Evidence & Policy最新文献

{"title":"Leveraging research for health insurance coverage of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction: insights from policy makers, patients and practitioners.","authors":"Ariana M Albanese, Hannah E Frank, Margaret E Crane, Frances B Saadeh, Blair T Johnson, Eric B Loucks","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000052","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000052","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) is a well-studied treatment that health insurers typically do not cover in the United States. To understand how research can best support efforts towards coverage, researchers must partner with individuals who occupy diverse roles within a health system (for example, policy makers and practitioners).</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We sought to understand from key informants (policy makers, health insurers, healthcare administrators, clinicians, MBSR students/patients and teachers): the barriers/facilitators of MBSR coverage, how they use research to make decisions, and which research outcomes they find most important. We also sought to understand whether perspectives for individuals with direct policy influence differed from those without.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted qualitative interviews informed by the SPIRIT Action Framework with a role-diverse advisory group. Data were analysed using a rapid data condensation approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Responses of those with and without direct policy-making influence were generally aligned. Research was framed as important to coverage decisions. When considering coverage decisions, participants reported wanting information about: (1) MBSR's worthiness as a covered treatment (is it 'good', usable and a sound financial investment?) and (2) a clearer definition of the service and its coverage. Barriers were identified related to both the billing code being created as well as being used, although MBSR's ability to address the policy priority of mental health in an un-stigmatising way could facilitate coverage. Participants also recommended next steps to advance the case for coverage.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings suggest that research is frequently integrated into decision making across roles, though other factors are weighed in coverage decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"370-389"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12581106/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144486965","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}

{"title":"Learning through comparison when studying evidence and policy.","authors":"Katherine E Smith, Niklas A Andersen, Valérie Pattyn","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000051","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000051","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of this themed section is to demonstrate the conceptual and empirical contribution that comparative perspectives offer in advancing scholarship on the evidence-policy interplay. It is motivated by our sense that a lack of comparative analysis within this area of research risks conceptual confusion and contributes to limited engagement with the more political dimensions of evidence use. It brings together four papers which, between them: examine evidence use across different government ministries within the same country; provide a cross-national comparison of parliamentary institutions to support evidence use; explore variations in evaluation approaches within different national settings; and reflect on how perspectives on evidence shift when researchers become politicians, trying to navigate complex policy environments. We use this editorial to reflect on three cross-cutting themes that emerge from these four contributions. First, a tendency for dominant disciplines to shape evidence cultures in policy settings. Second, the complexity of policy making, which, in democracies, necessarily includes political dimensions. These two themes inform a third, the need for realism when working to support the use of evidence in policy. We conclude by arguing that this themed section highlights the contextual, divergent and contingent nature of evidence use in policy. By showcasing four contrasting approaches to comparative analysis of evidence use, we hope to encourage a desire to learn from, and reflect on, the insights provided by less familiar contexts and disciplines, while also underlining the necessity of considering the political and democratic dimensions of evidence use in policy.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"21 2","pages":"154-165"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144486882","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 Capabilities in Academic Policy Engagement (CAPE) programme in England: a mixed methods evaluation.","authors":"Petra Mäkelä, Annette Boaz, Kathryn Oliver","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000050","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000050","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Interventions to support engagement between academics and policy professionals have proliferated, yet little evidence is available to guide what works, how, or for whom.</p><p><strong>Aims and objectives: </strong>To evaluate the activities, outcomes and impacts of the Capabilities in Academic Policy Engagement (CAPE) programme and identify enabling conditions, using a modified framework for academic-policy engagement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Mixed methods evaluation across four intervention types (seed funding, policy fellowships, training, knowledge exchange events), between 2021 and 2024. We interviewed academics, research support staff and policy professionals (n=129), observed 32 activities, and distributed a survey (n=42, 27 per cent response rate). We analysed data using inductive and framework analyses.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>CAPE interventions focused at the linear (training) or relational (fellowships, seed funding and knowledge exchange) levels. Interventions led to outcomes in capacity-building, connectivity, conceptual and attitude change, and tacit knowledge development. Interventions were resource-intensive and required responsive intermediary skills, particularly fellowships. We found influencing factors at individual, organisation and system levels. The most experienced participants preferentially benefited from opportunities, potentially perpetuating or even exacerbating inequalities. We did not find evidence of impact on policy processes or outcomes.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusions: </strong>CAPE led to an increase in academic-policy engagement activities, mostly as linear and relational interventions. These generated costs as well as benefits and often advantaged individuals with significant prior experience of academic-policy engagement. Future academic-policy engagement interventions should consider motivations, capabilities, goals and resources at the individual and organisation levels, while using strategic planning and coordination to maximise their value, and address diversity and inclusion.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"2-22"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144486970","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":"Towards (more) evidence-based ethics guidelines: devising the REIGN framework.","authors":"Corinna Klingler, Marcel Mertz","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000049","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000049","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While the last decade has seen the increasing refinement of methods for evidence collection and synthesis for clinical guidelines or health policy decision-making, no similar methodological advances can be observed for ethics guidelines. Accordingly, the evidence base of ethics recommendations often remains opaque. The 'REIGN' framework fills this gap by addressing how evidence can (and possibly should) be used to develop ethics guidance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A review of the academic and grey literature was conducted. To this end, PubMed and the websites of selected institutions engaged in ethics guideline development and/or health technology assessment were searched. The literature found was read and summarised. Through further conceptual analysis of the arguments, terminology and ideas provided in the literature the REIGN framework was developed.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The framework consists of two parts. First, it provides a definition of evidence that is productive for the field of ethics while incorporating key ideas behind the evidence-based medicine movement. It also introduces 'normative evidence' in contrast to empirical evidence. Second, it identifies five 'evidential support components' (ESCs) as aspects of developing normative recommendations in the health context that can/should be substantiated by evidence. It also provides guidance regarding possible sources of evidence as well as quality appraisal of normative evidence.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>By structuring the dispersed discourses on the topic, the REIGN framework allows ethics guideline developers to think more coherently through the questions of whether, for what area and in what manner evidence should be sought.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"555-577"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144486972","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":"Political embeddedness versus social networks: influences on social work NGO policy advocacy in China - insights from the 2019 Social Work Study.","authors":"Xuehui Duan","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000048","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000048","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Drawing on data from the 2019 China Social Work Study, this study examines the main factors that influence social work non-governmental organisations' (NGO) policy advocacy. To this end, it employs an analytical framework to assess the impact of both institutional (political embeddedness) and cultural (social networks) factors. The findings indicate that the overall level of NGOs' policy advocacy in China is relatively subdued, encompassing both direct and indirect forms, and predominantly adopts an embedded approach, characterised by dependence on governmental support. Furthermore, elements of political embeddedness, such as experience as deputies to the National People's Congress or members of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, involvement in party construction, receipt of government support and engagement in administrative affairs, were found to significantly enhance NGOs' policy advocacy. This enhancement was notably more pronounced in both direct and indirect advocacy efforts. Additionally, social network factors, including relationships with universities, enterprises, hospitals, lawyers and association memberships, were identified as having a significant positive impact on direct policy advocacy. Moreover, the study reveals that the influence of political embeddedness on NGOs' policy advocacy is stronger than that of social networks. Finally, organisational capacity factors, including organisational age, size, award, social media usage, information transparency and professional technical staff composition were identified as having a significant positive impact on policy advocacy. These insights suggest that NGOs could benefit from bolstering their connections with local governments, while also leveraging social networks to enhance their policy advocacy capabilities.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"538-554"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144486967","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":"Personality and knowledge mobilisation: exploring individual differences among political elites.","authors":"Moulay Lablih","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000047","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000047","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To what extent are personality traits associated with knowledge use by office holders? This article argues that individual differences matter when studying knowledge mobilisation by political elites. In this respect, the HEXACO model of personality is employed to investigate how personality traits are associated with knowledge use. More specifically, following the evaluation literature, two specific types of knowledge use are differentiated: Decision-Making Knowledge Use and Decision Justification Knowledge Use. To achieve this, original data collected among local elected officials from the 26 Swiss cantons is analysed. The findings indicate that individual differences in terms of personality traits are associated with the incorporation of scientific knowledge into decision-making processes. More specifically, openness to experience is identified as a stronger predictor of knowledge use compared to conscientiousness, highlighting its unique role in fostering evidence-based decision-making. Socio-demographic differences are also found to be associated with variability in knowledge use among politicians. By identifying common characteristics among those most likely to rely on scientific knowledge, this research aims to contribute to a better understanding of how to foster informed decision-making within political contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"510-537"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144486966","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 organisation of evaluations: the influence of the ministry of finance on evaluation systems.","authors":"Niklas A Andersen, Valérie Pattyn","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000045","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000045","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite increasing scholarly interest in the organisation of evaluations within different countries' political-administrative landscapes, not much attention has hitherto been paid to the consequences of a specific institutional set-up for the function of evaluations within government.</p><p><strong>Aims and objectives: </strong>This article investigates how the organisational anchorage of policy evaluations within central administration shapes the function those evaluations primarily serve.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We focus on the role of ministries of finance for coordinating countries' evaluation systems, and study its influence in Denmark and the Netherlands through a combination of document analysis and interviews with centrally placed civil servants.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Our analysis shows how the ministries of finance come to influence the evaluation activities of the whole central administration by constituting a specific economic outlook on evaluation, which (1) narrows down the applied evaluation methods and criteria; (2) inserts the ministry of finance as primary evaluation user; and hereby (3) furthers accountability rather than learning as the main function of evaluations within central administration. In both countries, the result is that the ministry of finance's main role in the evaluation systems favours somewhat defensive qualities, where evaluations are primarily used for control and piecemeal changes in policies, rather than fundamental revisions or reflections on the appropriateness of specific policies.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusions: </strong>Our findings indicate that the influence of evaluation systems is not only dependent on the degree of institutional anchorage of evaluation activities, but also very much a matter of whom the evaluation systems is centred around.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"21 2","pages":"206-228"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2025-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144486885","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":"Training researchers to engage in policy in the United States: mapping the growth and diversity of programme models.","authors":"K L Akerlof, Todd Schenk, Adriana Bankston, Kelsey Mitchell, Aniyah Syl, Lisa Eddy, Sarah L Hall, Nikita Lad, Samuel J Lake, Robert B J Ostrom, Jessica L Rosenberg, Mark R Schwartz, Abigail R Sisti, Christopher T Smith, Lee Solomon, Anne-Lise K Velez","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000046","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000046","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Programmes that provide scientists and engineers with support to engage in public policy have proliferated in the United States, with many opportunities available for training, networking and placements within government and government-facing organisations. This trend suggests that an evolution may be occurring at the science-policy interface. However, there is little extant data on the structure, aims and impacts of these programmes.</p><p><strong>Aims and objectives: </strong>This study maps the current landscape of US programmes seeking to train researchers at all career stages to engage in policy. We focus on Virginia, a state with a substantial number and diversity of programmes, to assess: (1) how they conceptualise their audiences, activities and impacts; and (2) which roles in policy and types of evidence use they address.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We developed a database of US policy programmes (n=174) and conducted a case study of those in Virginia through surveys and interviews with their leaders (n=12).</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The majority (57%) of science policy programmes are state-based. These programmes include student organisations, government placements and fellowships, and academic certificates, degrees, and other trainings. While these reflect diverse models for how to engage researchers in policy, Virginia programme leaders across these categories similarly conceived long-term impacts, audiences and activities, researcher roles in policy, and types of decision-maker evidence use. And they perceived limited ability to implement evidence-based approaches within their programmes.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>Building additional programmatic capacity - through shared learning and partnerships - could lend support to this emerging trend in science policy with implications for US research and governance.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"456-484"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144486973","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 disenchanted fairy godmother: comparing how and why evidence-based management and public service professionals influenced policy performance in public school and active labour market policy in Denmark.","authors":"Jesper Dahl Kelstrup, Jonas Videbæk Jørgensen, Magnus Paulsen Hansen","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000044","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000044","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The aspiration to use evidence to enhance the legitimacy and effectiveness of policies is widely shared but often falls short. A common explanation for failure is the presence of barriers to utilising evidence or the inadequacies of the evidence available to policy makers.</p><p><strong>Aims and objectives: </strong>The article examines how and why evidence-based policies sometimes fail to enhance policy performance, through a comparative analysis of evidence-based management in Danish public school and active labour market policies after 2000. The two cases are characterised by similar policy performance problems but vary in terms of evidence-based management styles and responses from public service professionals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The article relies on document analysis and expert interviews with civil servants and key stakeholders to explain how and why evidence-based policies fail to improve policy performance in the two cases.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>We find that evidence-based policy making did not resolve performance problems in either case, though for different reasons. In public school policy, conflict over the 2014 Public School Reform impacted negatively on its implementation despite efforts to incorporate evidence in its design. In active labour market policy, evidence-based policies were imposed on job centres and institutionalised in key performance indicators, but over time critique of processual requirements and indignified casework accumulated and contributed towards a political decision to reform job centres.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>We advocate for setting realistic expectations about the potential of evidence in resolving policy performance problems and caution against overstating the 'dream' of evidence-based policy making.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"21 2","pages":"186-205"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144486884","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":"Social studies, technology assessment and the pandemic: a comparative analysis of social studies-based policy advice in PTA institutions in France, Germany and the UK during the COVID-19 crisis.","authors":"Lise Moawad, Sebastian Ludwicki-Ziegler","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000043","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000043","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The COVID-19 crisis has put the question of the political uses of science back at the centre of public debates. In the last few years, the focus on using scientific knowledge in parliamentary technology assessment (PTA) institutions has predominantly been to the advantage of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). In contrast, our study aims to widen the debate and explore how social studies (encompassing humanities, arts and social sciences) have been represented in the observable science and technology assessment processes and their outputs during a salient time that required a substantial corpus of scientific evidence, namely the pandemic. Against the background of Pitkin's work on the concept of representation, our article addresses this issue by utilising a qualitatively driven multi-method approach (document analysis and prosopography) on three case studies: OPECST in France, TAB in Germany and POST in the UK. We show that, between 2020 and 2022, social studies are used primarily as a complement to STEM, and that ethical issues, in particular, play a central role in opening up to multidisciplinary references. We also examine the disparate ways these disciplines are embodied in these three PTA structures. We conclude by examining the relevance of employing such a comprehensive concept and touch on the political implications of social studies' uneven representation.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"21 2","pages":"166-185"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144486883","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}