Evidence-based policy is a dominant theme in contemporary public services but the practical realities and challenges involved in using evidence in policy-making are formidable. Part of the problem is one of complexity. In health services and other public services, we are dealing with complex social interventions which act on complex social systems--things like league tables, performance measures, regulation and inspection, or funding reforms. These are not 'magic bullets' which will always hit their target, but programmes whose effects are crucially dependent on context and implementation. Traditional methods of review focus on measuring and reporting on programme effectiveness, often find that the evidence is mixed or conflicting, and provide little or no clue as to why the intervention worked or did not work when applied in different contexts or circumstances, deployed by different stakeholders, or used for different purposes. This paper offers a model of research synthesis which is designed to work with complex social interventions or programmes, and which is based on the emerging 'realist' approach to evaluation. It provides an explanatory analysis aimed at discerning what works for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects and how. The first step is to make explicit the programme theory (or theories)--the underlying assumptions about how an intervention is meant to work and what impacts it is expected to have. We then look for empirical evidence to populate this theoretical framework, supporting, contradicting or modifying the programme theories as it goes. The results of the review combine theoretical understanding and empirical evidence, and focus on explaining the relationship between the context in which the intervention is applied, the mechanisms by which it works and the outcomes which are produced. The aim is to enable decision-makers to reach a deeper understanding of the intervention and how it can be made to work most effectively. Realist review does not provide simple answers to complex questions. It will not tell policy-makers or managers whether something works or not, but will provide the policy and practice community with the kind of rich, detailed and highly practical understanding of complex social interventions which is likely to be of much more use to them when planning and implementing programmes at a national, regional or local level.

The rise of evidence‐based clinical practice in health care has caused some people to start questioning how health care managers and policymakers make decisions, and what role evidence plays in the process. Though managers and policymakers have been quick to encourage clinicians to adopt an evidence‐based approach, they have been slower to apply the same ideas to their own practice. Yet, there is evidence that the same problems (of the underuse of effective interventions and the overuse of ineffective ones) are as widespread in health care management as they are in clinical practice. Because there are important differences between the culture, research base, and decision‐making processes of clinicians and managers, the ideas of evidence‐based practice, while relevant, need to be translated for management rather than simply transferred. The experience of the Center for Health Management Research (CHMR) is used to explore how to bring managers and researchers together and promote the use of evidence in managerial decision‐making. However, health care funders, health care organizations, research funders, and academic centers need wider and more concerted action to promote the development of evidence‐based managerial practice.

No abstract

No abstract