Evaluating and Using Observational Evidence: The Contrasting Views of Policy Makers and Epidemiologists.
Evaluating and Using Observational Evidence: The Contrasting Views of Policy Makers and Epidemiologists.
复制标题
DOI：
10.3389/fpubh.2016.00267
复制
发表时间：
2016
影响因子：
5.2
通讯作者：
Anstey KJ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
O'Donoughue Jenkins L;Kelly PM;Cherbuin N;Anstey KJ
目前，人们对决策者使用的证据类型知之甚少。本研究旨在调查卫生领域的政策制定者如何使用和评估证据，以及这与学术流行病学家有何不同。通过更好地了解政策制定者如何选择，评估和使用证据，学者可以定制证据产生的方式，从而可能导致更有效的知识转化。采用探索性混合方法研究设计。通过匿名在线调查（n = 28），从三个卫生相关的政府和非政府组织抽样收集定量措施。半结构化的采访政策制定者（n = 20）和流行病学家（n = 6）进行了收集定性数据。决策者表示，系统性综述是首选的研究资源（19%），其次是定性研究（16%）。决策者和流行病学家都没有使用分级工具来评估证据。在网络调查中，决策者报告说，证据的一致性和强度（93%），数据的质量（93%），证据的偏见（79%）和证据的新近度（79%）是评估现有证据时考虑的最重要因素。在定性访谈中也发现了同样的结果。流行病学家集中研究了研究中使用的方法。据政策制定者称，使用强有力证据的最常见障碍是政治考虑（60%），时间限制（55%），资金（50%）和研究不适用于当前政策（50%）。决策者的调查没有报告评估证据的系统方法。尽管政策制定者和流行病学家认为的高质量证据之间存在一些重叠，但也存在一些重要的差异。这表明，在制定政策时可能不会经常使用最佳科学证据。从本质上讲，决策过程依赖于其他法域的政策和内部工作人员的意见，作为政策决定的主要证据来源。这项研究的结果表明，应努力使科学信息更系统地提供给决策者。
Currently, little is known about the types of evidence used by policy makers. This study aimed to investigate how policy makers in the health domain use and evaluate evidence and how this differs from academic epidemiologists. By having a better understanding of how policy makers select, evaluate, and use evidence, academics can tailor the way in which that evidence is produced, potentially leading to more effective knowledge translation. An exploratory mixed-methods study design was used. Quantitative measures were collected via an anonymous online survey (n = 28), with sampling from three health-related government and non-government organizations. Semi-structured interviews with policy makers (n = 20) and epidemiologists (n = 6) were conducted to gather qualitative data. Policy makers indicated systematic reviews were the preferred research resource (19%), followed closely by qualitative research (16%). Neither policy makers nor epidemiologists used grading instruments to evaluate evidence. In the web survey, policy makers reported that consistency and strength of evidence (93%), the quality of data (93%), bias in the evidence (79%), and recency of evidence (79%) were the most important factors taken into consideration when evaluating the available evidence. The same results were found in the qualitative interviews. Epidemiologists focused on the methodology used in the study. The most cited barriers to using robust evidence, according to policy makers, were political considerations (60%), time limitations (55%), funding (50%), and research not being applicable to current policies (50%). The policy maker’s investigation did not report a systematic approach to evaluating evidence. Although there was some overlap between what policy makers and epidemiologists identified as high-quality evidence, there was also some important differences. This suggests that the best scientific evidence may not routinely be used in the development of policy. In essence, the policy-making process relied on other jurisdictions’ policies and the opinions of internal staff members as primary evidence sources to inform policy decisions. Findings of this study suggest that efforts should be directed toward making scientific information more systematically available to policy makers.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
9
作者：
Jacobson, N;Butterill, D;Goering, P
通讯作者：
Goering, P
影响因子：
6.6
作者：
Haynes, Abby S.;Gillespie, James A.;Sturk, Heidi
通讯作者：
Sturk, Heidi
影响因子：
6.3
作者：
Petticrew, M;Whitehead, M;Egan, M
通讯作者：
Egan, M
影响因子：
9.7
作者：
Dreyer, Nancy A.;Tunis, Sean R.;Gliklich, Richard
通讯作者：
Gliklich, Richard
影响因子：
4.4
作者：
Ritter, Alison
通讯作者：
Ritter, Alison