Evidence for Health II: Overcoming barriers to using evidence in policy and practice

Abstract

Even the highest quality evidence will have little impact unless it is incorporated into decision-making for health. It is therefore critical to overcome the many barriers to using evidence in decision-making, including (1) missing the window of opportunity, (2) knowledge gaps and uncertainty, (3) controversy, irrelevant and conflicting evidence, as well as (4) vested interests and conflicts of interest. While this is certainly not a comprehensive list, it covers a number of main themes discussed in the knowledge translation literature on this topic, and better understanding these barriers can help readers of the evidence to be more savvy knowledge users and help researchers overcome challenges to getting their evidence into practice. Thus, the first step in being able to use research evidence for improving population health is ensuring that the evidence is available at the right time and in the right format and language so that knowledge users can take the evidence into consideration alongside a multitude of other factors that also influence decision-making. The sheer volume of scientific publications makes it difficult to find the evidence that can actually help inform decisions for health. Policymakers, especially in low- and middle-income countries, require context-specific evidence to ensure local relevance. Knowledge synthesis and dissemination of policy-relevant local evidence is important, but it is still not enough. There are times when the interpretation of the evidence leads to various controversies and disagreements, which act as barriers to the uptake of evidence. Research evidence can also be influenced and misused for various aims and agendas. It is therefore important to ensure that any new evidence comes from reliable sources and is interpreted in light of the overall body of scientific literature. It is not enough to simply produce evidence, nor even to synthesize and package evidence into a more user-friendly format. Particularly at the policy level, political savvy is also needed to ensure that vested interests do not undermine decisions that can impact the health of individuals and populations.

What are the requirements for developing a successful national registry of auditory implants? A qualitative study

“…(3) Is it worth it? 34 Owing to these factors, the IDEAL collaborative, the DoH, NICE, policy-makers and commissioning groups have called for surgical registries to improve our evidence base, drive quality and safety improvements, and inform policy and guidelines development. 1 13 18 26 27…”

Evaluation of Out-Patient Care Educational Environment of National Defence University, Malaysia utilizing the ACLEEM Inventory

“…The most popular form of CBE (89% of medical schools) was in PHC settings (general practice) contained within the first two years of study (20). Therefore, incorporation of community-based placements in PHC settings in medical curriculum is much essential to ensure health equity (21). There were a lot of effort to evaluate educational environment and a number instruments like the Anaesthesia Theatre Educational Environment Measurement (ATEEM) (22), the Surgical Theatre Educational Environment Measure (STEEM) (23), the Postgraduate Hospital Educational Environment Measure (PHEEM) (4), and the Dundee Ready Educational Environment Measure (DREEM) were developed (14).…”

Guidelines on the surgical management of sleep disorders: A systematic review

“…It is important for researchers to be aware of the limitations of research designs that can undermine guideline development . Moreover, researchers should work with decision makers and patients throughout the research process to bridge the gap between evidence and guideline development . This collaboration will identify areas of unmet need and political priority while aligning research and guidelines timeframes .…”

“…13 Moreover, researchers should work with decision makers and patients throughout the research process to bridge the gap between evidence and guideline development. 11,[14][15][16] This collaboration will identify areas of unmet need and political priority while aligning research and guidelines timeframes. 11 Reorganization of incentives for researchers can promote translational research by rewarding impact made on policy and clinical practice rather than number of articles published.…”