Skip to main content

Table 1 Indicators of EIP institutionalization (building on [44])

From: Domains and processes for institutionalizing evidence-informed health policy-making: a critical interpretive synthesis

Key dimensions/domains of change Pre-institutionalization Semi-institutionalization (Re-)institutionalization
Stage of institutionalization and self-reinforcement Vulnerable [37] Anchored [37] Resilient [37]
Legitimacy and taken-for-grantedness Low [37] Medium [37] High [37]
Governance • Preliminary institutional KT arrangement [23, 27] with ambiguous role [37] • Official mandate for an institutional KT arrangement and home [23, 27]a with career opportunities staff [37]a
• Varying conventions of the institutional KT arrangement may still trigger debate [37]
• Defined institutional KT arrangement role, steeped with expectations [37], integrated into government planning processesa
Standards and routinized processes • No local standards, familiarization with international tools [71, 72]
• Idiosyncratic activities [28, 37]
• Organizational (technical) standards [23]a
• Consolidation [37] and organizational routines [23, 42]a
• EIP public policy regulationa
• Routinized activities at the state level [42] scripted and internalized [37]
Partnership, collective action and support • Collaboration with selected national champions and stakeholders [27, 73,74,75]
• Strong support from international actors [37, 73, 76]
• Success stories/mentoring from more advanced countries [23, 50, 71, 72, 74, 77, 78]
• Collaboration across the evidence ecosystem with an increasing number of key partners
• Guidance from international actors and peer support with other countriesa
• Complex and ongoing multisectoral collaboration across the evidence ecosystema
• Mentoring to other countriesa
Leadership and commitment • Scattered (political) leadership and commitment [23, 73, 79, 80] • Broadening of political support and commitmenta Broad-based ecosystem/societal supporta
Resources • Learning by doing [37] and training of individuals
• Seed funding for EIP activities [23, 27, 73, 81]
• Institutional training [23, 79, 80]a and strong socialization [37]
• Securing long-term diversified fundinga
• Sufficient skilled human resourcesa, and new professions and professional identities emerged [37]a
• State budget for EIP and diversified sources of fundinga
Culture and values • Relying on external symbols and vocabularies to reflect support [37], including international commitments enhancing legitimacy [71, 78, 82]
• Trepidation over adoption requires high articulation [37]
• Institutional vocabularies manifest and values become clearer but can provoke opposition [37]
• Technical discussions move from whether or not to do EIP to how to do EIP [37]
• Widely accepted local language and narratives that have become emulated [37]a
• Norms and values cemented [37]a
  1. aRefers to the literature included in the domains framework in Additional file 4