Following the science? Views from scientists on government advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study in five European countries

Abstract

IntroductionIn order to tackle the pandemic, governments have established various types of advisory boards to provide evidence and recommendations to policy makers. Scientists working on these boards have faced many challenges, including working under significant time constraints to produce ‘evidence’ as quickly as possible. However, their voices are still largely missing in the discussion. This study explores the views and experiences of scientists working on government advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the aim to learn lessons for future pandemic management and preparedness.MethodsWe conducted online video or telephone semi-structured interviews between December 2020 and April 2021 with 21 scientists with an official government advisory role during the COVID-19 pandemic in Belgium, the Netherlands, UK, Sweden and Germany. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed and analysed using a combination of inductive and deductive thematic analysis techniques.ResultsScientists viewed the initial focus on biomedically oriented work during the pandemic as somewhat one-dimensional, but also highlighted difficulties of working in an interdisciplinary way. They found it difficult at times to ensure that the evidence is understood and taken on board by governments. They found themselves taking on new roles, the boundaries of which were not clearly defined. Consequently, they were often perceived and treated as a public figure.ConclusionScientists working on advisory boards in European countries faced similar challenges, highlighting key lessons to be learnt. Future pandemic preparedness efforts should focus on building interdisciplinary collaboration through development of scientists’ skills and appropriate infrastructure; ensuring transparency in how boards operate; defining and protecting the boundaries of the scientific advisor role; and supporting scientists to inform the public in the fight against disinformation, while dealing with potential hostile reactions.

Challenges to evidence-informed decision-making in the context of pandemics: qualitative study of COVID-19 policy advisor perspectives

“…Scientific advisors faced multiple constraints and challenges surrounding available COVID-19 evidence and informing EIDM, which included: the speed and influx of new, evolving, and at times conflicting evidence coming in; concerns about scientific integrity and misinterpretation of evidence; the limited in-country capacity to assess and produce evidence, as well as limitations of adapting evidence from other contexts; navigating multiple forms of evidence and perspectives needed to inform decisions with multi-sectoral impacts; having to provide recommendations quickly and under conditions of uncertainty; and a lack of transparency surrounding the process for how decisions are ultimately made. These findings affirm challenges to COVID-19 EIDM noted elsewhere17 18; and also shed new light on the types of overarching challenges specific to evidence interpretation and translation affecting the global scientific and advisory community that are specific to, or amplified by, pandemic contexts.…”

“…Interviewees also expressed frustrations regarding lack of understanding of the policy-making process, and transparency regarding if and how evidence and/or advice was ultimately incorporated into policy. Their sentiments echo that of recent research concerning COVID-19 EIDM and prior research following H1N1, where rapidly developed scientific advisory committees had little time to establish such credibility, and scientific advisors were left with unanswered questions about how advice was used in recommendations ultimately generated 13 18. Yet, in non-pandemic contexts, policy scholars and practitioners alike have long recognised the competing priorities and influences of the policy-making process 11 23…”

Conducting rapid qualitative interview research during the COVID-19 pandemic—Reflections on methodological choices

“…While this can be offset by investing time in appropriate training and collaborative team meetings, the larger the team, the more difficult it may be to do that. The challenges of interdisciplinary research are well-established (Larsen, 2018 ; Bardosh et al, 2020 ), but working under tight timelines, in newly established teams can magnify these challenges (Baxter et al, 2021 ; Colman et al, 2021 ). Given the great value of interdisciplinary working, especially in healthcare emergencies, practical strategies may help to manage some of the challenges we experienced; for example, using Rapid Assessment Process (RAP) sheets to facilitate more systematic updates, summaries of data and a more systemic approach to building infrastructure for cross-country and/or interdisciplinary research (Vindrola-Padros, 2021a ).…”

“…SCIENTIST (Colman et al, 2021 ) was a qualitative study exploring views and experiences of scientists working on government advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic.…”

“…2) FACTS (Hirst et al, 2021;Wanat et al, 2021c) was a mixed-methods study embedded within a cohort study exploring university students' and staff ' experiences of using Lateral Flow Tests for COVID-19. 3) SCIENTIST (Colman et al, 2021) was a qualitative study exploring views and experiences of scientists working on government advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic. 4) STEP-UP (Borek et al, 2021) was a qualitative study with primary care HCPs about the impact of COVID-19 on antibiotic prescribing and stewardship, conducted as part of a larger program of research.…”