Skip to main content

Table 3 Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats (SWOT) framework to organise the findings from interviews, focus groups and questionnaires

From: Qualitative assessment of opportunities and challenges to improve evidence-informed health policy-making in Hungary – an EVIPNet situation analysis pilot

 • 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
• 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
 • 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
• 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