Table 1 Framework for scientific advice on health
From: A framework for scientific advice on health: EuSANH’s principles and guidelines
Steps | Principles | Guidelines | |
|---|---|---|---|
Framing the issue | Need | 1 | Policy makers and science advisors should regularly discuss emerging issues requiring advice |
2 | Science advisors should do so in interaction with the health research community | ||
3 | In formulating a request for advice, policy makers and science advisors should determine in close cooperation the set of questions to be addressed | ||
4 | Science advisors should discuss with policy makers whether a European or international perspective is appropriate | ||
Planning the process | Timeliness | 5 | In framing the issue policy makers and science advisors should discuss the scope and duration of the task, considering the stage within the policy making process when scientific advice is needed |
6 | The advisory body should develop operation procedures to manage the entire advisory process | ||
Drafting the report | Credibility | 7 | Select committee members on the basis of professional excellence and with an appropriate range of expertise |
8 | Select committee members who reflect the diversity of scientific opinions | ||
Independence | 9 | Screen for conflicts of interest in order to avoid advocacy | |
10 | Committee members should carry out their deliberations in closed meetings in order to avoid political and special interest influence | ||
11 | The Committee should be responsible and accountable for the final report | ||
Relevance | 12 | Consider adding a policy maker to the Committee as an official observer | |
13 | Consider organizing stakeholder hearings | ||
14 | Where appropriate, specify ethical or legal principles involved | ||
Transparency | 15 | Specify data and data sources used in producing the report | |
16 | Document and explain all assumptions made and methods used in interpreting and synthesizing the data | ||
17 | Identify and describe all uncertainties involved | ||
18 | Indicate where and how expert judgment is applied | ||
Formulating the recommendations | Feasibility | 19 | Consider the potential consequences of the recommendations made to policy makers |
20 | Where appropriate, identify policy options based on data and research evidence | ||
Reviewing the report | Quality | 21 | The final draft report should undergo an independent peer review |
22 | Guarantee continuity in producing advisory reports on similar issues | ||
23 | Check whether the final draft report is consistent with other reports of the advisory body | ||
24 | Specify the response to the comments made in the peer review | ||
Publishing the report | Openness | 25 | Make the report publicly available |
26 | Where more active dissemination is required, issue press statements, press releases or press briefings | ||
27 | Where more clarification is required, organize meetings with policy makers and target groups | ||
Assessing the impact | Accountability | 28 | There should be a follow-up procedure that monitors the policy makers’ actions in response to the advisory report |
29 | The advisory body should regularly perform a (self)assessment, both of the impact of its reports and of its performance | ||