Evidence-based Policymaking

Researchers and practitioners alike are in general agreement that the public sector is increasingly tasked with managing 'complex problems'. Many authors have warned that the established practices in government are not sufficient to deal with such problems. The integration of systems thinking in design practice has been advocated as a promising approach to understand and more effectively deal with the increasing complexity of

El Reino Unido adoptó  el enfoque de Políticas Públicas Basadas en Evidencia que, junto con la creación de los Almacenes de Conocimiento, representan un esfuerzo ambicioso para tomar  decisiones más informadas frente a problemas de gran complejidad.

As policymaking is a political activity, it is reasonable to consider the relative importance of evidence and values within the process. This essay will largely disagree with the view that evidence is not important in policymaking – if “important” is synonymous with “useful” and “relevant”. The essay will begin by discussing the utility of evidence during agenda-setting and policy evaluation. In the setting of an agenda, evidence is needed to understand the nature and magnitude of a problem so that policy actors are aware it is worthy of attention. During policy evaluation, factual information is needed to reassess policies and their effectiveness. However, two objections will be raised in response to these claims. With regards to policy evaluation, the commitment to evidence-based policy during the process is often less than may be rationally expected and as a result, the importance of evidence may be undermined. Furthermore, even when commitment to the use of evidence is apparent, the methods used to accumulate it may not be well-suited to examining social problems that are inherently value-laden. These objections do not necessarily dismantle the argument in favour of evidence-based policy, but they do point to a certain role that values may play in policymaking.  Values guide policy according to an ideal or normative standard that is set primarily by government and by the public. Finally, the essay will conclude with the consideration that the relative roles of values and evidence in policy may change as access to online information becomes widespread.

Nearly 10 years after swearing indefatigable commitment to an agenda for a socioeconomic and political reordering intended to quicken the pace of progress and individual prosperity through the use of rapid, robust, inclusive and best practices, things seem not to fall within the average limit of precision or accuracy poised by the Government of Liberia. The input-output promise of most of the government’s policies is moving too slow towards convergence hence widening the output-outcome gap. What are the factors impeding the government’s zealous “speed”? What is responsible for the gap between the “well written policy documents” and the actual pictures on the faces of the people? In search of answers, the study amalgamated the instrumental case study and a consecutive non-probability sample survey of 40 public sector managers across Anglo-phone West Africa. Both findings validate two main reasons for the gap: (a) the lack of, or in some cases, the refusal to engender sufficient data to inform policy formulation and (b) the inundating subsistence of the “policy paradox” in making policy decisions. The paper recommends evidence-based policy making process which blends scientific research (theory), program management experience (‘practice’), and political judgment (politics) in planning and design, training and competency maintenance, formulation and implementation of public policy.
Key Words: Evidence-based-Policy, Public Policy, Policy Process, Policy input, output & outcome, Strategy

This “Indian Mutual Fund Investor’s Awareness
Study” uses a behavioral science lens to understand
the reasons why the Indian investor has a sub-optimal
engagement with Mutual Funds (MFs), despite the fact
that they are one of the most attractive investment
avenues available for long-term wealth creation.
Specifically, the study aims to improve retail
penetration in Indian MFs by understanding the:
1. Quality of awareness among potential and existing
investors
2. Barriers to engaging with mutual funds and the role
of regulations
3. Role of communication and intermediaries in
influencing decisions related to investment in
mutual funds

BACKGROUND
Measures of organisations’ research use capacity are needed to assess
current capacity, identify opportunities for improving research use, and
examine the impact of capacity-building interventions. Our aim was to
develop a comprehensive measure of organisations’ capacity to support
research use in policymaking, entitled ORACLe.
METHODS
We firstly reviewed the available literature to identify key domains of
organisational tools that may facilitate research use by staff. We
interviewed senior policymakers to verify the practical relevance of these
domains. This information was used to generate an interview schedule
that focused on seven key domains of organisational capacity. A Discrete
Choice Experiment (DCE) was undertaken using an expert sample to
establish the relative importance of these domains. This data was used
to produce a scoring system for ORACLe.
LESSONS LEARNED
The ORACLe interview was developed that addressed seven domains
of organisational capacity: (i) documented policymaking processes; (ii)
leadership and (iii) staff training; (iv) research resources; and systems to
(v) generate research, (vii) undertake evaluations, and (vii) strengthen
relationships with researchers. Analysis of the DCE data revealed that
experts placed the greatest importance on domains (ii), (iii), and (iv).
This data was used to generate a scoring system that calculated total
ORACLe scores based on the relative importance of the seven domains.
IMPLICATIONS
We developed a comprehensive, context-appropriate system of
measuring and scoring an organisations’ capacity to support research
use in policymaking. ORACLe data can be used by organisations keen to
increase their use of evidence to identify areas for further development

OBJECTIVES
Because of the growing need to develop innovations that help
policymakers better engage with research, we established Web CIPHER;
an online portal with multiple sections including Research Updates, Hot
topics, Blogs from trusted public health figures, a Community Bulletin
Board, Multimedia section, and Research Portal. The aim of this study
was to examine website usage, and determine which sections were key
drivers of usage.
METHODS
Google Analytics was used to gather usage data during a 16-month
period. Analysis was restricted to Web CIPHER members from policy
agencies. We examined a range of usage statistics and performed
analyses of variance to compare usage between sections. Repeated
measures analyses were undertaken to examine whether a weekly
reminder email improved site usage.
LESSONS LEARNED
During the measurement period, 223 policymakers from over 30
organisations joined Web CIPHER. Users viewed 8 posts on average
per visit, and stayed on the site for approximately 4 minutes. The
bounce rate was less than 6 percent. The Blogs and Community section
received more unique views than all other sections. Blogs relating
to improving policymakers’ skills in applying research to policy were
particularly popular. Finally, the email reminder had a positive effect
on improving usage, particularly for research-related posts.
IMPLICATIONS
The popularity of the Blogs section indicates that users are keen to hear
about the views of trusted figures in public health. The findings suggest
that blogs combined with email alerts provide an effective strategy for
disseminating the latest research to policymakers through an online web portal.

This paper outlines the lessons learnt through the multidisciplinary ‘Science-to-Action’ approach to formulating, mainstreaming and implementing the Low Carbon Society Blueprint for Iskandar Malaysia 2025 (LCSBP-IM2025). Iskandar Malaysia (IM) is a rapidly developing urban-region in southern Peninsular Malaysia that was institutionalised in 2006 with a view to spurring Malaysia’s economic growth up to 2025. In pursuing rapid economic growth to become a developed, high income nation by 2020, Malaysia is conscious of its global responsibility in environmental protection and global climate change mitigation; hence the country’s commitment to reducing its carbon emission intensity of GDP by up to 40% by 2020 based on the 2005 level. Being a premier economic region in Malaysia, IM seeks to develop a low carbon society (LCS) and lead the way to cutting its carbon emission intensity by up to 58% by 2025 based on the 2005 level through the implementation of the LCSBP-IM2025.

The LCSBP-IM2025 is the outcome of an internationally funded joint research under the SATREPS program that brings together Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Kyoto University, Japan’s National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES), Okayama University and the Iskandar Regional Development Authority (IRDA), in a unique ‘academia-policymaker’ partnership, towards crafting a LCS pathway to guide and sustainably manage the projected rapid development in IM up to 2025. To that end, led by UTM, a multidisciplinary research team that comprises the above research institutions and IRDA has been set up. A methodology has been developed to formulate IM’s future LCS scenarios; propose LCS Actions to achieve the LCS scenarios; quantify the GHG emission reduction potential of the proposed LCS Actions; and continuously engage local stakeholders in a series of Focus Group Discussions (FGDs).

The project has been a great success from its official commencement in July 2011, which saw the LCSBP-IM2025 being launched at UNFCCC’s COP 18 in Doha in November 2012 and officially endorsed by the Malaysian Prime Minister in December the same year. In November 2013, the Iskandar Malaysia Actions for a Low Carbon Future was launched, outlining 10 priority projects selected from the LCSBP-IM2025’s 281 programs for implementation in IM in 2013-2015; the projects are now at various stages of implementation, yielding real impacts on IM’s progression towards it LCS goal.

The project offers valuable lessons especially in advancing scientific research on LCS into policymaking and, importantly, into real actions (hence Science-to-Action). These include the importance of having strong highest-level government support; aligning LCS Actions to higher-level development priorities; taking policymakers on-board the research team; continuously actively engaging local communities and stakeholders through FGDs; and overcoming science-policy and disciplinary gaps that emerged. What is clearly evidenced by the LCSBP-IM2025's success is that developing countries, with good synergy between highly committed local research institutions and policymakers, subject to adequate international funding and technological assistance from developed nations, are capable of crafting and putting in place implementable LCS policies that eventually contribute to mitigating global climate change through real cuts in GHG emissions while still achieving a desired level of economic growth.

Ideas about evidence use exist collectively and are embedded within particular institutional norms and practices. Policy decision-making behaviours within institutions can thus be shaped and constrained by so- called ‘logics of appropriateness’ that serve to direct ways of working or thinking for individuals within particular institutional arrangements (Lowndes and Roberts 2013; March and Olsen 1984; Peters 2008). While the dominant way of thinking about evidence use to inform deci- sions in the global health community can therefore be conceptualised as one particular institutional logic, the multi-sectoral nature of nutrition policymaking raises questions about how health sector actors can engage with stakeholders that have differing priorities, and potentially different logics of evidence use.
Studying the process of nutrition policy formation can thus provide a use- ful lens to explore these issues of the roles and use of evidence in the context of multi-sectoral nutrition policy planning. Our perspective focusses primarily on the health sector yet our findings highlight different sectorial perspectives and logics in regard to a particular policy formulation. This chapter focuses on a case study of Ethiopia, which provides a unique example of the challenging nature of multi-sectoral nutrition policy-making, even with strong coordinating infrastructure.

Scientific warnings about impending climate disaster and experts' advocacy for more and better climate science have been largely unsuccessful for advancing evidence-based policy in Australia. Continuing expectations to the contrary stem from a reliance on the supposed ability of science to prime political understandings of climate change. This paper shows how scientists undermine this 'deficit model' ideal by conflating types and uses of evidence and expertise in policymaking. These tactics are unconvincing for conservative opponents, for whom climate science is far from the last word on what climate change means. This paper examines experts' rhetorical tactics through the eyes of conservative policymakers and, thereby, proposes a strategy more likely to effect resilient climate adaptation and mitigation policies in Australia.

The Policy Lab® is pleased to be working on a project jointly run by the World Health Organization’s Knowledge Management and Sharing section and the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), towards the end of using “evidence-based design” as an innovative method to better move knowledge to action in public health policymaking. Our special concern is with reducing violence against women and children.

The EBD approach was strongly influenced by ongoing work in numerous sectors trying to advance evidence-based policymaking, and also by work taking place in the field of design itself that is exploring (and using) new techniques for social innovation, “design thinking” and design for public policy. EBD is distinct from (but supportive of) best practice approaches that help with decision making and, instead, is treated as a best process approach for building a reasoned and well-grounded case when designing.

In support of these efforts, we have put together a brief questionnaire for individuals or organizations that are KNOWLEDGE BROKERS for practitioners. It is one page long. It could be finished in a few minutes or else can form the basis for an organization-wide discussion.

We ask that you email your answers in your own format (clearly labeled) to [email protected] no later than APRIL 15, 2015.

Background: It is essential that health policies are based on the best available evidence, in order to maximise the cost and health benefits.
Objectives: The aim of the present study was to develop and validate SAGE, a measure that assesses the extent to which policymakers engaged with, and used research, in the development a health policy or program. It contains multiple scoring categories broadly representing limited, moderate, and extensive research engagement (e.g., searching, generating, or appraising research) and research use (e.g., conceptual, instrumental, tactical, symbolic). The content of these scoring categories was derived from theoretical models and research on knowledge exchange, as well as in-depth interviews with policymakers.
Method: To validate these scoring categories, a conjoint analysis (CA) was conducted with individuals who had an in-depth understanding of both research and policy. Experts were presented with numerous profiles of research engagement/use and rated the extent to which each profile represented a comprehensive form of research engagement or use.
Results: The CA helped identify profiles representing extensive, moderate, and limited forms of research engagement and research use. These profiles were translated into the scoring categories, to rate the degree to which policy makers utilise research evidence in policy/program development. The advantage of the approach here is that expert opinion was combined with statistical techniques to develop a validated assessment of research engagement and use in health policy development. The tool can be used to measure the degree to which organisations utilise research in the development of health policies.

Despite significant progress in its path towards Europeanisation over the last two decades, Greece’s reform record remains highly problematic. Persistent reform failures and a continuum of half-way reforms have characterised much of the country’s recent history. In this paper we depart form dominant explanations in the literature that focus predominantly on the political and social context (lack of political will, fragmentation of organised interests, extent of rentseeking, etc) and instead focus on the processes shaping the content of reform proposals. We identify an inherent deficiency in the country’s reform technology, linked to a deficient engagement of policy-making with expert knowledge (encompassing all aspects of knowledge production, processing and utilisation), which results in continuous policy-learning failures and, ultimately, inefficient reforms. Our analysis calls for a re-direction of emphasis from the study of how actors contest reforms to the pathologies that lead to the production of contestable reform proposals.

Nessa pesquisa pretende-se discutir o processo de tomada de decisão como resultados de fatores diversos, entre eles a evidência, a participação da sociedade, assim como, abordar algumas ferramentas comportamentais importantes para a compreensão das motivações, objetivos e reflexões acerca da tomada de decisão em um contexto público. Apresentamos brevemente a Teoria das Opções Reais (TOR), em comparação com a Teoria da Decisão (TD) e Análise de Custo-Benefício (ACB) e Teoria de Sistemas (TS), como forma de introduzir brevemente tanto aspectos teóricos quanto metodológicos. Essa pesquisa parte de um extenso levantamento em fontes secundárias para a coleta de informações e para a compreensão do debate sobre a a questão da tomada de decisão em políticas públicas.

Background: Calls for evidence-informed public health policy, with implicit promises of greater program effectiveness, have intensified recently. The methods to produce such policies are not self-evident, requiring a conciliation of values and norms between policy-makers and evidence producers. In particular, the translation of uncertainty from empirical research findings, particularly issues of statistical variability and generalizability, is a persistent challenge because of the incremental nature of research and the iterative cycle of advancing knowledge and implementation. This paper aims to assess how the concept of uncertainty is considered and acknowledged in World Health Organization (WHO) policy recommendations and guidelines.
Methods: We selected four WHO policy statements published between 2008-2013 regarding maternal and child nutrient supplementation, infant feeding, heat action plans, and malaria control to represent topics with a spectrum of available evidence bases. Each of these four statements was analyzed using a novel framework to assess the treatment of statistical variability and generalizability.
Results: WHO currently provides substantial guidance on addressing statistical variability through GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) ratings for precision and consistency in their guideline documents. Accordingly, our analysis showed that policy-informing questions were addressed by systematic reviews and representations of statistical variability (eg, with numeric confidence intervals). In contrast, the presentation of contextual or " background " evidence regarding etiology or disease burden showed little consideration for this variability. Moreover, generalizability or " indirectness " was uniformly neglected, with little explicit consideration of study settings or subgroups.
Conclusion: In this paper, we found that non-uniform treatment of statistical variability and generalizability factors that may contribute to uncertainty regarding recommendations were neglected, including the state of evidence informing background questions (prevalence, mechanisms, or burden or distributions of health problems) and little assessment of generalizability, alternate interventions, and additional outcomes not captured by systematic review. These other factors often form a basis for providing policy recommendations, particularly in the absence of a strong evidence base for intervention effects. Consequently, they should also be subject to stringent and systematic evaluation criteria. We suggest that more effort is needed to systematically acknowledge (1) when evidence is missing, conflicting, or equivocal, (2) what normative considerations were also employed, and (3) how additional evidence may be accrued.

The conservation of biodiversity is an increasingly challenging endeavour. Current pressures from a growing human population have led to concerns of a sixth mass extinction event, bringing mounting pressure to find effective ways of conserving biodiversity (Barnosky et al., 2011). However, our ability to meet this challenge is affected by the fact that not everyone supports conservation objectives. People naturally have different interests and priorities, some of which may be diametrically opposed to conservation objectives. In some cases, these differences lead to damaging and costly conflicts that we see emerging across the world and which present major challenges to modern conservation (MacDonald and Service, 2007).

As has been noted in earlier chapters of this book, comparative institutional analyses can be particularly difficult when national contexts differ widely. As such, identifying common features in the political or institutional contexts across different settings can be important. One highly relevant contextual feature that is shared across a range of lower income settings is the presence, and potential influence, of international donor agencies (or ‘aid’ agencies) that provide funding and assistance to recipient governments (often classified as ‘Official Development Assistance’ or ODA). Of course, there are a wide variety of aid modalities and relation- ships with these agencies in recipient country settings. International donors can be bilateral or multilateral in their orientation (i.e. representing specific governments or collections of countries); they may be private philanthropic (e.g. foundations like the Rockefeller Foundation or Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation); or issue-specific aid mechanisms (e.g. the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; or Gavi – the Vaccine Alliance).

It is essential for those policies that are implemented, to be based on the best available evidence, to ensure their effectiveness. The present study describes the development and validation of SAGE, a measure that assesses the extent to which policymakers engaged with, and used research, in the development a health policy document or program. It contains multiple scoring categories broadly representing limited, moderate, and extensive research engagement (e.g., searching, generating, or appraising research) and research use (e.g., conceptual, instrumental, tactical, symbolic). The content of these scoring categories was derived from theoretical models and research on knowledge exchange, as well as in-depth interviews with policymakers. To validate these scoring categories, a conjoint analysis (CA) was conducted with individuals who had an in-depth understanding of both research and policy. Experts were presented with numerous profiles of research engagement/use and rated the extent to which each profile represented a comprehensive form of research engagement or use. The CA helped identify profiles representing extensive, moderate, and limited forms of research engagement and research use. These profiles were translated into the scoring categories, to rate the degree to which policy makers utilise research evidence in policy/program development. The advantage of the approach here is that expert opinion was combined with statistical techniques to develop a validated assessment of research engagement and use in health policy development. The tool can be used to measure the degree to which organisations utilise research in the development of policies, particularly those regarding implementation.

Implications and new insights for federal and/or state health policy:
The presentation describes the development of measures to evaluate the capacity of agencies to support the use of research in health policymaking. The measures are derived from theoretical models of research utilisation and have been tested for their reliability and validity and have been shown to be sensitive to detect changes in capacity over time. The measures assess a broad conceptualisation of capacity which includes not only the technical infrastructure to support research access and use (e.g., subscriptions to databases, systems to commission new reviews, staff training), but also the cognitive and social aspects of capacity including the attitudes towards research use held by staff and executives which are critical to shaping the overall culture of an agency towards evidence use. The measures can provide agencies with a systematic audit and feedback tool that will not only provide a detailed account of their systems, tools, and organizational culture, but provide clear insights into strategies and interventions to improve their capacity to use research in policy.
Description of how evidence and/or data was or could be used:
The measures were developed through extensive qualitative research in the field of knowledge translation, systematic (quantitative) integration of the opinions of policy and health research experts, and psychometric testing among actual health policymakers. The measures provide a thorough and systematic evaluation of an agency’s capacity to use research in policymaking.
Potential impact of the presentation for health policy: The aim of the presentation is to emphasise the importance of systematic, valid and reliable measurement as a means of improving agencies’ capacity to use research in health policy. It is hoped that the presentation encourages policymakers and agencies to utilize the tools described to evaluate and, ultimately, improve their capacity to use research in policymaking.

It is essential that health policies are based on the best available evidence including that from research, to ensure their effectiveness in terms of both cost and health outcomes for the wider community. The present study describes the development of SAGE (Staff Assessment of enGagement with Evidence), a measure that combines an interview and document analysis to evaluate how policy-makers engaged with research (i.e., how research was searched for, appraised, or generated, and whether interactions with researchers occurred), how policymakers used research (i.e., conceptually, instrumentally, tactically, or imposed), and what barriers impacted upon the use of research, in the development of a specific policy product. A multifaceted strategy was used to develop the SAGE interview and the accompanying interview-scoring tool. These included consultations with experts in health policy and research, review and analysis of the literature on evidence-informed policymaking and previous measures of research use, qualitative analysis of interviews with policymakers, and pilot-testing with senior policymakers. These steps led to the development of a comprehensive interview and scoring tool that captures and evaluates a broad range of key actions policymakers perform when searching for, appraising, generating, and using research to inform a specific policy product. Policy organizations can use SAGE to not only provide a thorough evaluation of their current level of research engagement and use, but to help shed light on programs to improve their research use capacity , and evaluate the success of these programs in improving the development of evidence-informed policies.

Background: Rapid reviews are increasingly being used to help policy makers access research in short time frames. A clear articulation of the review's purpose, questions, scope, methods and reporting format is thought to improve the quality and generalisability of review findings. The aim of the study is to explore the effectiveness of knowledge brokering in improving the perceived clarity of rapid review proposals from the perspective of potential reviewers. To conduct the study, we drew on the Evidence Check program, where policy makers draft a review proposal (a pre knowledge brokering proposal) and have a 1-hour session with a knowledge broker, who re-drafts the proposal based on the discussion (a post knowledge brokering proposal).

In the first part of this study the general context of the principles regarding evidence based will be discussed in detail, following that based on Evidence Based Research the efficacy of the interventions will be discussed and tabulated. The study reveals some facts related following questions. How can replications of a particular sociological program improve our understanding of its effectiveness? What is meta-analysis? What are its strengths and weaknesses for synthesizing knowledge across evaluation studies? What techniques can be used to promote the quality of “real world” program replications? Do they ensure program success? How are evidence-based principles different from evidencebased programs? Do the two approaches complement each other? Key Words: Evidence-Based Principles, Replications, Meta-Analysis.

Çalışmanın ilk kısmında delil temelli prensiplerin genel hatlarına yer verilmeye çalışılacaktır. Sosyolojik çalışmaların etkinliğinde delil temelli araştırma konusu tartışılacaktır.
Bu çalışmada delil temelli araştırmalar ile ilgili bağzı sorulara cevap bulmaya ve açığa çıkartmaya çalışmaktadır. Bu sorular sırasıyla şöyledir. Herhangi bir sosyolojik programın başka bir şekilde tekraren araştırılması bizim programın etkinliliğini nasıl arttırmaktadır? Toplu çözümleme nedir? Değerlendirme çalışmalarında bilginin sentezlenmesine yönelik gü.lü ve zayıf yönleri nelerdir? Gerçek yaşama uyarlanacak çalışmalarda hangi teknikler kullanılır? Bu teknikler programın başarısını sağlar mı? Delil temelli prensiplerin delil temelli programlardan farkı nedir? Bu iki yaklaşım birbirilerini tamamlarlar mı?
Anahtar Kelimeler: Delil temelli prensipler, Uyarlama, Toplu çözümleme.

In this paper I critically reflect on the growing influence of neuroscience on policy-making, with reference to two very different examples of its current use. In doing so, I demonstrate the pitfalls and potentials in the application of this emerging
science to complex policy issues.

In advance of the 2015 Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR), an event organised by UCL and the Wellcome Trust, in the style of the BBC’s ever-popular Question Time series, sought to answer some of the most pressing questions facing the science community today. But what did we learn from their lively exploration of key science policy issues?

This paper examines the capacity of Zimbabwean policy makers to access and use climate change research outputs for evidence based climate change policy making. Due to impacts of climate change on developing countries, many stakeholders are now calling for crafting of national climate change strategic plans to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change. However one of the main challenges affecting policy makers is access to research evidence in order to come up with evidence based policies. To achieve the study objective, a mixed method approach was adopted. Findings show that there are a number of challenges facing researchers and policy makers in Zimbabwe which are inadvertently affecting evidence based climate change policy making. These challenges range from the general weak and non performing economy which over the years has created an environment not conducive for research as well as minimizing avenues for accessing state of the art research around climate change issues. Low Information, Communication Technologies literacy is also limiting access to databases and online sources with topical issues on climate change.