Table 3 Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats (SWOT) framework to organise the findings from interviews, focus groups and questionnaires
Strengths • Preparatory documents for policy-making and analysis are very often written • Good practices for evidence-informed policy-making (EIP) in Hungary exist • Many conferences, roundtables, discussion forums, networks, short courses are organised to disseminate research • Main health policy priorities are set in health strategy documents • Almost all academic institutions and government agencies expressed high or medium commitment to support the interface between researchers, healthcare providers, advocacy groups and policy-makers | Weaknesses • Evidence use is not transparent or systematic • Health, healthcare and health system development is not consistently valued as an important policy domain • No systematic follow-up of policy implementation (monitoring and evaluation is not widespread) • Implementation plans are not consistently derived from strategic documents • Lack of coordination, adequate and effective communication among stakeholders • Public administration is lacking the necessary EIP capacity both in terms of human resources as well as EIP knowledge • National health research system is shaped mostly by the priorities of funders and research actors, and not guided by the central government strategically |
Opportunities • Law and regulations foster the use of evidence in policy-making and consultative, deliberative processes with stakeholders are in place • Policy-makers express their will and expectations to use scientific evidence • Research capacity to inform health policy-making is available in the country • The country can rely on EU funds and policy-oriented research funds • Legislative framework for creating governmental and sectoral strategies • WHO initiatives to support EIP: the country can build on existing knowledge translation tools, experiences and lessons learned | Threats • Continuation of ad-hoc decisions in health and health system development • A mere ‘symbolic’ commitment to EIP, rather than true support and implementation of knowledge translation and EIP • Uncertainty of available financial resources • Incentives in academic careers do not take into account the support for policy-making • Public administration is strongly bureaucratic and based on laws and regulations, implying a rigid way of operating • Legislative, organisational and policy environment can change rapidly and in an unpredictable manner |