Evidence & Policy最新文献

{"title":"Pick of the crop: understanding the choice of scientific and experiential evidence in Swiss pesticide discourse.","authors":"Ueli Reber, Benjamin Hofmann, Christian Stamm, Karin Ingold","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000064","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000064","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In political discourse, speakers use scientific and experiential evidence. Both types can inform policy making, yet little is known about when political actors turn to experiential evidence to back their statements. In this article, we examine factors that influence the selection of scientific and experiential evidence in political discourses. Using data from a quantitative content analysis, we assess the influence of (1) issue polarisation, (2) the statement's focus on either the problem or the solution, and (3) the actor's position on policy change on the type of evidence used in Swiss media discourse on pesticides between 2013 and 2022. Our results show that an increase in issue polarisation was associated with an increase in the use of experiential evidence. It also mattered whether evidence was used to describe problems or solutions. In both cases, scientific evidence was preferred, but experiential evidence was used more often when speaking about solutions. Whether speakers were proponents or opponents of policy change had no influence on the type of evidence used. These findings suggest that speakers generally considered scientific evidence more appropriate to support their statements than experiential evidence. However, with increasing polarisation, the reliance on experiential evidence over scientific evidence suggests a shift towards emotionally resonant narratives rather than rigorously validated knowledge. For the case studied, we conclude that while speakers are committed to evidence-informed policy making in principle, experiential evidence is at risk of being devalued and weaponised in polarised contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"162-186"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144859914","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":"Understanding the dynamics of research-policy fellowships: an evaluative analysis of barriers and blockages.","authors":"Matthew Flinders, Jessica Benson-Egglenton","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000063","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000063","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims and objectives: </strong>This article presents findings from an evaluative study of the first cohort of Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Policy Fellows (2021-2023), identifying challenges at the research-policy nexus to refine the evidence base for future mobility investments and contribute to broader debates about knowledge-exchange and boundary-spanning.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An initial desk-based review of the existing research on barriers and analysis of survey data previously collected by the ESRC informed design of semi-structured interviews (the focus of this article). Interviews were conducted with 18 fellows and ten policy host representatives. Transcripts underwent thematic analysis through multiple rounds of coding and theme development in relation to 'barriers and blockages'.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Nine main 'barriers and blockages' were identified in the research: opaque expectations; competing pressures; managing complexity; boundary-spanning stretch; strategic support; administrative absorption; academic absorption; spatial (im)mobilities; silos and hierarchies. Several of these issues were either under-acknowledged or absent within the existing knowledge and research base.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>Facilitating the mobility of people within research, development and innovation 'ecosystems' remains a core strategic goal of funders and governments around the world. An increasing number of R2P fellowships (and policy-to-research secondments) are being established, but often on the basis of a weak or non-existent evidential basis with regard to 'what works'. This article contributes to remedying this gap and identifies new research themes.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"55-76"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144805313","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":"Readiness of the Australian naturopathic medicine profession for evidence implementation: a cross-sectional study.","authors":"Matthew J Leach","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000061","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000061","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Evidence implementation considers the myriad factors and stakeholders that impact the delivery of best practice care. To date, no studies have comprehensively examined the contextual factors influencing evidence implementation (EI) in contemporary naturopathic medicine practice using a validated, multi-domain framework.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Australian managers, directors, administrators, academics, students and clinicians in naturopathic medicine were eligible to participate in this national cross-sectional study. Using a comprehensive recruitment strategy and non-probability sampling, participants were invited to complete the 44-item Global Assessment of the Evidence Implementation Environment (GENIE) questionnaire, online.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The GENIE questionnaire was completed by 219 participants (75.6 per cent female; 52.5 per cent aged 40-59 years). At least one-half of participants indicated that 16 of the 34 indicators of EI preparedness in naturopathic medicine had been met, with most uncertain and/or disputing that the remaining indicators had been achieved. Of the three environments examined, the regulatory environment was considered the least ready for EI in naturopathic medicine overall (46.6 per cent agreed that this sector was ready for EI), followed by the academic environment (64.0 per cent agreed this sector was ready) and clinical environment (70.9 per cent agreed this sector was ready).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This novel study highlights several shortcomings in the Australian naturopathic medicine profession's preparedness for EI, particularly in relation to evidence-based practice/research advocacy, capacity and culture. To overcome these challenges and critical sector-specific gaps, increased investment in capacity building and proactive efforts from regulatory and professional bodies will be crucial to fostering evidence-based practice, building professional credibility and improving patient outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"117-133"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144719148","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":"Stakeholder perceptions of 'guidance and standards' for developing clinical practice guidance in Ireland.","authors":"Conor Hammersley, Waleed Serhan, Melissa K Sharp, Marion Cullinan, Barbara Clyne","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000059","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000059","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical practice guidance (CPG) needs to be developed following robust standards that are acceptable to end users.</p><p><strong>Aims and objectives: </strong>This descriptive qualitative study aimed to explore stakeholder experiences and perceptions of standards for CPG development in Ireland.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>Twenty stakeholders (senior decision-makers, evidence synthesis specialists, healthcare providers and guideline developers) participated in semi-structured interviews, conducted remotely via Microsoft Teams between November 2023 to January 2024 by one interviewer. The topic guide was informed by a previous scoping review and an existing 2015 standards document. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data analysis followed a framework approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Many participants recognised the value of having standards for CPG development but expressed limited familiarity with specific documents. They described a complex landscape of CPG development and use in Ireland, causing confusion due to ambiguous terminology and uncertainty regarding which guidance is required/takes precedence in various healthcare scenarios. Participants spoke to the importance of governance, particularly planning robust audit processes when developing CPGs. They also highlighted variation in CPG implementation and felt that those developing CPGs often failed to adequately consider implementation and communication planning. The need for more resources, particularly personnel like methodologists, to support developing evidence-based CPG was a recurring theme.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This qualitative study underscores stakeholders' appreciation of manuals and documents on developing CPG, yet it also highlights gaps in awareness and practical application. There is a pressing need for better promotion and dissemination of resources for development and implementation within the guidance development ecosystem.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"99-116"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144719149","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":"Knowledge practices in integrated care: an examination of health and social care teams using collective knowledge creation theory.","authors":"Vicky Ward","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000058","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000058","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Integrated systems of care are increasingly seen as the means to bridge gaps between organisations, services and professions, increase quality, and decrease costly duplication across the health and care landscape. Integration and integrated health and care teams, composed of locality-oriented health and social care practitioners, have become central to global health policies. Integrated teams are expected to share distinct bodies of knowledge, evidence and expertise and use this to create holistic care plans. However, little research has examined how they achieve these knowledge-related goals. This research uses organisational knowledge creation theory to examine the discursive practices within integrated teams. Observational data from case management meetings across five integrated teams highlight four key themes: (1) Instrumental questioning dominated discussions, often making participants feel criticised and leading to the imposition of questioners' opinions. (2) Interactions were typically unstructured and unreflective, hindering clear objectives and limiting knowledge sharing and creation. (3) Teams often failed to retain and apply prior learning, struggling to identify cross-case insights. (4) Teams relied heavily on internal knowledge sources, rarely seeking evidence from patients, families or other professionals. These discursive practices undermine the policy goals of integrated care, particularly with regard to knowledge and evidence. To address this, teams need support to expand the forms of knowledge and evidence they draw upon, discuss contradictions and uncertainties, and value reflective, curiosity-driven dialogue.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"390-408"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144486964","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":"Promoting the use of research evidence from websites: optimising microsurveys as feedback loops to drive improvement.","authors":"Nehal Eldeeb, Cheng Ren, Valerie B Shapiro","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000057","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000057","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Educators' use of research evidence (URE) from intermediary websites is not well understood. Current studies measure URE through periodic, retrospective user reports or by passively tracking website usage, neither of which adequately inform the continuous improvement efforts of intermediaries. This study examines the feasibility of microsurveys - brief, behaviour-triggered surveys embedded within websites - as a tool for assessing and informing the improvement of URE. Specifically, this article explores configurations to optimise microsurvey response rates.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A plug-in embedded microsurveys across web pages. Microsurveys included a five-point Likert emoticon rating scale and an open-ended follow-up. Four pilot studies tested variations in: (a) question wording, (b) time delays before triggering, (c) number of clicks, and (d) optimised conditions integrating the best configurations. Chi-square tests and logistic regression analysed differences in response rates and relationships between conditions, scores and response rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Response rates improved by discarding low-performing (that is, low response rate) questions, selecting better time delays, and reducing the number of clicks to complete the microsurvey. Likert scale response rates increased from 4.18 per cent to 11.31 per cent under optimised conditions. Follow-up response rates remained stable, with higher engagement associated with favourable Likert scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study establishes the potential of microsurveys for measuring URE from intermediary websites, achieving response rates understood to yield reliable estimates for informing the promotion of evidence in practice. Future research should explore additional configurations to further optimise response rate, integrate microsurveys with observational and behavioural data to assess validity, and study integrating microsurvey feedback into organisational change processes.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"134-160"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144486968","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":"Structuring sustainable knowledge brokering in street-level organisations.","authors":"Dorte Caswell, Tanja Dall","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000056","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000056","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The idea and need for knowledge mobilisation (KM) have gained traction in research and practice, but the long-term sustainability of KM practices remains challenging. Recent research suggests shifting from sustainability as an end-goal to 'sustaining' as actors' work to keep knowledge translation practices productive. However, little is known about sustaining work, especially in street-level public welfare organisations.</p><p><strong>Aims and objectives: </strong>This article explores (a) how organisational systems for sustainable KM can be built in street-level organisations, and (b) how knowledge brokers in these organisations support the development of such structures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We draw on ongoing research collaboration between researchers and five Danish municipal public employment services. Data includes extensive qualitative data from interviews, fieldwork and observations. Data are analysed using concepts of translating, contexting, and institutionalising KM.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>We identify three axes of a sustaining KM infrastructure: a horizontal axis focused on mobilising knowledge at the professional level; a vertical axis focused on mobilising knowledge between organisational levels; and an extra-organisational axis focused on mobilising knowledge between the organisation and the outside world, specifically research.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>This article highlights sustaining KM as ongoing and multifaceted work, emphasising the role of street-level organisation knowledge brokers. Their embeddedness in professional practice enables them to translate, context and institutionalise KM. By outlining three axes of sustaining infrastructure, we suggest a framework for further research on sustaining in organisational practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"39-54"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144486969","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":"Evaluation of researchers' policy-related knowledge, needs and self-efficacy before and after the 2021 Texas Legislative Session.","authors":"Kaitlin Brand, Shelby Flores-Thorpe, Yuzi Zhang, Amelia Roebuck, Tiffni Menendez, Rachel Linton, Taylor Bishop Scott, Max Crowley, Alexandra E van den Berg, Deanna M Hoelscher","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000054","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000054","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate public health researchers' perceptions of policy-informed research, self-efficacy, knowledge and training needs both before and after participating in an initiative to improve their engagement with legislative offices during the January-May 2021 Texas Legislative Session.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 111 researchers were contacted about participating in the initiative, and 45 expressed interest and were thus enrolled. After receiving training on communication skills specific to legislative audiences, 27 researchers were matched with participating legislative offices based on location, availability and expertise. Self-administered surveys assessed policy informed research, self-efficacy, knowledge and training needs pre- and post-session. Paired t-tests compared pre- and post-session mean scale scores. Two-sample t-tests compared scale scores between matched and unmatched researchers.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Most researchers (66 per cent) communicated with legislative offices fewer than five times during the previous two years. Compared to pre-session (baseline), there was a significant increase in reported policy knowledge and a significant decrease in perceived training needs in the post-session (follow-up) survey among all researchers. At baseline, legislator-matched researchers had significantly higher policy-related self-efficacy and lower perceived training needs than the unmatched researchers; however, scores between matched and unmatched researchers were not significantly different at follow-up.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusions: </strong>Our findings show that actively applying learned skills through the research-to-policy framework is beneficial in building researchers' policy-related knowledge and their preparedness to engage with state legislators. The resulting potential for researcher-legislator partnerships to transform our public health system is highlighted.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"23-38"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144486963","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 'The influence of public policy and administration expertise on policy: an empirical study' by Robin Haunschild, Kate Williams and Lutz Bornmann.","authors":"Robin Haunschild, Kate Williams, Lutz Bornmann","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000055","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000055","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"507-509"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2025-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144486962","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":"Participatory-deliberative processes in UK policy making related to income insecurity as a determinant of health: a scoping review.","authors":"Anna Baillie, Gillian Fergie, Mhairi Mackenzie, Kathryn Skivington","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000053","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000053","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Deepening democratic engagement in socio-economic policy domains is of increasing interest to the health inequalities research community. However, there is a recognised gap between theory and the practical application of public participation. Viewing income security as a fundamental determinant of health, this article investigates how, when and where participatory-deliberative processes (PDPs) were applied in policy making connected to income, in the UK, from January 2007 to June 2022.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The review applied the PRIMSA-ScR checklist. Searches were conducted in: EconLit, SOC Index, Sociological Abstracts, MedLine; and grey literature sources: BASE database, government, non-governmental organisation websites for articles related to PDPs in income-related policy making in the UK, published after 1 January 2007. Articles were synthesised through a conceptual framework combining Whitehead's typology of actions to tackle health inequalities and Smith's categorisation of democratic goods.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The review found 20 articles relating to 13 PDPs. A majority of PDPs took place in Scottish Government/ Parliament or at Local Authority/NHS Trust level in England and Wales. A variety of types of PDPs were used by policy-making institutions across a range of socio-economic domains, with varying degrees of information provided about participants and policy outcomes.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusions: </strong>Findings demonstrate a multitude of disconnects between participatory rhetoric and reality. There is no evidence of PDPs influencing macro socio-economic policy making, with participatory decision-making instead dispersed across less empowered, downstream spaces. Democratising socio-economic policy domains requires critical reflection on the fractured nature of participatory policy making, the locus of decision-making power and how inclusion is realised in participation spaces.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"429-453"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7617669/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144082008","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}