Evidence & Policy最新文献

{"title":"Voices in clinical guideline development: a qualitative study of Irish guideline developers' perspectives on developing recommendations.","authors":"Waleed Serhan, John Paul Byrne, Melissa K Sharp, Michelle O'Neill, Susan M Smith, Marion Cullinan, Máirín Ryan, Barbara Clyne","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000073","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000073","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Guidelines are essential tools for improving healthcare decision-making. Over the last few decades there has been substantial investment in developing international standards and frameworks to support the technical or methodological aspects of making recommendations. However, exploration of the social processes involved has been more limited.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To explore the perspectives and experiences of stakeholders on the social processes of developing recommendations in decision-making contexts in Ireland.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A descriptive qualitative study using data from 14 semi-structured interviews was conducted with former guideline development group and expert advisory group members via MS Teams (February-August 2024). Interviewees included clinicians, methodologists and managers. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, analysed thematically and reported in accordance with the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Voices was identified as a central theme. Strong voices and hierarchies may influence decision-making, leveraging pre-existing hierarchies of professions and hierarchies of evidence. This can be exacerbated when a chair embodies this hierarchy. Our data highlighted a lack of alignment of goals and expectations between the chair and patient voices which, at times, could dominate group discussions. Methods for mitigating dominant voices included forming groups through combinations of personal and professional networks, multidisciplinary voices, briefing and debriefing patient and public representatives, and anchoring the discussion within the evidence and frameworks.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study highlights the varied voices and social structures shaping the evidence to recommendation journey, with mechanisms to mitigate against dominance within guideline development processes.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"1-21"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2026-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145893458","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Corrigendum for 'Leading research-policy engagement: an empirical analysis of the capabilities and characteristics of leaders of evidence intermediary organisations' by Steve Martin.","authors":"Steve Martin","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000072","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000072","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"268-269"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2025-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145795377","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Mama bears in the belly of the beast: Moms for Liberty disinformation campaigns in California.","authors":"Danfeng Soto-Vigil Koon, Huriya Jabbar, Kiah Combs, Mira McDavitt, Tamra Malone, Teresa Leyva","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000071","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000071","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Across the United States, Moms for Liberty (M4L) has used coordinated strategies to spread fear and disinformation to ban books and elect conservative board members aligned with their agenda. However, to date, few empirical studies have systematically examined their tactics, messages and consequences. Additionally, most media and scholarly attention has focused on the activities of M4L in traditionally conservative states. Less studied are the ways that they are building support through disinformation in progressive states such as California. In this article, we first examine the political, economic and social characteristics of the 16 counties with M4L chapters, compared to those without. We then study the group's tactics of disinformation through textual analysis of 502 documents pulled from nine California chapter websites, six social media accounts and 29 podcast episodes. We find that counties with M4L chapters more often experienced an increase in Republican voters, were more often urban, had higher rates of Bachelor degree attainment, and had lower percentages of native US citizens. Consistent with previous findings, we found that California chapters used a range of strategic activities to promote their agendas, including collaborating with other far-right organisations, taking legal action, disseminating information, and voter engagement through local electoral races. Through disinformation campaigns they combined parents' larger critiques of schools and society with White-implied Christian nationalism, anti-trans and anti-communist narratives to further far-right policy agendas. Unveiling these strategies and narrative frames is a first step in a broader research agenda that can counter disinformation strategies and promote equitable education policies.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"1-26"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2025-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145642509","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A framework for disability lived expertise.","authors":"Shane Clifton, Emma Cooper, Johnny Bourke, Sam Connor, Scott Denton, Benny Dominish, Ally Drinkwater, Clare Gibellini, John Gilroy, Lorna Hallahan, Suzie Jessep, Simon Katterl, Damian Mellifont, Bruce O'Brien, Frances Quan Farrant, Annmaree Watharow, Robert Wynn","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000069","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000069","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article introduces a framework for disability lived expertise, aiming to address the undervaluing of contributions from people with disability in crucial sectors such as policy, services, rehabilitation, education and research. It distinguishes between disability lived experience, which is the personal and individual experience of disability, and 'lived expertise', which builds on personal experience through critical reflection and engagement with the disability community. Developed by seventeen individuals with diverse disabilities, the framework outlines key components of disability lived expertise, including: Leadership qualities: rejecting paternalism, emphasising self-determination and challenging conventional paradigms. Core values: including loyalty and solidarity with the disability community, humility alongside pride, a focus on human rights and access, courage for sustained change, and managing personal triggers. Essential skills and knowledge: covering human rights principles, disability history, the social model, ableism, intersectionality, co-design and community organising. The framework views lived expertise as a dynamic capability, nurtured through reflection, community engagement and resources. It acknowledges the complexities of disability identification and disclosure, advocating for individual choice in self-identification without rigid rules. Ultimately, this framework seeks to validate previously marginalised knowledge, reshape power imbalances and empower people with disability to leadership roles aimed at a more inclusive and equitable society.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"1-21"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145276108","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Developing policy capacities for evidence-informed policy making: civil servants' learning perceptions from collaborative research projects.","authors":"Tommi Olavi Kärkkäinen","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000068","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000068","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Low levels of competencies and capabilities in public administration hamper evidence-informed policy making (EIPM), yet we know little about how such policy capacities could be developed. Drawing on interviews with Finnish civil servants who participated in collaborative research projects, this study explores learning as a pathway to capacity development. The study operationalises a practice theoretical perspective to learning. The analysis presents diverse learning perceptions from civil servants, representing the construction of a range of knowledge, including know-how for interpreting research and collaborating with researchers, familiarity with colleagues, and understanding of the boundaries of supporting policy making with research. These perceptions are connected to various developments in civil servants' analytical, operational and political capacities, and are argued to support knowledgeable engagement with research both within the collaborative projects and beyond them. The findings highlight the relationship between the potential of collaborative research to develop policy capacities and the interactions among the involved actors, the research projects' practices and the broader context in which the projects operate. Overall, the article complements the EIPM literature by placing emphasis not on indicating capacity deficits but on illustrating how their development can be understood and enhanced.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"77-98"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145276556","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Assessing the effectiveness of citizen participation: the development of an impact scheme.","authors":"Franziska Sörgel, Nora Weinberger, Julia Hahn, Christine Milchram, Maria Maia","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000066","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000066","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article examines the impact of participatory processes in research organisations, focusing on the 'Citizens' Dialogues' initiative at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. As research increasingly embraces inclusive approaches, the article presents a scheme designed to evaluate the effects of such dialogues on different actor groups: citizens, scientists and institutional management. Drawing from both literature and practical experience, the scheme assesses immediate, gradual and continual impacts, offering insights into the effectiveness of participatory formats in shaping research agendas and promoting democratic engagement with academic research. Additionally, the article explores how this scheme can be applied to other contexts, enhancing the integration of participatory outcomes into research decision-making processes. By providing a structured approach to impact assessment, this work contributes to the broader understanding of how citizen participation influences scientific research and its societal relevance.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"225-244"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145179989","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Leading research-policy engagement: an empirical analysis of the capabilities and characteristics of leaders of evidence intermediary organisations.","authors":"Steve Martin","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000067","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000067","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is growing interest in evidence intermediary organisations as a means of bridging the gap between research and policy. However, their activities and effectiveness remain under-researched. This article provides an empirically grounded analysis of the activities and attributes of the leaders of evidence intermediary organisations operating at different levels of government and across diverse policy domains in the UK. It shows that successful research-policy engagement calls for an unusual blend of leadership skills and behaviours. Leaders of evidence intermediaries highlighted the need for four core capabilities (strategy making, policy engagement, quality assuring evidence, and organisational management) and three essential characteristics (the ability to overcome entrenched institutional obstacles to evidence mobilisation, to respond to shifting stakeholder demands, and to persevere when evidence is ignored by policy makers). These findings add to our understanding of day-to-day practices of evidence mobilisation, have implications for policy and practice, and point to several promising avenues for future research about this relatively new breed of organisations which are playing an increasingly prominent role in research-policy systems in a range of countries. The leadership capabilities and characteristics identified in our research can be used to develop job descriptions, career paths, and training and development opportunities for current and future leaders. They should also inform the design and leadership of future research-policy engagement initiatives. Future studies could usefully test out the applicability of our findings in other countries and contexts and from the perspectives of a wider range of actors.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"245-267"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145180049","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Optimising teamworking processes in an ongoing research consortium: a qualitative study.","authors":"Taru Silvonen, Ges Rosenberg","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000065","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000065","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Health in urban development is one example of the increasing complexity of research issues that cross disciplinary boundaries, calling for integrated knowledge. Overcoming the challenges of working across disciplines is essential to understanding how to support inter- and transdisciplinary (ITD) projects and mitigate issues that stand in the way of collaborations aiming to contribute to societal change. The aim of this article is to provide qualitative evidence of the practices required to support the effective operating of large-scale ITD teams. This article draws on a UK-based research consortium that brings together expertise from numerous disciplines to collaborate through evidence-based interventions in the context of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and the creation of healthier urban environments. Our novel approach combines qualitative and participatory methods with the principles of hierarchical process modelling. Interview data (20 interviews) collected in 2023-2024 were enriched through a participatory workshop with consortium members in 2024. Following initial thematic coding, processes and evidence of challenges or facilitators were categorised under three research stages. The findings emphasise that supporting the development of cognitive processes during the first stage is required to enable deliberation and consensus seeking during the subsequent stages. While the strengths of the mission-oriented consortium lie in motivational processes and relationship building, the drive to deliver impactful research was limited by challenges in cognitive processes such as the development of shared mental models. This suggests that large-scale complex teams require evidence-based best practice frameworks to guide the development and maintenance of a cohesive transdisciplinary (TD) team environment.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"204-224"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145093036","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Strengthening the role of third sector intermediary bodies in democratic governance: developing strategies with state and non-state actors.","authors":"Jane Cullingworth","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000062","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000062","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Third sector intermediary bodies play an important role in representing third sector and community perspectives in democratic governance. A key challenge they face is in navigating relationships between the third sector and the state.</p><p><strong>Aims and objectives: </strong>This article presents the outcomes and learnings from a knowledge exchange (KE) project, co-designed with a third sector intermediary body, that engaged stakeholders in the development of policy recommendations to address the challenges intermediary bodies face in managing their complex role. It also reflects on the process and challenges of engaging different stakeholders in a process designed to develop collective recommendations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>KE events were held to present previous research findings about the role of intermediary bodies in democratic governance. Interested intermediary bodies, third sector organisations and public bodies participated in interviews or focus groups to develop recommendations.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Developing collective policy ideas with diverse stakeholders is a complex process for researchers, particularly when the approach is co-designed with only one stakeholder organisation. Different perspectives can be difficult to bridge and there is a risk that resulting recommendations will be diluted.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusions: </strong>This project highlighted the challenges associated with putting evidence into action and in co-designing projects. A key learning is the need for clear and upfront communication with collaborating organisations. Despite the challenges that exist in working across diverse stakeholder groups, third sector intermediary bodies are uniquely placed to act as knowledge brokers, representing experience at the community level and bringing this understanding into democratic governance spaces and networks.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"187-203"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144978123","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Disability lived experience and expertise: recognising the expert contributions of people with disability.","authors":"Shane Clifton, Emma Cooper, Johnny Bourke, Sam Connor, Scott Denton, Benny Dominish, Clare Gibellini, John Gilroy, Lorna Hallahan, Suzie Jessep, Simon Katterl, Damian Mellifont, Bruce O'Brien, Frances Quan Farrant, Annmaree Watharow, Robert Wynn","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000060","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000060","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>While the inclusion of 'disability lived experience' is increasingly advocated for in research, policy and practice, its conceptualisation and application present significant challenges. This article, a collaborative effort by 16 individuals with diverse disabilities and expertise, critically examines the limitations inherent in the current usage. We argue that prevailing interpretations of 'lived experience' presume subjectivity and over-emphasise narratives of suffering, leading to tokenism and a false dichotomy between lived experience and professional or academic expertise. These issues can undermine the true value and breadth of knowledge held by disabled people. To address these limitations, we propose a crucial distinction between 'disability lived experience' - the personal, embodied experience of disability - and 'disability lived expertise', which synthesises lived experience with a deep knowledge of the history, concepts, rights and collective experiences of people with disability, the core values of the disabled community, and advocacy skills needed to redesign and reshape the social environment to enable people with disabilities to flourish. This distinction aims not to diminish disability lived experience, but to more accurately recognise and legitimise the developed expertise many disabled people bring to various fields. By recognising the concept of disability lived expertise, we aim to foster more meaningful inclusion, challenge ableist power structures, and ensure that the expert contributions of disabled people are fully valued in driving social change.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"578-595"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144859913","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}