SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 3: Setting priorities for supporting evidence-informed policymaking

被引:35
|
作者
Lavis, John N. [1 ,2 ]
Oxman, Andrew D. [3 ]
Lewin, Simon [3 ,4 ]
Fretheim, Atle [3 ,5 ]
机构
[1] McMaster Univ, Dept Clin Epidemiol & Biostat, Ctr Hlth Econ & Policy Anal, 1200 Main St West,HSC 2D3, Hamilton, ON L8N 3Z5, Canada
[2] McMaster Univ, Dept Polit Sci, Hamilton, ON L8N 3Z5, Canada
[3] Norwegian Knowledge Ctr Hlth Serv, N-0130 Oslo, Norway
[4] Med Res Council South Africa, Hlth Syst Res Unit, Tygerberg, South Africa
[5] Univ Oslo, Inst Gen Practice & Community Med, Sect Int Hlth, Fac Med, Oslo, Norway
来源
关键词
LOW-INCOME; BURDEN; DISEASE; INFORMATION; EXPERIENCE; ADDRESS;
D O I
10.1186/1478-4505-7-S1-S3
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Policymakers have limited resources for developing - or supporting the development of - evidence-informed policies and programmes. These required resources include staff time, staff infrastructural needs (such as access to a librarian or journal article purchasing), and ongoing professional development. They may therefore prefer instead to contract out such work to independent units with more suitably skilled staff and appropriate infrastructure. However, policymakers may only have limited financial resources to do so. Regardless of whether the support for evidence-informed policymaking is provided in-house or contracted out, or whether it is centralised or decentralised, resources always need to be used wisely in order to maximise their impact. Examples of undesirable practices in a priority-setting approach include timelines to support evidence-informed policymaking being negotiated on a case-by-case basis (instead of having clear norms about the level of support that can be provided for each timeline), implicit (rather than explicit) criteria for setting priorities, ad hoc (rather than systematic and explicit) priority-setting process, and the absence of both a communications plan and a monitoring and evaluation plan. In this article, we suggest questions that can guide those setting priorities for finding and using research evidence to support evidence-informed policymaking. These are: I. Does the approach to prioritisation make clear the timelines that have been set for addressing high-priority issues in different ways? 2. Does the approach incorporate explicit criteria for determining priorities? 3. Does the approach incorporate an explicit process for determining priorities? 4. Does the approach incorporate a communications strategy and a monitoring and evaluation plan?
引用
收藏
页码:255 / 261
页数:9
相关论文
共 29 条
  • [1] Chronic diseases 1 - The burden and costs of chronic diseases in low-income and middle-income countries
    Abegunde, Dele O.
    Mathers, Colin D.
    Adam, Taghreed
    Ortegon, Monica
    Strong, Kathleen
    [J]. LANCET, 2007, 370 (9603): : 1929 - 1938
  • [2] Ali N, 2004, COMBINED APPROACH MA
  • [3] [Anonymous], 2000, Health Policy Plan, V15, P130
  • [4] [Anonymous], RESPONDING REQUESTS
  • [5] Taiwan's new national health insurance program: Genesis and experience so far
    Cheng, TM
    [J]. HEALTH AFFAIRS, 2003, 22 (03) : 61 - 76
  • [6] Daniels NormanJames E. Sabin., 2002, SETTING LIMITS FAIRL
  • [7] de Savigny D, 2004, FOCUS FIXING HLTH SY
  • [8] SUPPORT Tools for Evidence-informed Policymaking in health 6: Using research evidence to address how an option will be implemented
    Fretheim, Atle
    Munabi-Babigumira, Susan
    Oxman, Andrew D.
    Lavis, John N.
    Lewin, Simon
    [J]. HEALTH RESEARCH POLICY AND SYSTEMS, 2009, 7 : 276 - 283
  • [9] SUPPORT Tools for Evidence-informed Policymaking in health 18: Planning monitoring and evaluation of policies
    Fretheim, Atle
    Oxman, Andrew D.
    Lavis, John N.
    Lewin, Simon
    [J]. HEALTH RESEARCH POLICY AND SYSTEMS, 2009, 7 : 539 - 544
  • [10] Gibson Jennifer L, 2005, Healthc Q, V8, P50