The discordance between evidence and health policy in the United States: the science of translational research and the critical role of diverse stakeholders

Abstract

BackgroundThere is often a discordance between health research evidence and public health policies implemented by the United States federal government. In the process of developing health policy, discordance can arise through subjective and objective factors that are unrelated to the value of the evidence itself, and can inhibit the use of research evidence. We explore two common types of discordance through four illustrative examples and then propose a potential means of addressing discordance.DiscussionIn Discordance 1, public health authorities make recommendations for policy action, yet these are not based on high quality, rigorously synthesised research evidence. In Discordance 2, evidence-based public health recommendations are ignored or discounted in developing United States federal government policy. Both types could lead to serious risks of public health and clinical patient harms.We suggest that, to mitigate risks associated with these discordances, public health practitioners, health policy-makers, health advocates and other key stakeholders should take the opportunity to learn or expand their knowledge regarding current research methods, as well as improve their skills for appropriately considering the strengths and limitations of research evidence. This could help stakeholders to adopt a more nuanced approach to developing health policy. Stakeholders should also have a more insightful contextual awareness of these discordances and understand their potential harms. In Discordance 1, public health organisations and authorities need to acknowledge their own historical roles in making public health recommendations with insufficient evidence for improving health outcomes. In Discordance 2, policy-makers should recognise the larger impact of their decision-making based on minimal or flawed evidence, including the potential for poor health outcomes at population level and the waste of huge sums. In both types of discordance, stakeholders need to consider the impact of their own unconscious biases in championing evidence that may not be valid or conclusive.ConclusionPublic health policy needs to provide evidence-based solutions to public health problems, but this is not always done. We discuss some of the factors inhibiting evidence-based decision-making in United States federal government public health policy and suggest ways these could be addressed.

Are current clinical guidelines on the use of Peripheral Intravenous Cannula for blood draws supported by evidence? An organizational case study

“…It is intuitively known that when health policies are informed by robust and tested evidence, those policies are likely to result in more equitable and sustainable gains to population health (van de Goor et al., 2017). Organizations devoted to the promotion of evidence‐based health care have emerged in the United States and internationally, seeking to increase the production of systematic reviews and evidence synthesization (Malekinejad, Horvath, Snyder, & Brindis, 2018). The World Health Organization has long acknowledged the importance of evidence in health through an advisory committee dedicated to health research and set up a sub‐committee specifically to examine the use of research evidence (Whitworth, 2006).…”

How can we monitor the impact of national health information systems? Results from a scoping review

“…Politics and external actors with vested interests also influence policies—this can lead to dissonance when objectives across sectors do not align to improve health. 12 , 127 In Europe, the Joint Research Centre, EVIPnet and the European Health Observatory facilitate the continued use of evidence in policy development.…”

Scoping Review of Access to Emergency Contraception for Sexual Assault Victims in Emergency Departments in the United States

“…Given the unknown status of sexual assault survivor access to EC in the last 9 years, there is need for future studies that capture more recent landscapes of sexual assault care. These studies should examine whether state-level policies have affected sexual assault survivors’ access to EC and what the barriers there are in translating legislation to practice and prescribing behaviors (Evans, Snooks, Howson, & Davies, 2013; Fowler et al, 2015; Malekinejad, Horvath, Snyder, & Brindis, 2018; Martin, Norcott, Khalid, & O'Connell, 2017). These findings could inform future state- and hospital-level policies, which would, in turn, help more sexual assault survivors gain access to the essential service of EC.…”