NDLI: The many meanings of evidence: a comparative analysis of the forms and roles of evidence within three health policy processes in Cambodia

Content Provider	Springer Nature : BioMed Central
Author	Walls, Helen Liverani, Marco Chheng, Kannarath Parkhurst, Justin
Abstract	Background Discussions within the health community routinely emphasise the importance of evidence in informing policy formulation and implementation. Much of the support for the evidence-based policy movement draws from concern that policy decisions are often based on inadequate engagement with high-quality evidence. In many such discussions, evidence is treated as differing only in quality, and assumed to improve decisions if it can only be used more. In contrast, political science scholars have described this as an overly simplistic view of the policy-making process, noting that research ‘use’ can mean a variety of things and relies on nuanced aspects of political systems. An approach more in recognition of how policy-making systems operate in practice can be to consider how institutions and ideas influence which pieces of evidence appear to be relevant for, and are used within, different policy processes. Methods Drawing on in-depth interviews undertaken in 2015–2016 with key health sector stakeholders in Cambodia, we investigate the evidence perceived to be relevant to policy decisions for three contrasting health policy examples, namely tobacco control, HIV/AIDS and performance-based salary incentives. These cases allow us to examine the ways that policy-relevant evidence may differ given the framing of the issue and the broader institutional context in which evidence is considered. Results The three health issues show few similarities in how pieces of evidence were used in various aspects of policy-making, despite all being discussed within a broad policy environment in which evidence-based policy-making is rhetorically championed. Instead, we find that evidence use can be better understood by mapping how these health policy issues differ in terms of the issue characteristics, and also in terms of the stakeholders structurally established as having a dominant influence for each issue. Both of these have important implications for evidence use. Contrasting concerns of key stakeholders meant that evidence related to differing issues could be understood in terms of how it was relevant to policy. The stakeholders involved, however, could further be seen to possess differing logics about how to go about achieving their various outcomes – logics that could further help explain the differences seen in evidence utilisation. Conclusion A comparative approach reiterates that evidence is not a uniform concept for which more is obviously better, but rather illustrates how different constructions and pieces of evidence become relevant in relation to the features of specific health policy decisions. An institutional approach that considers the structural position of stakeholders with differing core goals or objectives, as well as their logics related to evidence utilisation, can further help to understand some of the complexities of evidence use in health policy-making.
Related Links	https://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com/counter/pdf/10.1186/s12961-017-0260-2.pdf
Ending Page	13
Page Count	13
Starting Page	1
File Format	HTM / HTML
ISSN	14784505
DOI	10.1186/s12961-017-0260-2
Journal	Health Research Policy and Systems
Issue Number	1
Volume Number	15
Language	English
Publisher	BioMed Central
Publisher Date	2017-11-10
Access Restriction	Open
Subject Keyword	Health Administration R & D Technology Policy Medicine Public Health Health Services Research Health Policy Evidence-based Policymaking Differentially Expressed Evidence Utilisation Framework Convention On Tobacco Control (FCTC) Evidence Types R & D/Technology Policy Medicine/Public Health
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Article
Subject	Health Policy
Journal Impact Factor	3.6/2023
5-Year Journal Impact Factor	4.3/2023

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

The many meanings of evidence: a comparative analysis of the forms and roles of evidence within three health policy processes in Cambodia

Validity and reliability of the Evidence Utilisation in Policymaking Measurement Tool (EUPMT)

A research utilisation framework for informing global health and development policies and programmes

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP)

A framework for developing an evidence-based, comprehensive tobacco control program

Exploring the dynamics of food-related policymaking processes and evidence use in Fiji using systems thinking

Role and use of evidence in policymaking: an analysis of case studies from the health sector in Nigeria

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 1: What is evidence-informed policymaking?

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 15: Engaging the public in evidence-informed policymaking

The many meanings of evidence: a comparative analysis of the forms and roles of evidence within three health policy processes in Cambodia

Similar Documents

The many meanings of evidence: a comparative analysis of the forms and roles of evidence within three health policy processes in Cambodia

Validity and reliability of the Evidence Utilisation in Policymaking Measurement Tool (EUPMT)

A research utilisation framework for informing global health and development policies and programmes

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP)

A framework for developing an evidence-based, comprehensive tobacco control program

Exploring the dynamics of food-related policymaking processes and evidence use in Fiji using systems thinking

Role and use of evidence in policymaking: an analysis of case studies from the health sector in Nigeria

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 1: What is evidence-informed policymaking?

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 15: Engaging the public in evidence-informed policymaking

The many meanings of evidence: a comparative analysis of the forms and roles of evidence within three health policy processes in Cambodia