controlled trials (RCT) movement in public policy: challenges of epistemic governance. Policy Sci. 2014;47(4):387-402.
89. Pearce W, Wesslink A, Colebatch H. Evidence and meaning in policy making. Evid Policy. 2014;10(2):161-5.
90. Schmitt J, Beach D. The contribution of process tracing to theory-based evaluations of complex aid instruments. Evaluation. 2015;21(4):429-47.
91. Cairney P, Russell S, St Denny E. The 'Scottish approach' to policy and policymaking: what issues are territorial and what are universal? Policy Politics. 2016;44(3):333-50.
92. Nilsen P, Ståhl C, Roback K, Author A. Never the twain shall meet? Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):63.
93. Sackett DL, Rosenberg W, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine. Br Med J. 1996;312(7023):71-2.
94. Greenhalgh T, Howick J, Maskrey N. Evidence Based Medicine Renaissance Group. Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis? BMJ. 2014;348:g3725.
95. Coalition for evidence-based policy, 2012, Nurse-family partnership, http://evidencebasedprograms.org/1366-2/nurse-family-partnership.
96. Nurse-Family Partnership, 2015, Proven effective through extensive research http://www.nursefamilypartnership.org/proven-results.
97. Family nurse partnership national unit, 2014, The evidence base for family nurse partnership. http://www.fnp.nhs.uk/sites/default/files/files/FNP%20Evidence%20Summary%20Leaflet%20Dec14%pdf.
98. Robling M, et al. Effectiveness of a nurse-led intensive home-visitation programme for first-time teenage mothers (Building Blocks). Lancet. 2016;387(10014):146-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00392-X.
99. Department of Health. The family nurse partnership programme. London: Department of Health; 2012. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/216864/The-Family-Nurse-Partnership-Programme-Information-leaflet pdf.
100. Davies S, Heath H. Quality of care in National Care Homes Research and Development Forum. London: Help the Aged; 2007. http://www.scie.org.uk/publications/guides/guide15/files/myhomelife-litreview pdf.
101. Dewar B, Cook F, Barrie K. Final report. Paisley: University of the West of Scotland; 2014. http://myhomelife.uws.ac.uk/scotland/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Report-West-DunbartonshireFINAL.pdf.
102. King G, Servais M, Forchuk C, et al. Features and impacts of five multidisciplinary community-university research partnerships. Health Soc Care Community. 2010;18:59-69.
103. Wehrens R, Bekker M, Bal R. Hybrid management configurations in joint research. Sci Technol Human Values. 2014;39:41.
104. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. The breakthrough series: IHI s collaborative model for achieving breakthrough improvement. Boston: Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2003. http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/IHIWhitePapers/TheBreakthroughSeriesIHIsCollaborativeModelforAchievingBreakthroughImprovement.aspx.
105. Morris ZS, Wooding S, Grant J. The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. J R Soc Med. 2011;104(12):510-20.
106. Scottish Government. The Early Years Collaborative. Edinburgh: Scottish Government; 2014. www.gov.scot/Resource/0047/00473734.pdf.
107. Harvey G, Fitzgerald L, Fielden S, McBride A, Waterman H, Bamford D, Kislov R, Boaden R. The NIHR collaboration for leadership in applied health research and care (CLAHRC) for Greater Manchester: combining empirical, theoretical and experiential evidence to design and evaluate a large-scale implementation strategy. Implement Sci. 2011;6:96.
108. Rycroft-Malone J, Wilkinson JE, Burton CR, Andrews G, Ariss S, Baker R, McCormack BG. Implementing health research through academic and clinical partnerships. Implement Sci. 2011;6(1):74.
109. Scarbrough H, D'Andreta D, Evans S, et al. Networked innovation in the health sector: comparative qualitative study of the role of Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care in translating research into practice. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2014 May. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 2.13.) Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK259731/ doi: 10.3310/hsdr02130.