Policy impact of the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team: global perspective and United Kingdom case study.

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Sabine L van Elsland, Ryan M O'Hare, Ruth McCabe, Daniel J Laydon, Neil M Ferguson, Anne Cori, Paula Christen
{"title":"Policy impact of the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team: global perspective and United Kingdom case study.","authors":"Sabine L van Elsland, Ryan M O'Hare, Ruth McCabe, Daniel J Laydon, Neil M Ferguson, Anne Cori, Paula Christen","doi":"10.1186/s12961-024-01236-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mathematical models and advanced analytics play an important role in policy decision making and mobilizing action. The Imperial College Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Response Team (ICCRT) provided continuous, timely and robust epidemiological analyses to inform the policy responses of governments and public health agencies around the world. This study aims to quantify the policy impact of ICCRT outputs, and understand which evidence was considered policy-relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We collated all outputs published by the ICCRT between 01-01-2020 and 24-02-2022 and conducted inductive thematic analysis. A systematic search of the Overton database identified policy document references, as an indicator of policy impact.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 620 outputs including preprints (16%), reports (29%), journal articles (37%) and news items (18%). More than half (56%) of all reports and preprints were subsequently peer-reviewed and published as a journal article after 202 days on average. Reports and preprints were crucial during the COVID-19 pandemic to the timely distribution of important research findings. One-fifth of ICCRT outputs (21%) were available to or considered by United Kingdom government meetings. Policy documents from 41 countries in 26 different languages referenced 43% of ICCRT outputs, with a mean time between publication and reference in the policy document of 256 days. We analysed a total of 1746 policy document references. Two-thirds (61%) of journal articles, 39% of preprints, 31% of reports and 16% of news items were referenced in one or more policy documents (these 217 outputs had a mean of 8 policy document references per output). The most frequent themes of the evidence produced by the ICCRT reflected the evidence-need for policy decision making, and evolved accordingly from the pre-vaccination phase [severity, healthcare demand and capacity, and non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs)] to the vaccination phase of the epidemic (variants and genomics).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The work produced by the ICCRT affected global and domestic policy during the COVID-19 pandemic. The focus of evidence produced by the ICCRT corresponded with changing policy needs over time. The policy impact from ICCRT news items highlights the effectiveness of this unique communication strategy in addition to traditional research outputs, ensuring research informs policy decisions more effectively.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"22 1","pages":"153"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11559147/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Research Policy and Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01236-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Mathematical models and advanced analytics play an important role in policy decision making and mobilizing action. The Imperial College Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Response Team (ICCRT) provided continuous, timely and robust epidemiological analyses to inform the policy responses of governments and public health agencies around the world. This study aims to quantify the policy impact of ICCRT outputs, and understand which evidence was considered policy-relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods: We collated all outputs published by the ICCRT between 01-01-2020 and 24-02-2022 and conducted inductive thematic analysis. A systematic search of the Overton database identified policy document references, as an indicator of policy impact.

Results: We identified 620 outputs including preprints (16%), reports (29%), journal articles (37%) and news items (18%). More than half (56%) of all reports and preprints were subsequently peer-reviewed and published as a journal article after 202 days on average. Reports and preprints were crucial during the COVID-19 pandemic to the timely distribution of important research findings. One-fifth of ICCRT outputs (21%) were available to or considered by United Kingdom government meetings. Policy documents from 41 countries in 26 different languages referenced 43% of ICCRT outputs, with a mean time between publication and reference in the policy document of 256 days. We analysed a total of 1746 policy document references. Two-thirds (61%) of journal articles, 39% of preprints, 31% of reports and 16% of news items were referenced in one or more policy documents (these 217 outputs had a mean of 8 policy document references per output). The most frequent themes of the evidence produced by the ICCRT reflected the evidence-need for policy decision making, and evolved accordingly from the pre-vaccination phase [severity, healthcare demand and capacity, and non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs)] to the vaccination phase of the epidemic (variants and genomics).

Conclusion: The work produced by the ICCRT affected global and domestic policy during the COVID-19 pandemic. The focus of evidence produced by the ICCRT corresponded with changing policy needs over time. The policy impact from ICCRT news items highlights the effectiveness of this unique communication strategy in addition to traditional research outputs, ensuring research informs policy decisions more effectively.

帝国理工学院 COVID-19 应对小组的政策影响:全球视角和英国案例研究。
背景:数学模型和高级分析在政策决策和动员行动方面发挥着重要作用。帝国理工学院冠状病毒疾病 2019(COVID-19)应对小组(ICCRT)提供了持续、及时和可靠的流行病学分析,为世界各国政府和公共卫生机构的政策应对提供了信息。本研究旨在量化 ICCRT 成果对政策的影响,并了解在 COVID-19 大流行期间哪些证据被认为与政策相关:我们整理了 ICCRT 在 2020 年 1 月 1 日至 2022 年 2 月 24 日期间发布的所有成果,并进行了归纳式专题分析。对 Overton 数据库进行了系统搜索,确定了政策文件参考文献,作为政策影响的指标:我们确定了 620 项成果,包括预印本(16%)、报告(29%)、期刊论文(37%)和新闻(18%)。在所有报告和预印本中,一半以上(56%)后来经过同行评审,平均在 202 天后作为期刊论文发表。在 COVID-19 大流行期间,报告和预印本对于及时发布重要研究成果至关重要。ICCRT 五分之一的成果(21%)提供给了英国政府会议或由其审议。来自 41 个国家的 26 种不同语言的政策文件引用了 43% 的 ICCRT 成果,政策文件从发布到引用的平均时间为 256 天。我们共分析了 1746 篇政策文件参考文献。三分之二(61%)的期刊论文、39%的预印本、31%的报告和 16% 的新闻报道在一份或多份政策文件中被引用(这 217 项成果中,平均每项成果有 8 份政策文件被引用)。ICCRT 提供的证据中最常见的主题反映了政策决策对证据的需求,并相应地从疫苗接种前阶段(严重性、医疗需求和能力以及非药物干预措施 (NPI))发展到流行病的疫苗接种阶段(变异和基因组学):结论:在 COVID-19 大流行期间,ICCRT 的工作影响了全球和国内政策。随着时间的推移,ICCRT 提出的证据重点与不断变化的政策需求相吻合。除传统的研究成果外,ICCRT 的新闻报道对政策的影响凸显了这一独特传播战略的有效性,从而确保研究更有效地为政策决策提供信息。
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
Health Research Policy and Systems
Health Research Policy and Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.50%
发文量
124
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Research Policy and Systems is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that aims to provide a platform for the global research community to share their views, findings, insights and successes. Health Research Policy and Systems considers manuscripts that investigate the role of evidence-based health policy and health research systems in ensuring the efficient utilization and application of knowledge to improve health and health equity, especially in developing countries. Research is the foundation for improvements in public health. The problem is that people involved in different areas of research, together with managers and administrators in charge of research entities, do not communicate sufficiently with each other.
×
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