Policy advisory bodies during crises: a scoping review of the COVID-19 literature in Europe.

IF 2.5 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Clemence Bouchat, Sonja Blum, Ellen Fobé, Marleen Brans
{"title":"Policy advisory bodies during crises: a scoping review of the COVID-19 literature in Europe.","authors":"Clemence Bouchat, Sonja Blum, Ellen Fobé, Marleen Brans","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The COVID-19 policy context was characterised by high levels of uncertainty, imperfect knowledge and the need for immediate action. Therefore, governments in Europe tended to rely on expertise provided by advisory bodies to design their crisis response. Advisory bodies played a fundamental part in policy making during the crisis to optimise policy formulation.</p><p><strong>Aims and objectives: </strong>During the COVID-19 crisis, the literature on policy advice grew considerably. To grasp the main research outcomes, we conduct a scoping review that interrogates the COVID-19 policy advice literature to answer the question 'How did policy advisory bodies operate in Europe during the COVID-19 crisis?' Our review builds on a strong theoretical and conceptual basis informed by the literature on policy advisory systems, while offering a new perspective by focusing on advice and policy making during crisis times specifically. We present a review of newly established knowledge and identify what merits further study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The scoping review follows a strict protocol informed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to capture the literature published between 2020 and 2023. We searched two databases, Scopus and Web of Science. The grey literature was excluded.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>In total, 59 academic outputs inform this review. Overrepresented in our review were qualitative studies, studies about the UK and Sweden, and studies that examined the first half of 2020. Our review shows that the academic community has focused on advisory body composition, body structure and the advisory process.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Avenues for further research include the independence and influence of advisory bodies, and the fate of bodies set up during the crisis.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"409-428"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000031","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The COVID-19 policy context was characterised by high levels of uncertainty, imperfect knowledge and the need for immediate action. Therefore, governments in Europe tended to rely on expertise provided by advisory bodies to design their crisis response. Advisory bodies played a fundamental part in policy making during the crisis to optimise policy formulation.

Aims and objectives: During the COVID-19 crisis, the literature on policy advice grew considerably. To grasp the main research outcomes, we conduct a scoping review that interrogates the COVID-19 policy advice literature to answer the question 'How did policy advisory bodies operate in Europe during the COVID-19 crisis?' Our review builds on a strong theoretical and conceptual basis informed by the literature on policy advisory systems, while offering a new perspective by focusing on advice and policy making during crisis times specifically. We present a review of newly established knowledge and identify what merits further study.

Methods: The scoping review follows a strict protocol informed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to capture the literature published between 2020 and 2023. We searched two databases, Scopus and Web of Science. The grey literature was excluded.

Findings: In total, 59 academic outputs inform this review. Overrepresented in our review were qualitative studies, studies about the UK and Sweden, and studies that examined the first half of 2020. Our review shows that the academic community has focused on advisory body composition, body structure and the advisory process.

Discussion: Avenues for further research include the independence and influence of advisory bodies, and the fate of bodies set up during the crisis.

危机期间的政策咨询机构:对欧洲COVID-19文献的范围审查。
背景:2019冠状病毒病政策背景的特点是高度不确定性、知识不完善和需要立即采取行动。因此,欧洲各国政府倾向于依靠咨询机构提供的专业知识来设计危机应对措施。在危机期间,咨询机构在政策制定中发挥了重要作用,以优化政策制定。宗旨和目标:在2019冠状病毒病危机期间,有关政策建议的文献大幅增加。为了掌握主要研究成果,我们进行了范围审查,对COVID-19政策建议文献进行了询问,以回答“在COVID-19危机期间,政策咨询机构是如何在欧洲运作的?”我们的综述建立在政策咨询系统相关文献提供的强大理论和概念基础之上,同时通过特别关注危机时期的建议和政策制定,提供了一个新的视角。我们对新建立的知识进行了回顾,并确定了值得进一步研究的内容。方法:范围审查遵循严格的系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南,以获取2020年至2023年发表的文献。我们搜索了两个数据库,Scopus和Web of Science。灰色文献被排除。研究结果:总共有59个学术产出为本次综述提供了信息。在我们的综述中,定性研究、关于英国和瑞典的研究以及研究2020年上半年的研究占比过高。我们的审查表明,学术界关注咨询机构的组成、机构结构和咨询过程。讨论:进一步研究的途径包括咨询机构的独立性和影响力,以及危机期间设立的机构的命运。
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
Evidence & Policy
Evidence & Policy SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
53
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信