Contextualization of indicators for evidence-informed policy making: results from Denmark and Italy

Role Of Measurable Indicators In Evidence-Informed Policy Making –Romanian Case Study

“…Consensus on low relevance and low feasibility was considered when an indicator met the following criteria: both medians were equal to or lower than two (Tudisca et al, 2018;. The third face-to-face Delphi round consisted in a national conference preceded by an online preconference exercise where the final set of indicators (following the two internet-based Delphi rounds) were contextualised and further validated by national experts in each country (Aro et al, 2016b;Tudisca et al, 2016b). The aim of the national conference was to map the indicators to one or more policy phases where they would be most useful in each country setting (Tudisca et al, 2018).…”

Policymakers’ Research Capacities, Engagement, and Use of Research in Public Health Policymaking

“…It follows the primary principles of health promotion and accommodates complex health policy processes [ 16 , 17 ]. EIPM acknowledges that evidence for this policy originates from research but also includes knowledge from other sources such as needs assessments, population characteristics, community resources and values, ideas and interests, professional and practical experience, all in a broader environmental and organizational context [ 3 , 6 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ]. The aim of using the EIPM approach is to improve health systems’ performance and the health of the population by developing more effective and efficient public health policies [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 ].…”