Jurisdictional scans: methodological considerations for systematically analysing and comparing policy approaches across different jurisdictions.

IF 5.2 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
K M Saif-Ur-Rahman, Kerry Waddell, John N Lavis, Nikita N Burke, Marie Tierney, Barbara Whelan, Declan Devane
{"title":"Jurisdictional scans: methodological considerations for systematically analysing and comparing policy approaches across different jurisdictions.","authors":"K M Saif-Ur-Rahman, Kerry Waddell, John N Lavis, Nikita N Burke, Marie Tierney, Barbara Whelan, Declan Devane","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.112025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Jurisdictional scans are used to inform policy by systematically comparing how different jurisdictions define problems, design policies, and implement strategies. They provide insights into policy options, implementation experiences, and gaps in preparedness, making them valuable tools for evidence-informed decision-making. However, no established methodological standards exist currently. This article provides an overview of the methodological considerations of conducting jurisdictional scans, drawing on the authors' methodological experience.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We outline issues for consideration in conducting jurisdictional scans, drawing on our experience from a recent jurisdictional scan of public health preparedness mechanisms. Our methodological reflections are informed by established evidence synthesis principles, adapted to the unique features of a jurisdictional scan. A worked example illustrates key stages, including defining scope, searching, screening, data extraction, and synthesis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our experience highlights the importance of applying systematic approaches to maximise transparency, reproducibility, and credibility. We found that policy documents often lacked abstracts, standardised structures, or clear evidence use, making screening and extraction challenging. Iterative refinement of inclusion criteria, piloting of search strategies, keyword searching, and structured frameworks for data extraction were essential for achieving consistency. Importantly, while multiple forms of evidence (e.g., guidelines, modelling, evaluations) were cited in preparedness plans, the role of evidence in shaping decisions was often unclear, revealing a key limitation of current practice.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>With the growing importance of evidence-informed policymaking, there is an urgent need to establish robust methodological standards and reporting guidelines for jurisdictional scans. This paper provides methodological considerations for jurisdictional scans, offering practical guidance while recognising ongoing challenges. By clarifying the value, limitations, and distinct role of jurisdictional scans, we aim to strengthen their contribution to policy processes and support future methodological development. Future research is warranted to refine the methodological and reporting standards of the process while maintaining flexibility for different policy contexts.</p><p><strong>Plain language summary: </strong>Jurisdictional scans are a way to see how different countries, regions, or organisations handle the same problem. They help show what choices governments have, how plans work in real life, and where the weaknesses are. Jurisdictional scans gather information from official documents, rules, and reports to learn from what others are doing. Our paper explains issues to consider in how to do a jurisdictional scan. This includes choosing which places to look at, finding and picking the right documents, pulling out the important information, and then putting it all together. If done well, jurisdictional scans can offer useful lessons to leaders and policymakers. But there are still challenges, like policies being written in very different ways, or not showing clearly how evidence is used. By giving clear instructions, this paper helps make jurisdictional scans more consistent and helpful for better decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":"112025"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.112025","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Jurisdictional scans are used to inform policy by systematically comparing how different jurisdictions define problems, design policies, and implement strategies. They provide insights into policy options, implementation experiences, and gaps in preparedness, making them valuable tools for evidence-informed decision-making. However, no established methodological standards exist currently. This article provides an overview of the methodological considerations of conducting jurisdictional scans, drawing on the authors' methodological experience.

Methods: We outline issues for consideration in conducting jurisdictional scans, drawing on our experience from a recent jurisdictional scan of public health preparedness mechanisms. Our methodological reflections are informed by established evidence synthesis principles, adapted to the unique features of a jurisdictional scan. A worked example illustrates key stages, including defining scope, searching, screening, data extraction, and synthesis.

Results: Our experience highlights the importance of applying systematic approaches to maximise transparency, reproducibility, and credibility. We found that policy documents often lacked abstracts, standardised structures, or clear evidence use, making screening and extraction challenging. Iterative refinement of inclusion criteria, piloting of search strategies, keyword searching, and structured frameworks for data extraction were essential for achieving consistency. Importantly, while multiple forms of evidence (e.g., guidelines, modelling, evaluations) were cited in preparedness plans, the role of evidence in shaping decisions was often unclear, revealing a key limitation of current practice.

Conclusion: With the growing importance of evidence-informed policymaking, there is an urgent need to establish robust methodological standards and reporting guidelines for jurisdictional scans. This paper provides methodological considerations for jurisdictional scans, offering practical guidance while recognising ongoing challenges. By clarifying the value, limitations, and distinct role of jurisdictional scans, we aim to strengthen their contribution to policy processes and support future methodological development. Future research is warranted to refine the methodological and reporting standards of the process while maintaining flexibility for different policy contexts.

Plain language summary: Jurisdictional scans are a way to see how different countries, regions, or organisations handle the same problem. They help show what choices governments have, how plans work in real life, and where the weaknesses are. Jurisdictional scans gather information from official documents, rules, and reports to learn from what others are doing. Our paper explains issues to consider in how to do a jurisdictional scan. This includes choosing which places to look at, finding and picking the right documents, pulling out the important information, and then putting it all together. If done well, jurisdictional scans can offer useful lessons to leaders and policymakers. But there are still challenges, like policies being written in very different ways, or not showing clearly how evidence is used. By giving clear instructions, this paper helps make jurisdictional scans more consistent and helpful for better decisions.

司法管辖区扫描:系统分析和比较不同司法管辖区的政策方法的方法学考虑。
背景:司法管辖区扫描通过系统地比较不同的司法管辖区如何定义问题、设计政策和实施战略来为政策提供信息。它们提供了对政策选择、实施经验和准备差距的见解,使其成为循证决策的宝贵工具。但是,目前还没有确定的方法标准。本文根据作者的方法经验,概述了进行管辖权扫描的方法考虑因素。方法:根据我们最近对公共卫生准备机制进行的辖区扫描的经验,我们概述了在进行辖区扫描时要考虑的问题。我们的方法反思是由既定的证据合成原则,适应司法管辖区扫描的独特特点通知。一个工作示例说明了关键阶段,包括定义范围、搜索、筛选、数据提取和合成。结果:我们的经验强调了应用系统方法以最大限度地提高透明度、可重复性和可信度的重要性。我们发现,政策文件往往缺乏摘要、标准化结构或明确的证据使用,使得筛选和提取具有挑战性。包含标准的迭代改进、搜索策略的试点、关键字搜索和数据提取的结构化框架对于实现一致性至关重要。重要的是,虽然在防备计划中引用了多种形式的证据(例如,指南、建模、评价),但证据在形成决策中的作用往往不明确,这揭示了当前实践的一个关键局限性。结论:随着循证决策的重要性日益提高,迫切需要为司法扫描建立强有力的方法标准和报告指南。本文提供了管辖权扫描的方法学考虑,在认识到持续挑战的同时提供实用指导。通过阐明管辖权扫描的价值、局限性和独特作用,我们的目标是加强它们对政策过程的贡献,并支持未来的方法发展。未来的研究有必要改进该过程的方法和报告标准,同时保持对不同政策背景的灵活性。简单的语言总结:管辖区扫描是一种查看不同国家、地区或组织如何处理相同问题的方法。它们有助于展示政府有哪些选择,计划在现实生活中如何运作,以及弱点在哪里。管辖权扫描从官方文件、规则和报告中收集信息,以了解其他人在做什么。我们的论文解释了在如何进行司法管辖区扫描时要考虑的问题。这包括选择要看的地方,寻找和挑选正确的文档,提取重要的信息,然后把它们放在一起。如果做得好,管辖权扫描可以为领导人和政策制定者提供有用的经验教训。但仍然存在挑战,比如制定政策的方式非常不同,或者没有清楚地显示证据是如何使用的。通过给出明确的指示,本文有助于使管辖权扫描更加一致,有助于做出更好的决策。
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
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
6.90%
发文量
320
审稿时长
44 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology strives to enhance the quality of clinical and patient-oriented healthcare research by advancing and applying innovative methods in conducting, presenting, synthesizing, disseminating, and translating research results into optimal clinical practice. Special emphasis is placed on training new generations of scientists and clinical practice leaders.
×
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