Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):2. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/14/2.
Oliver K, Lorenc T, Innvær S. New directions in evidence-based policy research: a critical analysis of the literature. Health Res Policy Syst. 2014;12:34. http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1478-4505-12-34.pdf.
Cairney P. The politics of evidence-based policymaking. London: Palgrave Pivot; 2016.
Cairney P, Oliver K, Wellstead A. To bridge the divide between evidence and policy: reduce ambiguity as much as uncertainty. Public Adm Rev. 2016;76(3):399–402.
Embrett M, Randall G. Social determinants of health and health equity policy research. Soc Sci Med. 2014;108:147–55.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Lomas J, Brown A. Research and advice giving. Milbank Q. 2009;87(4):903–26.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Elliott H, Popay J. How are policy makers using evidence? J Epidemiol Community Health. 2000;54(6):461–8.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Stoker G. Translating experiments into policy. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci. 2010;628(1):47–58.
Article
Google Scholar
Bédard P, Ouimet M. Cognizance and consultation of randomized controlled trials among ministerial policy analysts. Rev Policy Res. 2012;29(5):625–44.
Article
Google Scholar
Cairney P. Understanding public policy: theories and issues. Basingstoke: Palgrave; 2012.
Book
Google Scholar
Cairney P, Studlar D, Mamudu H. Global tobacco control: power, policy, governance and transfer. Basingstoke: Palgrave; 2012.
Book
Google Scholar
Cairney P. Evidence-based best practice is more political than it looks: a case study of the ‘Scottish Approach’. Evidence and Policy. 2016. Early View Open Access.
Simon H. Administrative Behavior. 3rd ed. London: Macmillan; 1976.
Google Scholar
Cairney P. How can policy theory have an impact on policy making? Teaching Public Administration. 2015;33(1):22–39.
Botterill L, Hindmoor A. Turtles all the way down: bounded rationality in an evidence-based age. Policy Stud. 2012;33(5):367–79.
Article
Google Scholar
Kahneman D. Thinking Fast and Slow (UK edition). London: Penguin; 2012.
Google Scholar
Haidt J. The emotional dog and its rational tail. Psychol Rev. 2001;108(4):814–34.
Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Lewis P. Policy thinking, fast and slow. American Political Science Association 2013 Annual Meeting. 2013. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2300479.
Alter A, Oppenheimer D. Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personal Soc Psychol Rev. 2009;13(3):219–35.
Article
Google Scholar
Pierce J, Siddiki S, Jones M, Schumacher K, Pattison A, Peterson H. Social construction and policy design. Policy Stud J. 2014;42(1):1–29.
Article
Google Scholar
Schneider A, Ingram H. Policy design for democracy. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas; 1997.
Google Scholar
Dearing JW, Rogers EM. Agenda setting. London: Sage; 1996.
Google Scholar
Baumgartner F, Jones B. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: Chicago University Press; 1993.
Google Scholar
Kingdon J. Agendas, alternatives and public policies. 1st ed. New York: Harper Collins; 1984.
Google Scholar
Zahariadis N. The multiple streams framework. In: Sabatier P, editor. Theories of the policy process. Cambridge: Westview; 2007.
True JL, Jones BD, Baumgartner FR. Punctuated equilibrium theory. In: Sabatier P, editor. Theories of the policy process. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Westview Press; 2007.
Weible C, Heikkila T, deLeon P, Sabatier P. Understanding and influencing the policy process. Policy Sci. 2012;45(1):1–21.
Article
Google Scholar
Pielke RA. The honest broker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
Book
Google Scholar
Cairney P. Principles of science advice to government: key problems and feasible solutions. International Network for Government Science Advice, 2016c. http://www.ingsa.org/ingsa-blog/principles-of-science-advice-to-government-key-problems-and-feasible-solutions/.
Hunt JW. 2. Applying American behavioral science: Some cross-cultural problems. Organ Dyn. 1981;10(1):55–62.
Article
Google Scholar
Carlisle S. Health promotion, advocacy and health inequalities: a conceptual framework. Health Promot Int. 2000;15(4):369–76.
Article
Google Scholar
Stewart E, Smith KE. Black magic and gold dust. Evidence Policy. 2015;11(3):415–37.
Article
Google Scholar
Cohen BE, Marshall SG. Does public health advocacy seek to redress health inequities? A scoping review. Health Soc Care Commun. 2017;25(2):309–28.
Article
Google Scholar
Gilbert N. Advocacy research and social policy. Crime Justice. 1997;22:101–48.
Article
Google Scholar
Bovaird T. Beyond engagement and participation. Public Adm Rev. 2007;67(5):846–60.
Article
Google Scholar
Durose C, Needham C, Mangan C, Rees J. Generating ‘good enough’ evidence for co-production. Evid Policy. 2017;13(1):135–51.
Article
Google Scholar
Iedema R, Sorensen R, Jorm C, Piper D. Co-producing care. In: Sorensen R, Iedema R, editors. Managing clinical processes in health services. Chatswood, NSW: Elsevier; 2008. p. 105–20.
Ostrom E. Crossing the great divide. World Dev. 1996;24(6):1073–87.
Article
Google Scholar
Barber R, Beresford P, Boote J, Cooper C, Faulkner A. Evaluating the impact of service user involvement on research: a prospective case study. Int J Consum Stud. 2011;35(6):609–15.
Article
Google Scholar
Barber R, Boote J, Parry G, Cooper C, Yeeles P. Evaluating the impact of public involvement on research. In: Barnes M, Cotterell P. Critical perspectives on user involvement. Bristol: Policy Press at the University of Bristol; 2012.
Beresford P. Service users’ knowledges and social work theory: Conflict or collaboration? Br J Soc Work. 2000;30(4):489–503.
Article
Google Scholar
Boote J, Telford R, Cooper C. Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda. Health Policy. 2002;61(2):213–36.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Goodyear-Smith F, Jackson C, Greenhalgh T. Co-design and implementation research: challenges and solutions for ethics committees. BMC Med Ethics. 2015;16(1):1.
Article
Google Scholar
Gupta A, Blewett J. Involving services users in social work training on the reality of family poverty: A case study of a collaborative project. Soc Work Educ. 2008;27(5):459–73.
Article
Google Scholar
Stewart R, Liabo K. Involvement, expertise and research quality. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2012;17(4):248–51.
Christie D, Strange V, Allen E, Oliver S, Wong IC, Smith F, Cairns J, Thompson R, Hindmarsh P, O'Neill S, Bull C, Viner R, Elbourne D. Maximising engagement, motivation and long term change in a Structured Intensive Education Programme in Diabetes for children, young people and their families. BMC Pediatr. 2009;9:57.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Telford R, Boote JD, Cooper CL. What does it mean to involve consumers successfully in NHS research? Health Expect. 2004;7(3):209–20.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Jackson CL, Greenhalgh T. Co-creation: a new approach to optimising research impact. Med J Aust. 2015;203(7):2.
Article
Google Scholar
Davenport S, Davies J, Grimes C. Collaborative research programmes. Technovation. 1998;19(1):31–40.
Article
Google Scholar
Evans S, Scarbrough H. Supporting knowledge translation through collaborative translational research initiatives. Soc Sci Med. 2014;106:119–27.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Hinchcliff R, Greenfield D, Braithwaite J. Is it worth engaging in multi-stakeholder health services research collaborations? Int J Qual Health Care. 2014;26(2):124–8.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Lencucha R, Kothari A, Hamel N. Extending collaborations for knowledge translation. Evid Policy J Res Debate Pract. 2010;6(1):61–75.
Article
Google Scholar
Oborn E, Barrett M, Prince K, Racko G. Balancing exploration and exploitation in transferring research into practice. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):104.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Ovretveit J, Hempel S, Magnabosco JL, Mittman BS, Rubenstein LV, Ganz DA. Guidance for research-practice partnerships (R-PPs) and collaborative research. J Health Organ Manage. 2014;28(1):115–26.
Article
Google Scholar
James Lind Alliance. http://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk. Accessed 31 March 2016
Wood M. Holding back the tide: depoliticisation, resilience and the herceptin post-code lottery crisis. Br J Polit Int Relat. 2015;17(4):644–64.
Jasanoff S, editor. States of knowledge. London: Routledge; 2004.
Martin S. Co-production of social research. Public Money Manage. 2010;30(4):211–8.
Article
Google Scholar
Chapman S. Advocacy for public health: a primer. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58(5):361.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Douglas HE. The moral responsibilities of scientists (tensions between autonomy and responsibility). Am Philosoph Q. 2003;40(1):59–68.
Google Scholar
Geyer R, Cairney P. Handbook on complexity and public policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2015.
Book
Google Scholar
Colebatch H. Beyond the policy cycle. Crow’s Nest, New South Wales: Allen & Unwin; 2006.
Google Scholar
Everett S. The policy cycle. Aust J Public Adm. 2003;62(2):65–70.
Howard C. Policy cycle: a model of post-machiavellian policy making? Aust J Pub Adm. 2005;3:3–13.
Article
Google Scholar
John P. Analysing public policy. 2nd ed. London: Routledge; 2012.
Sabatier P. The need for better theories. In: Sabatier P, editor. Theories of the policy process 2. Cambridge: Westview; 2007.
Birkland T. After Disaster. Washington: Georgetown University Press; 1997.
Google Scholar
Hall P. Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state. Comp Politics. 1993;25(2):275–96.
Ostrom E. Institutional rational choice. In: Sabatier P, editor. Theories of the policy process 2. Cambridge: Westview Press; 2007.
Cairney P. What is complex government and what can we do about it? Public Money Manage. 2015;35(1):3–6.
Cairney P, Heikkila T. A comparison of theories of the policy process. In: Sabatier P, Weible C, editors. Theories of the policy process. 3rd ed. Chicago: Westview Press; 2014.
Cartwright N, Hardie J. Evidence-based policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012.
Book
Google Scholar
Kingdon J. Agendas, alternatives and public policies. 2nd ed. New York: Harper Collins; 1995.
Google Scholar
Cairney P. What is evolutionary theory and how does it inform policy studies? Policy Polit. 2013;41(2):279–98.
Article
Google Scholar
Cairney P, Jones M. Kingdon’s multiple streams approach: what is the empirical impact of this universal theory? Policy Stud J. 2016;44(1):37–58.
Mintrom M, Norman P. Policy entrepreneurship and policy change. Policy Studies J. 2009;37(4):649–67.
Article
Google Scholar
Smith K. Beyond evidence based policy in public health. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2013.
Book
Google Scholar
Stoker G. Why policymakers ignore evidence. 2013. http://publicpolicy.southampton.ac.uk/why-policymakers-ignore-evidence/.
Dobrow MJ, Goel V, Lemieux-Charles L, Black NA. The impact of context on evidence utilization. Soc Sci Med. 2006;63(7):1811–24.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Nutley S, Powell A, Davies H. What counts as good evidence. London: Alliance for Useful Evidence; 2013. http://www.alliance4usefulevidence.org/assets/What-Counts-as-Good-Evidence-WEB.pdf.
Pawson R. Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. London: Sage; 2006.
Book
Google Scholar
Petticrew M, Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences. Oxford: Blackwell; 2006.
Book
Google Scholar
Axford N, Pawson R. Are randomised control trials essential in policy making? SRA: Research Matters. 2014. http://the-sra.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/SRA-Research-Matters-June-2014.pdf.
Nilsson M, Jordan A, Turnpenny J, Hertin J, Nykvist B, Russel D. The use and non-use of policy appraisal tools in public policy making: An analysis of three European countries and the European Union. Policy Sci. 2008;41(4):335–55.
Article
Google Scholar
Haynes L, Goldacre B, Torgerson D. Test, learn, adapt: developing public policy with randomised controlled trials. London: Cabinet Office; 2012.
Google Scholar
Newman J. Boundary troubles: working the academic–policy interface. Policy Polit. 2011;39(4):473–84.
Article
Google Scholar
Stevens A. Telling policy stories: an ethnographic study of the use of evidence in policymaking in the UK. J Soc Policy. 2011;40(2):237–55.
Article
Google Scholar
Pearce W, Raman S. The new randomised controlled trials (RCT) movement in public policy: challenges of epistemic governance. Policy Sci. 2014;47(4):387–402.
Article
Google Scholar
Pearce W, Wesslink A, Colebatch H. Evidence and meaning in policy making. Evid Policy. 2014;10(2):161–5.
Article
Google Scholar
Schmitt J, Beach D. The contribution of process tracing to theory-based evaluations of complex aid instruments. Evaluation. 2015;21(4):429–47.
Article
Google Scholar
Cairney P, Russell S, St Denny E. The ‘Scottish approach’ to policy and policymaking: what issues are territorial and what are universal? Policy Politics. 2016;44(3):333–50.
Nilsen P, Ståhl C, Roback K, Author A. Never the twain shall meet? Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):63.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Sackett DL, Rosenberg W, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine. Br Med J. 1996;312(7023):71–2.
Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Greenhalgh T, Howick J, Maskrey N. Evidence Based Medicine Renaissance Group. Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis? BMJ. 2014;348:g3725.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Coalition for evidence-based policy, 2012, Nurse-family partnership, http://evidencebasedprograms.org/1366-2/nurse-family-partnership.
Nurse-Family Partnership, 2015, Proven effective through extensive research http://www.nursefamilypartnership.org/proven-results.
Family nurse partnership national unit, 2014, The evidence base for family nurse partnership. http://www.fnp.nhs.uk/sites/default/files/files/FNP%20Evidence%20Summary%20Leaflet%20Dec14%pdf.
Robling M, et al. Effectiveness of a nurse-led intensive home-visitation programme for first-time teenage mothers (Building Blocks). Lancet. 2016;387(10014):146–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00392-X .
Department of Health. The family nurse partnership programme. London: Department of Health; 2012. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/216864/The-Family-Nurse-Partnership-Programme-Information-leaflet pdf.
Google Scholar
Davies S, Heath H. Quality of care in National Care Homes Research and Development Forum. London: Help the Aged; 2007. http://www.scie.org.uk/publications/guides/guide15/files/myhomelife-litreview pdf.
Google Scholar
Dewar B, Cook F, Barrie K. Final report. Paisley: University of the West of Scotland; 2014. http://myhomelife.uws.ac.uk/scotland/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Report-West-DunbartonshireFINAL.pdf.
Google Scholar
King G, Servais M, Forchuk C, et al. Features and impacts of five multidisciplinary community-university research partnerships. Health Soc Care Community. 2010;18:59–69.
Wehrens R, Bekker M, Bal R. Hybrid management configurations in joint research. Sci Technol Human Values. 2014;39:41.
Article
Google Scholar
Institute for Healthcare Improvement. The breakthrough series: IHI s collaborative model for achieving breakthrough improvement. Boston: Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2003. http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/IHIWhitePapers/TheBreakthroughSeriesIHIsCollaborativeModelforAchievingBreakthroughImprovement.aspx.
Google Scholar
Morris ZS, Wooding S, Grant J. The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. J R Soc Med. 2011;104(12):510–20.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Scottish Government. The Early Years Collaborative. Edinburgh: Scottish Government; 2014. www.gov.scot/Resource/0047/00473734.pdf.
Google Scholar
Harvey G, Fitzgerald L, Fielden S, McBride A, Waterman H, Bamford D, Kislov R, Boaden R. The NIHR collaboration for leadership in applied health research and care (CLAHRC) for Greater Manchester: combining empirical, theoretical and experiential evidence to design and evaluate a large-scale implementation strategy. Implement Sci. 2011;6:96.
Rycroft-Malone J, Wilkinson JE, Burton CR, Andrews G, Ariss S, Baker R, McCormack BG. Implementing health research through academic and clinical partnerships. Implement Sci. 2011;6(1):74.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Scarbrough H, D’Andreta D, Evans S, et al. Networked innovation in the health sector: comparative qualitative study of the role of Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care in translating research into practice. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2014 May. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 2.13.) Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK259731/ doi:10.3310/hsdr02130.