3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Exploring evidence use and capacity for health services management and planning in Swiss health administrations: A mixed-method interview study

      research-article
      1 , 2 , * , , 1 , 2
      PLOS ONE
      Public Library of Science

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Health administrations require evidence, meaning robust information, data, and research, on health services and systems. Little is known about the resources and processes available within administrations to support evidence-informed policymaking. This study assessed Swiss health administrations’ capacity for evidence use and investigated civil servants’ needs and perspectives regarding the role and use of evidence in health services management and planning.

          Methods

          In this mixed-method study, we interviewed civil servants from Swiss German-speaking cantonal health administrations. We quantitatively assessed administrations’ organization-level capacity by applying six structured interviews using an existing measurement tool (ORACLe). Individual-level needs and perspectives regarding evidence use and capacity were qualitatively explored with twelve in-depth interviews that were analyzed using the framework method.

          Findings

          Respondents indicated moderate evidence-use capacity in all administrations. Administrations displayed a similar pattern of high and low capacity in specific capacity areas, generally with considerable variation within administrations. Most administrations indicated high capacity for producing or commissioning evidence and close relationships with research. They showed limited capacity in the documentation of processes and availability of tools, programs, or training opportunities. Administrations place the responsibility for engagement with evidence at the level of individual civil servants rather than at the organizational level. Although administrations highly value evidence-informed policymaking and consider it vital to effective health services management and planning, they face significant constraints in accessing evidence-specific resources and receive little organizational support. Administrations rely on external capacity to compensate for these limitations and engage with evidence pragmatically.

          Conclusion

          Our findings indicate moderate and improvable capacity for evidence use in Swiss health administrations that place limited value on organizational support. Besides strengthening organizational support, leadership buy-in, particular staff needs, and balancing the implementation of specific measures with the provision of more general resources should be considered to unlock the potential of strengthened engagement with evidence.

          Related collections

          Most cited references89

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations.

          Standards for reporting exist for many types of quantitative research, but currently none exist for the broad spectrum of qualitative research. The purpose of the present study was to formulate and define standards for reporting qualitative research while preserving the requisite flexibility to accommodate various paradigms, approaches, and methods.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research

            Background The Framework Method is becoming an increasingly popular approach to the management and analysis of qualitative data in health research. However, there is confusion about its potential application and limitations. Discussion The article discusses when it is appropriate to adopt the Framework Method and explains the procedure for using it in multi-disciplinary health research teams, or those that involve clinicians, patients and lay people. The stages of the method are illustrated using examples from a published study. Summary Used effectively, with the leadership of an experienced qualitative researcher, the Framework Method is a systematic and flexible approach to analysing qualitative data and is appropriate for use in research teams even where not all members have previous experience of conducting qualitative research.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers

              Background The gap between research and practice or policy is often described as a problem. To identify new barriers of and facilitators to the use of evidence by policymakers, and assess the state of research in this area, we updated a systematic review. Methods Systematic review. We searched online databases including Medline, Embase, SocSci Abstracts, CDS, DARE, Psychlit, Cochrane Library, NHSEED, HTA, PAIS, IBSS (Search dates: July 2000 - September 2012). Studies were included if they were primary research or systematic reviews about factors affecting the use of evidence in policy. Studies were coded to extract data on methods, topic, focus, results and population. Results 145 new studies were identified, of which over half were published after 2010. Thirteen systematic reviews were included. Compared with the original review, a much wider range of policy topics was found. Although still primarily in the health field, studies were also drawn from criminal justice, traffic policy, drug policy, and partnership working. The most frequently reported barriers to evidence uptake were poor access to good quality relevant research, and lack of timely research output. The most frequently reported facilitators were collaboration between researchers and policymakers, and improved relationships and skills. There is an increasing amount of research into new models of knowledge transfer, and evaluations of interventions such as knowledge brokerage. Conclusions Timely access to good quality and relevant research evidence, collaborations with policymakers and relationship- and skills-building with policymakers are reported to be the most important factors in influencing the use of evidence. Although investigations into the use of evidence have spread beyond the health field and into more countries, the main barriers and facilitators remained the same as in the earlier review. Few studies provide clear definitions of policy, evidence or policymaker. Nor are empirical data about policy processes or implementation of policy widely available. It is therefore difficult to describe the role of evidence and other factors influencing policy. Future research and policy priorities should aim to illuminate these concepts and processes, target the factors identified in this review, and consider new methods of overcoming the barriers described.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: ResourcesRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                PLOS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                8 May 2024
                2024
                : 19
                : 5
                : e0302864
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Swiss Centre for International Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Allschwil, Switzerland
                [2 ] University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
                University of Potsdam: Universitat Potsdam, GERMANY
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1925-1478
                Article
                PONE-D-23-14020
                10.1371/journal.pone.0302864
                11078391
                38718022
                86b02f2b-59df-4ba7-a34c-73648b7175b3
                © 2024 Baumann, Wyss

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 10 May 2023
                : 14 April 2024
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 1, Pages: 21
                Funding
                Funded by: Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation SERI (swissuniversities)
                Award ID: PgB-4, 2017-2020
                This work is financially supported by the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation SERI (swissuniversities, PgB-4, 2017-2020) through the Swiss Learning Health System initiative and the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, the decision to publish, or the preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Services Administration and Management
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Services Research
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Care Policy
                Science Policy
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Epidemiology
                Pandemics
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Care Policy
                Health Systems Strengthening
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Assessment
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Database and Informatics Methods
                Health Informatics
                Custom metadata
                ORACLe raw data set is publicly available at Zenodo: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7721915. In-depth inter-view data cannot be publicly shared as it contains information that could compromise the privacy of research participants and violate ethical standards. Data requests for anonymized data may be sent to the authors of this manuscript or the Chief Information Security and Data Protection Officer of the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute ( openscience@ 123456swisstph.ch ).

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article