Evidence & Policy最新文献

{"title":"How useful are equality indicators? The expressive function of ‘stat imperfecta’ in disability rights advocacy","authors":"M. Priestley, S. Grammenos","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16141001670976","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16141001670976","url":null,"abstract":"Background: The measurement of equality is often difficult for groups who are weakly defined or poorly represented in official datasets. Social statistics are an essential component in rights recognition and advocacy because they make protected groups of persons visible and reveal the extent of their inequalities in comparison with population norms.Aims and objectives: This paper examines how disabled persons have been included, or not, in EU statistics used for evidenced-based policy ‐ for example in the European Semester process concerning Member States’ employment and social policies, or in monitoring compliance with international human rights standards under the UN CRPD.Methods: Over a period of a decade we mapped and disaggregated disability data from the main European social surveys, examining the availability and limitations of different sources to answer various policy questions.Findings: The analysis produced indicators revealing stark inequalities between disabled and non-disabled persons but raised challenging questions about data quality, reliability and comparability. This revealed tensions in engaging the trust of policymakers in less familiar, or less reliable, data concerning minority groups.Discussion and conclusions: Despite limitations of precision, imperfect statistics often retain a strong expressive function in human rights promotion. Greater investment is needed from governments and statistical authorities to strengthen disability equality data and indicators concerning marginalised rights holders.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66285544","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":"Using knowledge brokering to produce community-generated evidence","authors":"Janet Harris, J. Springett, Debbie Mathews, Guy Weston, Alexis Foster","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16190024737973","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16190024737973","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Devolution and integration of health and social care have placed increasing pressure on local statutory services, with a corresponding shift of health and social care to community organisations. The voluntary and charitable sector (VCS) is expected to make the case for increased funding by providing evidence of value and impact.Aims and objectives: This paper explores the challenges of compiling evidence on health outcomes which do not reflect the holistic nature of VCS support. We document how knowledge brokering can be used to enable the VCS to generate evidence.Key conclusions: Knowledge brokering (KB) may be an effective approach for developing community-generated evidence. Brokering is also needed to change perspectives on what counts as good evidenceKey messagesHealth outcome measures are not seen to be appropriate by the voluntary sector for social prescribing services.A new evidence base is needed that reflects the social determinants of health.Knowledge brokering may be an effective approach for developing community-generated evidence.Brokering is also needed to change perspectives on what counts as good evidence.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66286073","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":"Public-academic partnerships to foster use of research evidence in improving youth outcomes: findings from document analysis","authors":"Amy P. Page, Oluwatoyin Olubiyi, Y. L. Wong, Christina D Kang-Yi","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16210115966623","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16210115966623","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Although public-academic partnerships (PAPs) to improve the health and well-being of vulnerable populations have proliferated in public care for youth, existing literature lacks information about whether PAPs lead to public care agency leaders’ use of research evidence and promote youth mental health and well-being.Aims and objectives: The document analysis was conducted to understand PAP contexts and mechanisms leading to public care agency leaders’ use of research evidence. This paper introduces US public mental health and child welfare systems, shares strategies of identifying PAPs, obtaining and conducting systematic document review of PAPs, and documents analysis findings.Methods: This project conducted document analysis of US PAPs aiming to improve mental health and promote well-being of youth aged 12–25 years.Findings: The 23 PAPs analysed had diverse partnership goals including implementation and dissemination of research/evaluation evidence, information sharing, and prioritising and streamlining research priorities. PAPs sustained longer than 10 years had more focused goals of programme and policy evaluations and professional training, while PAPs 10 years or newer were engaged in more diverse goals. The majority of PAPs used journal articles, presentations, and multimedia as dissemination strategies of findings. Fewer than half of the PAPs reported on use of PAP-generated evidence in subsequent decision making by public care agency leaders.Discussion and conclusions: Further research should examine which mechanisms link partnership contexts, PAP leaders’ research evidence use, and youth outcomes improvement. Future research should also examine PAPs by detailed stages of development and ask PAP leaders directly about their evidence use.Key messagesThis project conducted document analysis of PAPs focused on mental health and well-being of youth;The project aimed to reveal contexts and mechanisms that are present when PAP leaders use evidence;This paper shares strategies used and findings from conducting systematic document analysis.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"110 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66286179","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":"Improving research impact: lessons from the infrastructure engagement excellence standards","authors":"Kirsty Jones, S. Bice","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16225315303512","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16225315303512","url":null,"abstract":"Background: The gap between research and practical implementation remains a major challenge for policymakers. Research co-creation, involving researchers co-designing and co-producing research with industry, government and civil society, can support improved end user uptake and better research implementation.Aims and objectives: This Practice Paper introduces a process of research co-creation based in implementation science and integrated knowledge translation theories. It details the development of the Infrastructure Engagement Excellence Standards (IEE), a framework of 10 Standards defining the qualities of community engagement for optimal infrastructure planning and delivery. The paper details a research co-creation process applicable across a variety of industries and policy settings.Key conclusions: The Practice Paper introduces a theory-based method for research co-production and discusses strengths and weaknesses of the co-creation approach used to develop the IEE Standards. Implementation science and integrated knowledge translation theory offer important insights to support more successful research co-design and co-production. Research that incorporates these theories is better positioned to achieve implementation. The creation of the IEE Standards offers one helpful example of how researchers, policymakers and practitioners can begin to close the research-implementation gap.Key messagesResearch co-creation, using implementation science and integrated knowledge translation, supports uptake of research outcomes;Co-design creates ownership and understanding of research findings among participants;Ownership of research findings improves research use, to inform policy and practice;Involving end users in all research stages makes results more applicable and meets practice needs.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66286279","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":"Essential skills for using research evidence in public health policy: a systematic review","authors":"S. Ziam, Pierre Gignac, Élodie Courant, Esther Mc Sween-Cadieux","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16250726996691","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16250726996691","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Decisions related to the development and implementation of public health programmes or policies can benefit from more effective use of the best available knowledge. However, decision makers do not always feel sufficiently equipped or may lack the capacity to use evidence. This can lead them to overlook or set aside research results that could be relevant to their practice area.Aims and objectives: The objective of this systematic review was to synthesise the essential skills that facilitate the use of research evidence by public health decision makers.Methods: Thirty-nine articles that met our inclusion criteria were included. An inductive approach was used to extract data on evidence-informed decision-making-related skills and data were synthesised as a narrative review.Findings: The analysis revealed three categories of skills that are essential for evidence-informed decision-making process: interpersonal, cognitive, and leadership and influencing skills. Such cross-sectoral skills are essential for identifying, obtaining, synthesising, and integrating sound research results into the decision-making process.Discussion and conclusions: The results of this systematic review will help direct capacity-building efforts towards enhancing research evidence use by public health decision makers, such as developing different types of training that would be relevant to their needs. Also, when considering the evidence-informed decision-making skills development, there are several useful and complementary approaches to link research most effectively to action. On one hand, it is important not only to support decision makers at the individual level through skills development, but also to provide them with a day-to-day environment that is conducive to evidence use.Key messagesPublic health programmes or policies can benefit from more effective use of the best available knowledge;This review identified 39 studies on skills related to evidence-informed decision making;Three categories of skills are proposed: cognitive, interpersonal and leadership and influencing skills;It will help direct capacity-building efforts towards enhancing evidence use by decision makers.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66286597","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":"Historical knowledge mobilisation in a post-factual era in the United States","authors":"J. Malin, Dustin Hornbeck","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16328406523829","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16328406523829","url":null,"abstract":"Background: In the US, and conspicuously via social media, we are witnessing an acceleration of what we term historical knowledge mobilisation: increasingly and in various ways, evidence derived from academic historical research is being shared with broader publics. Moreover, evidence-based and false or misleading historical claims are being advanced with an eye toward influencing key decisions and/or impelling social change.Aims and objectives: This exploratory study draws upon Ward’s (2017: 477) ‘framework for knowledge mobilisers’ to facilitate an analysis of what and whose historical knowledge is being shared, and how and why this is happening. It aims to provide information and guidance to support scholars of knowledge mobilisation or evidence use, as well as active historical knowledge mobilisers.Methods: This study sought to identify patterns vis-à-vis historical knowledge mobilisation by applying qualitative media analysis to a set of cases. We attended to content, style, and process of historical knowledge mobilisation.Findings: Three main themes help to explain the historical knowledge mobilisation: (a) correcting or countering a master narrative; (b) real-time correction of historical claims; and (c) contextualising complicated political moments. We also described new ways to disseminate/exchange this knowledge which altogether function to expand access to historical knowledge, but also to competing historical claims.Discussion and conclusions: The trends revealed provide insights into how historical knowledge is being used to justify political aims, and how some academics are using non-traditional means to counter false and misleading claims. Further infrastructural and empirical development is needed to support these efforts.Key messagesHistorical knowledge mobilisation is shifting/accelerating with the growth of new media platforms.Such knowledge is being shared by historians and adjacent academics for three main reasons.Public demand is high, with a window open for such knowledge to motivate bold policy actions.Although some historians have been successful, further infrastructural and empirical development is needed.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66286868","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":"Policies for evidence: a comparative analysis of Africa’s national evaluation policy landscape","authors":"T. Chirau, Caitlin Blaser-Mapitsa, Matodzi M. Amisi","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16104826256918","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16104826256918","url":null,"abstract":"Background: African countries are developing their monitoring and evaluation policies to systematise, structure and institutionalise evaluations and use of evaluative evidence across the government sector. The pace at which evaluations are institutionalised and systematised across African governments is progressing relatively slowly.Aims and objectives: This article offers a comparative analysis of Africa’s national evaluation policy landscape. The article looks at the policies of Zimbabwe, South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya (not adopted) and Uganda. To achieve the aim we unpack the different characteristics taken by the national evaluation policies, emerging lessons for countries who wish to develop a national evaluation policy, and key challenges faced by countries with regard to evaluation policy development and implementation. The article draws on both a desktop review and action research approaches from the Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results Anglophone Africa to build national evaluation systems across the region. The approach has included peer learning and co-creation of knowledge around public sector evaluation systems.Key conclusions: The national evaluation policies reviewed share certain common features in terms of purpose and composition. They are also struggling with common issues of institutionalising the evaluation system across the public sector. However, there are variations in the countries’ guiding governance frameworks at a national level that shape the nature and content of policies, as well as the ways through which the policies themselves are expected to guide the use of evaluative evidence for decision and policymaking, and programming.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66285204","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 sociological treatment exploring the medical model in relation to the neurodiversity movement with reference to policy and practice","authors":"Emily L. Casanova, Cheryl J Widman","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16142770974065","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16142770974065","url":null,"abstract":"Background: The Medical Model of disability focuses on diagnosed conditions. It is used in policy particularly to categorise people. This enables predictions and forecasting about the size of policy needs but tends to homogenise disability representations, assigning a negative evaluation to illness that may be irrespective of patho-anatomical correlates. The Social Model considers disability as imposed by society through attitudes and barriers. The Neurodiversity Model is a type of social and cultural model with biological implications; it states that differences in brain and behaviour lie on a non-pathological spectrum. Critics say this whitewashes lived experience. Policymakers may devalue the Neurodiversity Model’s origins within activist neurodiverse communities. The model that policy and practice decision makers use has fundamental effects on their impacts.Aims and objectives: The Medical and Neurodiversity Models are reviewed in reference to their politicisation as ways to characterise disability, and identity politics. The implications socially and for disability policy and practice and evidence use are considered.Key conclusions: Both models fall short in addressing the needs of the broad community of the disabled, yet both have useful features. We propose the Biological Gradient Model (BGM), which integrates scientific theory while avoiding pathology-based concepts and value-laden judgments concerning ‘deficiency’. Its usefulness is demonstrated; it resolves some of the ambiguity and tensions that exist in the way people with disability are viewed by different groups and treated within policy. It has the potential to reduce issues of partial representation, where the voices of those who cannot self-advocate may be less heard.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66285588","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":"The many faces of disability in evidence for policy and practice: embracing complexity","authors":"C. Rivas, I. Tomomatsu, D. Gough","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16147909420727","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16147909420727","url":null,"abstract":"Background: This special issue examines the relationship between disability, evidence, and policy.Key points: Several themes cut across the included papers. Despite the development of models of disability that recognise its socially constructed nature, dis/ableism impedes the involvement of people with disability in evidence production and use. The resultant incomplete representations of disability are biased towards its deproblematisation. Existing data often homogenise the heterogeneous. Functioning and impairment categories are used for surveys, research recruitment and policy enactments, that exclude many. Existing data may crudely evidence some systematic inequalities, but the successful and appropriate development and enactment of disability policies requires more contextual data. Categories and labels drawn from a deficit model affect social constructions of identity, and have been used socially and politically to justify the disenfranchisement of people with disability. Well rehearsed within welfare systems, this results in disempowered and devalued objects of policy, and, as described in one Brazilian paper, the systematic breakup of indigenous families. Several studies show the dangers of policy developed without evidence and impact assessments from and with the intended beneficiaries.Conclusions and implications: There is a need to mitigate barriers to inclusive participation, to enable people with disability to collaborate as equals with other policy actors. The combined application of different policy models and ontologies, currently in tension, might better harness their respective strengths and encourage greater transparency and deliberation regarding the flaws inherent in each. Learning should be shared across minority groups.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66286177","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":"Analysts, advocates and applicators: three discourse coalitions of UK evidence and policy","authors":"Jasper Montana, James Wilsdon","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16112601473449","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16112601473449","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Continued growth of the evidence and policy field has prompted calls to consolidate findings in pursuit of a more holistic understanding of theory and practice.Aims and objectives: The aim of this paper is to develop and explore an analytical typology that offers a way to consider the heterogeneity of different actors in UK evidence and policy.Methods: We draw upon a discourse coalitions approach to analyse a series of semi-structured interviews with a cross-section of professionals in the evidence and policy field.Findings: We describe an analytical typology that is composed of three discourse coalitions, each with their own framings of the problems of evidence and policy relations, the practices needed to address these, the organisation of people, and their priorities for future development. These are: the analytical coalition, which typically theorises evidence and policy relations in a way that matches empirical observations; the advocacy coalition, which typically normatively refines and prescribes particular evidence and policy relations; and the application coalition, which typically evaluates contextual conditions and enacts techniques to bring evidence into policy and practice.Discussion and conclusions: We discuss the potential of this analytical lens to inform recognised tensions in evidence and policy relations, and consider how greater awareness of the positioning of individuals within these coalitions may help to foster improved collaboration and consolidation in the field. Ultimately, we note that distinct priorities in the three coalitions signify different visions for progress within the field that need to be negotiated.Key messagesConsolidation of the evidence and policy field requires a recognition of its heterogeneity.We propose three discourse coalitions – analytical, advocacy and application – to describe the field.Each discourse coalition reflects different problem perceptions, people, practices, and priorities.Recognition of personal positioning in the discourse coalitions could help the field’s development.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66285215","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}