Understanding Evidence-Based Public Health Policy

Abstract

Public health policy has a profound impact on health status. Missing from the literature is a clear articulation of the definition of evidence-based policy and approaches to move the field forward. Policy-relevant evidence includes both quantitative (e.g., epidemiological) and qualitative information (e.g., narrative accounts). We describe 3 key domains of evidence-based policy: (1) process, to understand approaches to enhance the likelihood of policy adoption; (2) content, to identify specific policy elements that are likely to be effective; and (3) outcomes, to document the potential impact of policy. Actions to further evidence-based policy include preparing and communicating data more effectively, using existing analytic tools more effectively, conducting policy surveillance, and tracking outcomes with different types of evidence.

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

“…For example, research will be of increased relevance to end-users if it incorporates an analysis of contextual factors such as economics, public perceptions, and local applicability (Poulos et al, 2007;Davies et al, 2008). One approach to address these factors is through qualitative or mixed-method research (Mays et al, 2005;Brownson et al, 2009). Recent applications of these methods in the agri-food public health sector have investigated issues such as producer attitudes toward on-farm food safety programs and stakeholder opinions about food safety policy development (Sargeant et al, 2007;Young et al, 2011).…”

“…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). …”

“…One of the challenges of KTT is that researchers and endusers tend to have conflicting time horizons, which could affect their ability to engage effectively with each other to support timely research uptake (Lavis et al, 2005;Mitton et al, 2007;Brownson et al, 2009). Early and frequent interactions between researchers and end-users before research initiation and throughout the project can help to overcome this barrier.…”

A Critical Assessment of Evidence-Based Policy and Practice in Social Work

“…It must be acknowledged that there are often other significant factors that are considered by policy makers such as their own ideological perspectives, political objectives as well as financial constraints. Therefore there is a 'considerable gap between what research shows is effective and the policies that are enacted and enforced' (Brownson et al, 2009. A further issue is that the amount of evidence is often vast, 'uneven in quality, and inaccessible to policy makers' (Brownson et al, 2009).…”

“…Therefore there is a 'considerable gap between what research shows is effective and the policies that are enacted and enforced' (Brownson et al, 2009. A further issue is that the amount of evidence is often vast, 'uneven in quality, and inaccessible to policy makers' (Brownson et al, 2009). …”