SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 17: Dealing with insufficient research evidence

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

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers .

In this article, we address the issue of decision making in situations in which there is insufficient evidence at hand. Policymakers often have insufficient evidence to know with certainty what the impacts of a health policy or programme option will be, but they must still make decisions. We suggest four questions that can be considered when there may be insufficient evidence to be confident about the impacts of implementing an option. These are: 1. Is there a systematic review of the impacts of the option? 2. Has inconclusive evidence been misinterpreted as evidence of no effect? 3. Is it possible to be confident about a decision despite a lack of evidence? 4. Is the option potentially harmful, ineffective or not worth the cost?

Related collections

Most cited references 27

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 1: What is evidence-informed policymaking?

Andrew D Oxman, John Lavis, Simon Lewin … (2009)

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. In this article, we discuss the following three questions: What is evidence? What is the role of research evidence in informing health policy decisions? What is evidence-informed policymaking? Evidence-informed health policymaking is an approach to policy decisions that aims to ensure that decision making is well-informed by the best available research evidence. It is characterised by the systematic and transparent access to, and appraisal of, evidence as an input into the policymaking process. The overall process of policymaking is not assumed to be systematic and transparent. However, within the overall process of policymaking, systematic processes are used to ensure that relevant research is identified, appraised and used appropriately. These processes are transparent in order to ensure that others can examine what research evidence was used to inform policy decisions, as well as the judgements made about the evidence and its implications. Evidence-informed policymaking helps policymakers gain an understanding of these processes.

0 comments Cited 163 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Effects of policy options for human resources for health: an analysis of systematic reviews.

Mickey Chopra, Salla Munro, John Lavis … (2008)

Policy makers face challenges to ensure an appropriate supply and distribution of trained health workers and to manage their performance in delivery of services, especially in countries with low and middle incomes. We aimed to identify all available policy options to address human resources for health in such countries, and to assess the effectiveness of these policy options. We searched Medline and Embase from 1979 to September, 2006, the Cochrane Library, and the Human Resources for Health Global Resource Center database. We also searched up to 10 years of archives from five relevant journals, and consulted experts. We included systematic reviews in English which assessed the effects of policy options that could affect the training, distribution, regulation, financing, management, organisation, or performance of health workers. Two reviewers independently assessed each review for eligibility and quality, and systematically extracted data about main effects. We also assessed whether the policy options were equitable in their effects; suitable for scaling up; and applicable to countries with low and middle incomes. 28 of the 759 systematic reviews of effects that we identified were eligible according to our criteria. Of these, only a few included studies from countries with low and middle incomes, and some reviews were of low quality. Most evidence focused on organisational mechanisms for human resources, such as substitution or shifting tasks between different types of health workers, or extension of their roles; performance-enhancing strategies such as quality improvement or continuing education strategies; promotion of teamwork; and changes to workflow. Of all policy options, the use of lay health workers had the greatest proportion of reviews in countries with a range of incomes, from high to low. We have identified a need for more systematic reviews on the effects of policy options to improve human resources for health in countries with low and middle incomes, for assessments of any interventions that policy makers introduce to plan and manage human resources for health, and for other research to aid policy makers in these countries.

0 comments Cited 102 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP)

John Lavis, Andrew D Oxman, Simon Lewin … (2009)

This article is the Introduction to a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. Knowing how to find and use research evidence can help policymakers and those who support them to do their jobs better and more efficiently. Each article in this series presents a proposed tool that can be used by those involved in finding and using research evidence to support evidence-informed health policymaking. The series addresses four broad areas: 1. Supporting evidence-informed policymaking 2. Identifying needs for research evidence in relation to three steps in policymaking processes, namely problem clarification, options framing, and implementation planning 3. Finding and assessing both systematic reviews and other types of evidence to inform these steps, and 4. Going from research evidence to decisions. Each article begins with between one and three typical scenarios relating to the topic. These scenarios are designed to help readers decide on the level of detail relevant to them when applying the tools described. Most articles in this series are structured using a set of questions that guide readers through the proposed tools and show how to undertake activities to support evidence-informed policymaking efficiently and effectively. These activities include, for example, using research evidence to clarify problems, assessing the applicability of the findings of a systematic review about the effects of options selected to address problems, organising and using policy dialogues to support evidence-informed policymaking, and planning policy monitoring and evaluation. In several articles, the set of questions presented offers more general guidance on how to support evidence-informed policymaking. Additional information resources are listed and described in every article. The evaluation of ways to support evidence-informed health policymaking is a developing field and feedback about how to improve the series is welcome.

0 comments Cited 91 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Health Res Policy Syst

Title: Health Research Policy and Systems

Publisher: BioMed Central

ISSN (Electronic): 1478-4505

Publication date Collection: 2009

Publication date (Electronic): 16 December 2009

Volume: 7

Issue: Suppl 1

Page: S17

Affiliations

[1 ]Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, P.O. Box 7004, St. Olavs plass, N-0130 Oslo, Norway

[2 ]Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Department of Political Science, McMaster University, 1200 Main St. West, HSC-2D3, Hamilton, ON, Canada, L8N 3Z5

[3 ]Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, P.O. Box 7004, St. Olavs plass, N-0130 Oslo, Norway; Section for International Health, Institute of General Practice and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Norway

[4 ]Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, P.O. Box 7004, St. Olavs plass, N-0130 Oslo, Norway; Health Systems Research Unit, Medical Research Council of South Africa

Article

Publisher ID: 1478-4505-7-S1-S17

DOI: 10.1186/1478-4505-7-S1-S17

PMC ID: 3271827

PubMed ID: 20018107

SO-VID: 88ed4b95-7edc-40f3-8d6d-fd7127a235e2

License:

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 17: Dealing with insufficient research evidence

Read this article at

Abstract

Related collections

Active Travel Studies

Most cited references 27

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 1: What is evidence-informed policymaking?

Effects of policy options for human resources for health: an analysis of systematic reviews.

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP)

Author and article information

Journal

Affiliations

Article

History

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 88

Cited by 17

Most referenced authors 241