Table 1 Comparing three systematic reviews on evidence-based policy
From: New directions in evidence-based policy research: a critical analysis of the literature
Orton, 2011 | Innvær, 2002 | Oliver, 2014 | |
|---|---|---|---|
Aims | To synthesise evidence about the extent, types, process of evidence use, and barriers and facilitators | Synthesise facilitators of and barriers to the use of research evidence by health policymakers | To update Innvær 2002 and identify new evidence in this area |
Inclusion criteria and search date | Europe, Canada, Australia, and NZ only, must explore “how research evidence is used in decision-making for public health”. Primary studies only | Interview studies with health policy decision-makers responsible for decisions on behalf of organisations | All studies reporting barriers or facilitators of use of evidence, from 2002–2011 |
Types of studies included | 18 included, interviews and surveys | 24 studies in 26 papers, interviews and surveys | 145 included studies: 13 systematic reviews, 42 interviews/qualitative studies, 13/25 entirely/included survey |
Types of results presented | PMs perceptions about the use of evidence; qualitative and closed-response | PMs perceptions about the use of evidence; qualitative and closed-response. Types of ‘use’, theories about evidence use | Perceived and observed factors affecting evidence use; definitions of evidence; theories used in included studies |
Use of evidence? | Self-reported use of evidence in 2 studies, undermined by quality concerns | 21/24 examined actual decision-making processes, all measured perceptions of use or hypothetical use of evidence | 33 studies examine research uptake (amount/rate), 50 examine processes of research uptake, 18 examine the impact of research use |
Synthesis and QA used | Narrative synthesis; CASP-based QA | Descriptive synthesis; methodological QA | Descriptive synthesis; no QA |
Main facilitators | Improved relationships; researchers trained to disseminate, clear, relevant and easy-access research; PM trained in research skills; change of policy culture | Personal contact between researchers and PMs; timeliness and relevance of research, with clear recommendations and high quality; research confirming current policy | Available, clear and relevant research evidence; relationships, collaboration, and contact between researchers and PMs; timing, practical managerial support |
Main barriers | Unclear, irrelevant or low-quality evidence. ‘Gulf’ between researchers and policymakers. Lack of PM research skills. Other pressures; practical constraints: financial, time frames, access to research, presentation, and interpretation | Absence of personal contact between researchers and policymakers; lack of timeliness or relevance; mutual mistrust between scientists and policymakers Power and budget struggles | lack of clear or relevant research evidence and costs; lack of timeliness or opportunity; lack of PM research skills or awareness |
Theory | None cited | Weiss, Caplan; two-communities thesis | Range of theories, reports which papers used which theory |
Conclusions and implications | Action to address the barriers and facilitators needs to be taken; training to overcome barriers to research use; research on interventions to increase research uptake | Studies partially support common beliefs about barriers and facilitators, with little empirical evidence; no strong recommendations about research and policy can be made; limited data support two-communities and Weiss’s theories | Research into managerial and organizational barriers may be more useful than individual-level; relational approach could be used |