A Qualitative Assessment of the Evidence Utilization for Health Policy-Making on the Basis of SUPPORT Tools in a Developing Country

Imani-Nasab, Mohammad Hasan; Seyedin, Hesam; Yazdizadeh, Bahareh; Majdzadeh, Reza

doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2016.158

Cited by 15 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 28 publications

(41 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…the most common data collection methods used were interviews ( n = 20 of 38 studies) [ 23 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 33 – 38 , 42 , 44 – 46 , 49 , 51 , 54 , 58 – 60 ], surveys ( n = 17) [ 27 , 28 , 30 – 32 , 34 , 40 , 42 , 43 , 46 , 47 , 50 – 52 , 56 , 57 , 59 ] and case studies involving multiple methods ( n = 4) [ 54 , 56 , 59 , 60 ] (there were 12 articles studying only one case [ 35 , 43 – 46 , 48 , 54 , 56 – 60 ] and only 4 of them used more than one data collection method).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lessons learned from descriptions and evaluations of knowledge translation platforms supporting evidence-informed policy-making in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Partridge

Mansilla

Randhawa

et al. 2020

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Knowledge translation (KT) platforms are organisations, initiatives and networks that focus on supporting evidence-informed policy-making at least in part about the health-system arrangements that determine whether the right programmes, services and products get to those who need them. Many descriptions and evaluations of KT platforms in low- and middle-income countries have been produced but, to date, they have not been systematically reviewed. Methods We identified potentially relevant studies through a search of five electronic databases and a variety of approaches to identify grey literature. We used four criteria to select eligible empirical studies. We extracted data about seven characteristics of included studies and about key findings. We used explicit criteria to assess study quality. In synthesising the findings, we gave greater attention to themes that emerged from multiple studies, higher-quality studies and different contexts. Results Country was the most common jurisdictional focus of KT platforms, EVIPNet the most common name and high turnover among staff a common infrastructural feature. Evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues were the activities/outputs that were the most extensively studied and viewed as helpful, while rapid evidence services were the next most studied but only in a single jurisdiction. None of the summative evaluations used a pre–post design or a control group and, with the exception of the evaluations of the influence of briefs and dialogues on intentions to act, none of the evaluations achieved a high quality score. Conclusions A large and growing volume of research evidence suggests that KT platforms offer promise in supporting evidence-informed policy-making in low- and middle-income countries. KT platforms should consider as next steps expanding their current, relatively limited portfolio of activities and outputs, building bridges to complementary groups, and planning for evaluations that examine ‘what works’ for ‘what types of issues’ in ‘what types of contexts’.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lessons learned from descriptions and evaluations of knowledge translation platforms supporting evidence-informed policy-making in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Partridge

Mansilla

Randhawa

et al. 2020

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, a study explained that one of the strategies of the decision-makers to measure the feasibility of the policy options was piloting them which had a higher chance of being approved by the policymakers. Also, pilot implementation in smaller scales has also been recommended in public health in cases of lack of sufficient evidence (78).…”

Section: Implementingmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Framework of Evidence-Based Decision-Making in Health System Management: Applying Best-Fit Framework Synthesis

Shafaghat

Bastani

Nasab

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Scientific evidence is the basis for improving public health; decision-making without sufficient attention to evidence may lead to unpleasant consequences. In recent years, efforts have been made to create more comprehensive guidelines for evidence-based decision-making (EBDM), thus the purpose of the present study was developing a framework for EBDM to make the best decisions concerning to scare resources and too many needs. Methods: The present basic-applied research was a secondary study carried out using qualitative research method in 2019. A Systematic Scoping Review (SSR) was done for the comprehensive review of the existing published studies in this area. This method, according to Arksey and O’Malley approach, consists of five main stages and one optional stage. Results: Based on the SSR, 3751 studies from 7 databases were found, and due to the full-text screening of the studies, 30 final studies were selected for extracting the components and steps of EBDM in Health System Management (HSM). After collecting, synthesizing, and categorizing key information, the framework of EBDM in HSM is developed in the form of four general scopes of inquiring, inspecting, implementing and integrating, which includes 10 main steps and 56 sub-steps. Conclusions: The present framework tries to present a sequential systematic map to achieve evidence-based decision and policy making specially for under developed and developing countries which mostly suffer from applying update and applied evidences in their decision-making process. At the same time, it seems that the present framework tries to synthesize and integrate the fragmented elements of the other models and in this way can be tested by developed countries to improve their EBDM cycle.

show abstract

“…Assessment of evidence entails assessing the quality of evidence, its effects on equity, and its applicability in the health policy-making settings (Thornhill, Judd & Clements, 2009). Imani-Nasab et al (2017) argue that researchers assess the quality of articles with their own knowledge of research methodology; reputation of the journals in which it was published; its impact factors;…”

Section: Assessment Of Evidence In Health Policy Documentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Levels of research evidence in health policy assessment in Malawi

Mapulanga

Raju

Matingwina

2019

LHS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose-The paper examines levels of health research evidence in health policies in Malawi. Design/Methodology/Approach-The study selected a typology of health policies in Malawi from 2002 to 2017. The study adopted the SPIRIT conceptual framework and assessed the levels of research evidence in health policy, systems and services research using the revised SAGE policy assessment tool. Documentary analysis was used to assess levels of health research evidence in health policies in Malawi. Findings-In 29 (96.7%) of the health policies, policy formulators including healthcare directors and managers used generic search engines such as Google or Google Scholar to look for heath research evidence. In 28 (93.3%) of the health policies they searched for grey literature and other government documents. In only 6 (20%) of the heath policy documents, they used academic literature in a form of journal articles and randomised controlled trials. No systematic reviews or policy briefs were consulted. Overall, in 23 (76.7%) of the health policy documents research evidence played a minimal role and had very little influence on the policy documents. Research limitations/implications-The empirical evidence in the health policy documents are limited due to insufficient research citation, low retrievability of health research evidence in the policy documents and biased selectivity of what constitutes health research evidence. Practical implications-The paper indicates that unfiltered information (data from policy evaluations and registries) constitutes majority of the research evidence in health policies both in health policy, systems and services research. The paper seeks to advocate for the use of filtered information (peer reviewed, clinical trials and data from systematic reviews) in formulating health policies. Originality/value-There is dearth of literature on the levels of health research evidence in health policy-making both in health policy, systems and services research. This study seeks to bridge the gap with empirical evidence from a developing country perspective.

show abstract

A Qualitative Assessment of the Evidence Utilization for Health Policy-Making on the Basis of SUPPORT Tools in a Developing Country

Cited by 15 publications

References 28 publications

Lessons learned from descriptions and evaluations of knowledge translation platforms supporting evidence-informed policy-making in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Lessons learned from descriptions and evaluations of knowledge translation platforms supporting evidence-informed policy-making in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

A Framework of Evidence-Based Decision-Making in Health System Management: Applying Best-Fit Framework Synthesis

Levels of research evidence in health policy assessment in Malawi

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About