BackgroundEnsuring health policies are informed by evidence still remains a challenge despite efforts devoted to this aim. Several tools and approaches aimed at fostering evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM) have been developed, yet there is a lack of availability of indicators specifically devoted to assess and support EIPM. The present study aims to overcome this by building a set of measurable indicators for EIPM intended to infer if and to what extent health-related policies are, or are expected to be, evidence-informed for the purposes of policy planning as well as formative and summative evaluations.MethodsThe indicators for EIPM were developed and validated at international level by means of a two-round internet-based Delphi study conducted within the European project ‘REsearch into POlicy to enhance Physical Activity’ (REPOPA). A total of 82 researchers and policy-makers from the six European countries (Denmark, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania, the United Kingdom) involved in the project and international organisations were asked to evaluate the relevance and feasibility of an initial set of 23 indicators developed by REPOPA researchers on the basis of literature and knowledge gathered from the previous phases of the project, and to propose new indicators.ResultsThe first Delphi round led to the validation of 14 initial indicators and to the development of 8 additional indicators based on panellists’ suggestions; the second round led to the validation of a further 11 indicators, including 6 proposed by panellists, and to the rejection of 6 indicators. A total of 25 indicators were validated, covering EIPM issues related to human resources, documentation, participation and monitoring, and stressing different levels of knowledge exchange and involvement of researchers and other stakeholders in policy development and evaluation.ConclusionThe study overcame the lack of availability of indicators to assess if and to what extent policies are realised in an evidence-informed manner thanks to the active contribution of researchers and policy-makers. These indicators are intended to become a shared resource usable by policy-makers, researchers and other stakeholders, with a crucial impact on fostering the development of policies informed by evidence.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-018-0323-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The use of research in public health policymaking is one of the prerequisites for successfully implemented health policies which have better population health as an outcome. This policy process is influenced by the actors involved under the policy umbrella, with inter-related contextual factors and specific structural and institutional circumstances. Our study investigates how policymakers’ research capacities influence the use of research in the health policy process and identify areas where capacity-building interventions give the most meaning and impact. Furthermore, we investigate policymakers’ research engagement and use this to inform public health policy in the public sector in Denmark. We collect and report data using Seeking, Engaging with, and Evaluation Research (SEER) methodology. Policymakers are reported to have research capacity, but it is questionable how those competences have actually been used in policymaking. Decision-makers were often not aware or did not know about the existing organizational tools and systems for research engagement and use and two third of respondents had not been part of any research activities or had any collaboration with researchers. Overall, research use in public health policymaking and evaluation was limited. As a conclusion, we propose that capacity-building interventions for increasing research use and collaboration in EIPM should be context-oriented, measurable, and sustainable in developing individual and organizational competences.

BackgroundThe present study aims to test out contextually tailored interventions to increase evidence-informed health-enhancing physical activity policy-making in two Danish municipalities.MethodsThe study was performed as experiments in natural settings. Based on results from a pre-intervention study defining the needs and contexts of the two settings, the interventions were developed based on logical models. The interventions aimed at increasing the use of knowledge in policy-making, primarily via strengthening intersectoral collaboration. The interventions were evaluated via pre-, post- and 12-month follow-up questionnaires and qualitative interviews were carried out prior to the intervention start.ResultsThe use of knowledge changed in several ways. In one municipality, the use of stakeholder and target group knowledge increased whereas, in the other municipality, the use of research knowledge increased. In both municipalities, the ability to translate knowledge to local context, the political request and the organisational procedures for use of knowledge increased during the interventions. There was some variation between the two settings, which shows the importance of tailoring to context. Most of the changes were diminished at the 12-month follow-up.ConclusionContextually tailored interventions have the potential to increase evidence-informed policy-making on health-enhancing physical activity. However, this finding needs to be tested in larger samples and its sustainability must be strengthened.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-018-0290-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Aim: This study investigates the non-medical public health and surveillance policies and actions for tackling the community spread of COVID-19 pandemic in Denmark, Serbia and Sweden during the first five months of the pandemic in 2020. Method: The study is inspired by a process-tracing design for case study with a focus on the non-medical measures and surveillance strategies implemented by the three countries. The comprehensive collection and study of national documents formed the basis of the document analysis. Results: The Danish strategy was to prolong the transmission period, preventing high numbers of infected cases from impacting their healthcare capacity. The government’s strategy was characterized by strict governance elements, health guidelines and behavioural recommendations. In Serbia, the main strategy was to prevent the spread and control of the infectious disease by shifting all human and material resources towards the function of controlling the spread. Serbia applied the strictest measures in the fight against coronavirus in relation to other countries in the region and in Europe. The Swedish strategy focused more on recommendations than requirements to motivate the public to modify their behaviours voluntarily. Sweden’s loose pandemic strategy implementation focused on voluntary and stepwise action rather than legislation and compulsory measures. Conclusions: The public health policies and actions implemented to prevent community spread of COVID-19 in Denmark, Serbia and Sweden varied during the first five months of the pandemic. The differences in their response were due to delays in implementation, inconsistencies in perspectives towards the outbreak and the capacity of each country in terms of their pandemic preparedness and response.

No abstract