Analysing key influences over actors’ use of evidence in developing policies and strategies in Nigeria: a retrospective study of the Integrated Maternal Newborn and Child Health strategy

Abstract

BackgroundEvidence-informed policymaking has been promoted as a means of ensuring better outcomes. However, what counts as evidence in policymaking lies within a spectrum of expert knowledge and scientifically generated information. Since not all forms of evidence share an equal validity or weighting for policymakers, it is important to understand the key factors that influence their preferences for different types of evidence in policy and strategy development.MethodA retrospective study was carried out at the national level in Nigeria using a case-study approach to examine the Nigerian Integrated Maternal Newborn and Child Health (IMNCH) strategy. Two frameworks were used for conceptualization and data analysis, namely (1) to analyse the role of evidence in policymaking and (2) the policy triangle. They were used to explore the key contextual and participatory influences on choice of evidence in developing the IMNCH strategy. Data was collected through review of relevant national documents and in-depth interviews of purposively selected key policy and strategic decision makers. Thematic analysis was applied to generate information from collected data.ResultsThe breadth of evidence used was wide, ranging from expert opinions to systematic reviews. The choice of different types of evidence was found to overlap across actor categories. Key influences over actors’ choice of evidence were: (1) perceived robustness of evidence – comprehensive, representative, recent, scientifically sound; (2) roles in evidence process, i.e. their degree and level of participation in evidence generation and dissemination, with regards to their role in the policy process; and (3) contextual factors such as global agenda and influence, timeline for strategy development, availability of resources for evidence generation, and lessons learnt from previous unsuccessful policies/plans.ConclusionActors’ preferences for different types of evidence for policy are influenced not only by the characteristics of evidence itself, but on actors’ roles in the evidence process, their power to influence the policy, and the context in which evidence is used.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0098-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

How effective is the health promotion policy in Sichuan, China: based on the PMC-Index model and field evaluation

“…The results can provide a basis for rational allocation of health resources and improvement of health policy planning. In the past, the government often introduced expert assessment as an essential means of policy assessment, but it is prone to subjective bias [ 23 ]. China's HPPs still lacks a comprehensive, easy-to-operate, scientific evaluation method of the pros and cons of such policies.…”

Integrative review; identifying the evidence base for policymaking and analysis in health care

“…There exists limited evidence on how policymakers take account of contextual issues. At a national level, a stable political system has a positive impact on policy development (Basaza, O'Connell, & Chapcakova, ; Mbachu et al, ) where the converse was found to hinder policy development (El‐Jardali, Bou‐Karroum, Ataya, El‐Ghali, & Hammoud, ). Health policymaking must sit comfortably within the wider national health strategic framework which can either act as a roadmap for policymaking or constrain attempts at policy reform (Mc Hugh, Perry, Bradley, & Brugha, ; Onwujekwe et al, ).…”

Using evidence in mental health policy agenda-setting in low- and middle-income countries: a conceptual meta-framework from a scoping umbrella review

“…First, our findings call for greater attention to be given to informal evidence, evidence based on personal experience, e.g. expert opinion and stakeholder consultations ( Mbachu et al. , 2016 ).…”