Health policy-makers' perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review.
Health policy-makers' perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1258/135581902320432778
复制
发表时间：
2002-10-01
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
Oxman, Andrew
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Innvaer, Simon;Vist, Gunn;Oxman, Andrew
目的：关于如何在决策中更好地适当利用研究证据的理论和共同智慧的经验基础尚不清楚。经验证据的一个来源是对决策者的访谈研究。本系统评价的目的是总结的证据，从访谈研究的促进者，和障碍，使用研究证据的卫生policymakers.METHODS：我们搜索了多个数据库，包括Medline，Embase，Sociofile，PsychLit，PAIS，IBSS，IPSA和HealthStar在2000年6月，手工搜索的关键期刊，并亲自联系调查人员。我们纳入了与卫生政策制定者的访谈研究，这些研究涵盖了他们对在国家、地区或组织层面上卫生政策决策中使用研究证据的看法。两个审查独立评估检索文章的相关性，描述了纳入研究的方法和提取的数据，在表格中进行了总结和qualitativelyanalysed.RESULTS：我们确定了24项研究，符合我们的纳入标准。这些研究共包括2041次与卫生政策制定者的访谈。对证据使用情况的评估主要是描述性和定性的，侧重于假设情景或对具体案件证据使用情况的回顾性看法。使用证据的促进因素和障碍各不相同。最常报告的促进因素是个人联系（13/24），及时相关性（13/24）和包含政策建议摘要（11/24）。最常报告的障碍是缺乏个人接触（11/24）、研究缺乏及时性或相关性（9/24）、相互不信任（8/24）以及权力和预算斗争（7/24）。对卫生政策制定者的访谈研究仅为普遍持有的关于促进和阻碍他们使用证据的信念提供了有限的支持，并提出了一些关于改善政策决策中研究使用的常识性建议的问题。双向的个人沟通，最常见的建议，可能会改善研究证据的适当使用，但它也可能促进选择性（不适当）使用研究证据。
OBJECTIVES: The empirical basis for theories and common wisdom regarding how to improve appropriate use of research evidence in policy decisions is unclear. One source of empirical evidence is interview studies with policy-makers. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the evidence from interview studies of facilitators of, and barriers to, the use of research evidence by health policy-makers.METHODS: We searched multiple databases, including Medline, Embase, Sociofile, PsychLit, PAIS, IBSS, IPSA and HealthStar in June 2000, hand-searched key journals and personally contacted investigators. We included interview studies with health policy-makers that covered their perceptions of the use of research evidence in health policy decisions at a national, regional or organisational level. Two reviewers independently assessed the relevance of retrieved articles, described the methods of included studies and extracted data that were summarised in tables and analysed qualitatively.RESULTS: We identified 24 studies that met our inclusion criteria. These studies included a total of 2041 interviews with health policy-makers. Assessments of the use of evidence were largely descriptive and qualitative, focusing on hypothetical scenarios or retrospective perceptions of the use of evidence in relation to specific cases. Perceived facilitators of, and barriers to, the use of evidence varied. The most commonly reported facilitators were personal contact (13/24), timely relevance (13/24), and the inclusion of summaries with policy recommendations (11/24). The most commonly reported barriers were absence of personal contact (11/24), lack of timeliness or relevance of research (9/24), mutual mistrust (8/24) and power and budget struggles (7/24).CONCLUSIONS: Interview studies with health policy-makers provide only limited support for commonly held beliefs about facilitators of, and barriers to, their use of evidence, and raise questions about commonsense proposals for improving the use of research for policy decisions. Two-way personal communication, the most common suggestion, may improve the appropriate use of research evidence, but it might also promote selective (inappropriate) use of research evidence.