Research and Advice Giving: A Functional View of Evidence‐Informed Policy Advice in a Canadian Ministry of Health

Abstract

Context: As evidence-based medicine grows in influence and scope, its applicability to health policy prompts two questions: Can the principles and, more specifically, the tools used to bring research into the clinical world apply to civil servants offering advice to politicians? If not, what approach should the evidence-oriented health policy organization take to improve the use of research?Methods: This article reviews evidence-based medicine and models of research use in policy. Then it reports the results of interviews with civil servants in the Ontario Ministry of Health, which recently adopted a stewardship rather than an operational role, incorporating many evidence-oriented strategies. The interviews focused on functional roles for research-based evidence in policy advice. Findings:The clinical context and tools for evidence-based medicine can rarely be generalized to policy. Most current models of research use offer lessons to researchers wishing to apply their work to policy but little help for civil servants wishing to become more evidence oriented. The interviews revealed functional roles for research in setting agendas (noting upcoming issues and screening interest groups' claims), developing new policies (reducing uncertainty, helping speak truth to power, and preventing repetition and duplication), and monitoring or modifying existing policies (continuously improving programs and creating a culture of inquiry). Each area requires different tools to help filter the push of evidence from researchers and set agendas, to facilitate the urgent pull on relevant research by civil servants developing new policy, and to support ongoing linkage and exchange between civil servants and researchers for monitoring and modifying existing policy.

Public Health Understandings of Policy and Power: Lessons from INSITE

“…A second modification has been to acknowledge that things other than evidence may be deemed relevant so that rather than speaking in terms of evidence-based policy decisions, it is perhaps better to speak in terms of "evidence informed" policy making. 21,22 However, there are several characteristics of this model that continue to make it ineffective for understanding decision making about public policy. For example, there is little or no attempt to define the concept of "policy" 23 or, alternatively, a policy is simply an intervention or a decision by another name.…”

“Never mind the logic, give me the numbers”: Former Australian health ministers' perspectives on the social determinants of health

“…In particular she highlights the individualism that is implicit in much United States (US) health policy. Consequently, modern policy analysis frequently follows Bacchi's (2009) In researching the influence of evidence on policy in Canada, Lomas and Brown (2009) found that complex forces compete with research for the attention of civil servants and politicians and that research evidence is variably received at different stages of policy development. Other research has shown how research collaboration between academics and policymakers facilitates translation of evidence into policy (Best et al, 2009;Howlett, 2009), but it tends to underplay Kingdon's insights about political support and timeliness as a vital feature of policymaking.…”

Improving the Utilization of Research Knowledge in Agri-food Public Health: A Mixed-Method Review of Knowledge Translation and Transfer

“…Policy-making is a complex, value-laden, and negotiated process (Mitton et al, 2007;Greenhalgh and Russell, 2009;Lenton and Allsop, 2010). It involves the consideration of multiple, competing influences and forces, including research, stakeholder views and experiences, and socioeconomic implications (Hanney et al, 2003;Dobrow et al, 2004;Ashford et al, 2006;Lomas and Brown, 2009;Contandriopoulos et al, 2010). However, the process should still be accountable and transparent (Riege and Lindsay, 2006;Rundall et al, 2007).…”

“…Research also needs to be presented to end-users in a relevant, timely, understandable, and accessible format (Lavis et al, 2005;Mitton et al, 2007;Bowen et al, 2009). In addition, research needs to incorporate multiple types of evidence (e.g., quantitative and qualitative) that address contextual factors of importance to decision-makers (e.g., cost-effectiveness) to improve the relevance of key messages and implications (Mays et al, 2005;Poulos et al, 2007;Davies et al, 2008;Brownson et al, 2009;Lomas and Brown, 2009). …”