Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy?
Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12961-017-0192-x
复制
发表时间：
2017-04-26
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Oliver, Kathryn
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cairney, Paul;Oliver, Kathryn
有大量关于“证据-政策差距”的卫生和公共卫生文献，探讨了科学家试图确保对他们提出的问题和解决方案做出反应的令人沮丧的经历，并确定了需要更好的证据来减少决策者的不确定性。通过运用政策理论，提出具有更大影响力的研究建议，并通过说服来减少模糊性，适应多层次的决策体系，从而提供新的视角。我们从系统评价、批判性分析和与循证决策相关的政策理论等二手数据中，发掘见解。这些研究主要来自美国、英国、加拿大、澳大利亚和新西兰等国家。我们结合联合收割机的经验和规范的元素，以确定科学家可以，做和可以影响政策的方式。我们确定了两个重要的困境，科学家和研究人员，从我们最初的建议。首先，有效的行动者将联合收割机证据与操纵性的情感诉求结合起来，以影响政策议程--科学家是否应该这样做，或者声誉成本是否会超过政策收益？第二，在适应多层次决策时，科学家是否应该将“基于证据”的决策置于其他因素之上？后者包括治理原则，如地方公共机构、利益集团和服务用户之间的政策“共同制定”。这一过程可能主要基于价值观，并涉及演员没有承诺的证据等级。我们的结论是，成功地参与“循证决策”需要务实，结合科学证据与治理原则，并说服复杂的证据转化为简单的故事。为了最大限度地利用健康和公共卫生政策中的科学证据，研究人员应该认识到政策制定者倾向于根据他们的信仰做出判断，并根据他们的情绪和对信息的熟悉程度走捷径;了解“行动在哪里”，并准备好参与能够影响政策的长期战略;在这两种情况下，决定你愿意在多大程度上说服政策制定者采取行动，并确保政策的证据层次。这些是价值驱动和政治选择，而不仅仅是“基于证据”的选择。
There is extensive health and public health literature on the 'evidence-policy gap', exploring the frustrating experiences of scientists trying to secure a response to the problems and solutions they raise and identifying the need for better evidence to reduce policymaker uncertainty. We offer a new perspective by using policy theory to propose research with greater impact, identifying the need to use persuasion to reduce ambiguity, and to adapt to multi-level policymaking systems.We identify insights from secondary data, namely systematic reviews, critical analysis and policy theories relevant to evidence-based policymaking. The studies are drawn primarily from countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We combine empirical and normative elements to identify the ways in which scientists can, do and could influence policy.We identify two important dilemmas, for scientists and researchers, that arise from our initial advice. First, effective actors combine evidence with manipulative emotional appeals to influence the policy agenda - should scientists do the same, or would the reputational costs outweigh the policy benefits? Second, when adapting to multi-level policymaking, should scientists prioritise 'evidence-based' policymaking above other factors? The latter includes governance principles such the 'co-production' of policy between local public bodies, interest groups and service users. This process may be based primarily on values and involve actors with no commitment to a hierarchy of evidence.We conclude that successful engagement in 'evidence-based policymaking' requires pragmatism, combining scientific evidence with governance principles, and persuasion to translate complex evidence into simple stories. To maximise the use of scientific evidence in health and public health policy, researchers should recognise the tendency of policymakers to base judgements on their beliefs, and shortcuts based on their emotions and familiarity with information; learn 'where the action is', and be prepared to engage in long-term strategies to be able to influence policy; and, in both cases, decide how far you are willing to go to persuade policymakers to act and secure a hierarchy of evidence underpinning policy. These are value-driven and political, not just 'evidence-based', choices.