Evidence-based decision-making in a climate of political expediency: insights from local government.

IF 3.5 4区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
J Woodall, C Homer, C Freeman, J South, J Cooke, J Holliday, A Hartley, S Mullen, B Stafford
{"title":"Evidence-based decision-making in a climate of political expediency: insights from local government.","authors":"J Woodall, C Homer, C Freeman, J South, J Cooke, J Holliday, A Hartley, S Mullen, B Stafford","doi":"10.1177/17579139241256879","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Local authorities in England are responsible for public health and health promotion. This article sought to explore how research and decision-making co-exist in a local authority in England.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An Embedded Researcher was based within the local authority and used qualitative methodology to address the research aim. Interviews and focus groups were employed to ascertain a range of stakeholder views in the local authority. All transcripts were coded on NVivo 12 by the Embedded Researcher and two members of the research team cross-checked a sample for coding accuracy. Data were analysed using framework analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The data suggest several barriers to using research to inform decision-making in health promotion and public health. The study shows that research is valued in local authorities, but not always privileged - this is due to cultural factors and practical political reasons which often means that decisions need to be made expediently. Participants outlined a juxtaposition between academic credibility; timeliness to complete the research and the financial cost associated with it; against the independence and credibility that independent academics could bring.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Policy formulation and delivery is an integral aspect of health promotion and critical to achieving improved population health and reductions in health inequalities. However, there exists tensions between gathering research evidence and making research-informed decisions. The article concludes by advocating the use of Embedded Researchers to fully understand how research is gathered and used to support public health and health promotion policymaking.</p>","PeriodicalId":47256,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives in Public Health","volume":" ","pages":"17579139241256879"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives in Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17579139241256879","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: Local authorities in England are responsible for public health and health promotion. This article sought to explore how research and decision-making co-exist in a local authority in England.

Methods: An Embedded Researcher was based within the local authority and used qualitative methodology to address the research aim. Interviews and focus groups were employed to ascertain a range of stakeholder views in the local authority. All transcripts were coded on NVivo 12 by the Embedded Researcher and two members of the research team cross-checked a sample for coding accuracy. Data were analysed using framework analysis.

Results: The data suggest several barriers to using research to inform decision-making in health promotion and public health. The study shows that research is valued in local authorities, but not always privileged - this is due to cultural factors and practical political reasons which often means that decisions need to be made expediently. Participants outlined a juxtaposition between academic credibility; timeliness to complete the research and the financial cost associated with it; against the independence and credibility that independent academics could bring.

Conclusion: Policy formulation and delivery is an integral aspect of health promotion and critical to achieving improved population health and reductions in health inequalities. However, there exists tensions between gathering research evidence and making research-informed decisions. The article concludes by advocating the use of Embedded Researchers to fully understand how research is gathered and used to support public health and health promotion policymaking.

政治权宜之计下的循证决策:地方政府的启示。
目的:英格兰地方当局负责公共卫生和健康促进工作。本文旨在探讨研究与决策如何在英格兰的一个地方当局中并存:方法:一名嵌入式研究人员驻扎在地方当局内,采用定性方法实现研究目标。采用访谈和焦点小组的方式来确定地方当局利益相关者的各种观点。嵌入式研究员在 NVivo 12 上对所有记录誊本进行了编码,研究小组的两名成员对样本进行了交叉检查,以确保编码的准确性。采用框架分析法对数据进行了分析:结果:数据表明,在健康促进和公共卫生决策过程中,利用研究为决策提供信息存在若干障碍。研究表明,研究在地方政府中受到重视,但并不总是享有特权--这是由于文化因素和实际政治原因造成的,这往往意味着需要尽快做出决策。参与者概述了学术可信度、完成研究的及时性和相关财务成本与独立学者所能带来的独立性和可信度之间的矛盾:政策的制定和实施是健康促进工作不可或缺的一部分,对于改善人口健康状况和减少健康不平等现象至关重要。然而,在收集研究证据与根据研究做出决策之间存在着矛盾。文章最后提倡使用嵌入式研究人员,以充分了解如何收集和使用研究成果来支持公共卫生和健康促进决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Perspectives in Public Health
Perspectives in Public Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
1.70%
发文量
74
期刊介绍: Perspectives in Public Health is a bi-monthly peer-reviewed journal. It is practice orientated and features current topics and opinions; news and views on current health issues; case studies; book reviews; letters to the Editor; as well as updates on the Society"s work. The journal also commissions articles for themed issues and publishes original peer-reviewed articles. Perspectives in Public Health"s primary aim is to be an invaluable resource for the Society"s members, who are health-promoting professionals from many disciplines, including environmental health, health protection, health and safety, food safety and nutrition, building and engineering, primary care, academia and government.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信