48
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Putting newborn hearing screening on the political agenda in Belgium: local initiatives toward a community programme – a qualitative study

      research-article

      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

          The Kingdon model, based on the convergence of three streams (problem, policy, and politics) and the opening of a policy window, analyses the process by which a health issue is placed on the political agenda. We used this model to document the political agenda-setting process of the newborn hearing screening programme in Belgium.

          Methods

          A qualitative study based on a document review and on semi-directed interviews was carried out. The interviews were conducted with nine people who had played a role in putting the issue in question on the political agenda, and the documents reviewed included scientific literature and internal reports and publications from the newborn hearing screening programme. The thematic analysis of the data collected was carried out on the basis of the Kingdon model’s three streams.

          Results

          The political agenda-setting of this screening programme was based on many factors. The problem stream included factors external to the context under study, such as the technological developments and the contribution of the scientific literature which led to the recommendation to provide newborn hearing screening. The two other streams (policy and politics) covered factors internal to the Belgian context. The fact that it was locally feasible with financial support, the network of doctors convinced of the need for newborn hearing screening, the drafting of various proposals, and the search for financing were all part of the policy stream. The Belgian political context and the policy opportunities concerning preventive medicine were identified as significant factors in the third stream. When these three streams converged, a policy window opened, allowing newborn hearing screening onto the political agenda and enabling the policy decision for its introduction.

          Conclusions

          The advantage of applying the Kingdon model in our approach was the ability to demonstrate the political agenda-setting process, using the three streams. This made it possible to identify the many factors involved in the process. However, the roles of the stakeholders and of the context were somewhat inexplicit in this model.

          Related collections

          Most cited references13

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

          Evidence-based health policy: context and utilisation.

          Evidence-based decision-making is centred on the justification of decisions. In the shift from an individual-clinical to a population-policy level, the decision-making context becomes more uncertain, variable and complex. To address this we have developed a conceptual framework for evidence-based decision-making, focusing on how context impacts on what constitutes evidence and how that evidence is utilised. We present two distinct orientations towards what constitutes evidence, representing different relationships between evidence and context. We also categorise the decision-making context based on the ways in which context impacts on evidence-based decision-making. Furthermore, we invoke the concept of axes of evidence-based decision-making to describe the relationship between evidence and context as we move from evidence-based medicine to evidence-based health policy. From this, we suggest that it may be more important how evidence is utilised than how it is defined. Based on the research and knowledge utilisation literature, we present a process model of evidence utilisation, which forms the basis for the conceptual framework for context-based evidence-based decision-making. The conceptual framework attempts to capture the role that context plays in the introduction, interpretation and application of evidence. We illustrate this framework with examples from policy development for colorectal cancer screening.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Policy to tackle the social determinants of health: using conceptual models to understand the policy process.

            Like health equity, the social determinants of health (SDH) are becoming a key focus for policy-makers in many low and middle income countries. Yet despite accumulating evidence on the causes and manifestations of SDH, there is relatively little understanding about how public policy can address such complex and intractable issues. This paper aims to raise awareness of the ways in which the policy processes addressing SDH may be better described, understood and explained. It does so in three main sections. First, it summarizes the typical account of the policy-making process and then adapts this to the specific character of SDH. Second, it examines alternative models of the policy-making process, with a specific application of the 'policy streams' and 'networks' models to the SDH policy process. Third, methodological considerations of the preceding two sections are assessed with a view to informing future research strategies. The paper concludes that conceptual models can help policy-makers understand and intervene better, despite significant obstacles.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Levels of evidence: universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) and early hearing detection and intervention systems (EHDI).

              Levels of evidence differ according to the audience addressed. Implementation of universal newborn hearing screening requires responses to a complex myriad of diverse groups: the general public, families with children who are deaf or hard of hearing, the deaf and hard of hearing communities, hospital administrators, physicians (pediatricians, general practitioners, ear nose and throat physicians, geneticists), managed care, Medicaid, insurance agencies, and politicians. The level of evidence required by medical/health agencies and task forces may differ from the levels of evidence available in education and intervention. Issues related to the low incidence of the disability, the lack of a normal distribution within the disability study, the obstacles to random assignment to treatment, and designs that include a control group with "no treatment" have implications legally and ethically for the professional providing services to families and children who are deaf or hard of hearing. This session will discuss issues related to "convenience samples," number of subjects included in research studies, and the population required to obtain a large enough sample of children with low-incidence disabilities. The level of evidence required to demonstrate sensitive periods of development, which are a critical element for justification of implementing a universal newborn hearing screening includes both behavioral and neurological information. Sensitive periods may have different duration for different aspects of development, such as social-emotional development, auditory and speech development, or language development. Further complicating the question of sensitive periods of development are the distinct possibility that different sensitive periods exist for development of age-level vocabulary, for establishing English phonology, or for mastering English syntax. Research outcomes provide evidence that age of identification of hearing loss is reduced, that age of intervention initiation is lowered, and that the outcomes of intervention are better because of the establishment of a screening program. Most professionals in communication disorders believe that screening is not the actual cause of better developmental outcomes but that the age when children begin to have access to language and communication and the characteristics of the intervention are the primary cause of better outcomes. Screening is the avenue through which access to quality intervention is made available. The research still remains at an infant level of development such that there is very little evidence for the efficacy of specific characteristics of the intervention provided. (1) The learner will be able to identify the obstacles in conducting research on the effectiveness of intervention of children identified through universal newborn hearing screening programs. (2) The learner will be able to identify the type of research on developmental outcomes of children with early-identified hearing loss.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Health Res Policy Syst
                Health Res Policy Syst
                Health Research Policy and Systems
                BioMed Central
                1478-4505
                2014
                1 July 2014
                : 12
                : 32
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Université libre de Bruxelles, School of Public Health, Research Center Health Policy and Systems – International Health, Route de Lennik 808, 1070 Brussels, Belgium
                [2 ]Centre d’Epidémiologie Périnatale (CEpiP), Route de Lennik 808, 1070 Brussels, Belgium
                [3 ]Université libre de Bruxelles, School of Public Health, Research Center Epidemiology, Biostatistic and Clinical Research, Route de Lennik 808, 1070 Brussels, Belgium
                Article
                1478-4505-12-32
                10.1186/1478-4505-12-32
                4086284
                24986647
                df84babe-fdf9-4e62-be4d-5c6d5bf8a8c9
                Copyright © 2014 Vos et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 12 February 2014
                : 19 June 2014
                Categories
                Research

                Health & Social care
                agenda-setting,health policy,newborn hearing screening,policy making
                Health & Social care
                agenda-setting, health policy, newborn hearing screening, policy making

                Comments

                Comment on this article