在传染病爆发期间,证据在多大程度上支持决策?范围界定文献综述

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Andreea Salajan, S. Tsolova, M. Ciotti, Jonathan E. Suk
{"title":"在传染病爆发期间,证据在多大程度上支持决策?范围界定文献综述","authors":"Andreea Salajan, S. Tsolova, M. Ciotti, Jonathan E. Suk","doi":"10.1332/174426420x15808913064302","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background:Infectious disease outbreaks require decision makers to make rapid decisions under time pressure and situations of scientific uncertainty, and yet the role of evidence usage in these contexts is poorly understood. Aims and objectives:To define\n and contextualise the role of scientific evidence in the governance of infectious disease outbreaks and to identify recommendations for overcoming common barriers to evidence-informed decision making. Methods:A scoping review and an expert workshop to provide additional\n input into recommendations on enhancing evidence uptake during infectious disease outbreaks taking place in European settings. Findings:Forty-nine records reporting on multiple decision-making processes during infectious disease outbreaks of the past ten years were included\n in the study. Decision makers prioritise expert advice, epidemiological data and mathematical modelling data for risk characterisation and management, but tend to be challenged by scientific uncertainties, which allow for conflicting interpretations of evidence and for public criticism and\n contestation of decision-making processes. There are concrete opportunities for optimising evidence usage to improve public health policy and practice through investment in decision-making competencies, relationship building, and promoting transparent decision-making processes. Discussion\n and conclusions:It is not necessarily a disregard of evidence that puts a strain on decision making in health crises, but rather competing interests and the lack of clear, unambiguous and rapidly available evidence for risk characterisation and effectiveness of response measures.The\n relationship between science and public health decision making is relatively understudied but is deserving of greater attention, so as to ensure that the pursuit of evidence for decision making does not challenge timely and effective crisis management.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"16 1","pages":"453-475"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1332/174426420x15808913064302","citationCount":"42","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"To what extent does evidence support decision making during infectious disease outbreaks? A scoping literature review\",\"authors\":\"Andreea Salajan, S. Tsolova, M. Ciotti, Jonathan E. Suk\",\"doi\":\"10.1332/174426420x15808913064302\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background:Infectious disease outbreaks require decision makers to make rapid decisions under time pressure and situations of scientific uncertainty, and yet the role of evidence usage in these contexts is poorly understood. Aims and objectives:To define\\n and contextualise the role of scientific evidence in the governance of infectious disease outbreaks and to identify recommendations for overcoming common barriers to evidence-informed decision making. Methods:A scoping review and an expert workshop to provide additional\\n input into recommendations on enhancing evidence uptake during infectious disease outbreaks taking place in European settings. Findings:Forty-nine records reporting on multiple decision-making processes during infectious disease outbreaks of the past ten years were included\\n in the study. Decision makers prioritise expert advice, epidemiological data and mathematical modelling data for risk characterisation and management, but tend to be challenged by scientific uncertainties, which allow for conflicting interpretations of evidence and for public criticism and\\n contestation of decision-making processes. There are concrete opportunities for optimising evidence usage to improve public health policy and practice through investment in decision-making competencies, relationship building, and promoting transparent decision-making processes. Discussion\\n and conclusions:It is not necessarily a disregard of evidence that puts a strain on decision making in health crises, but rather competing interests and the lack of clear, unambiguous and rapidly available evidence for risk characterisation and effectiveness of response measures.The\\n relationship between science and public health decision making is relatively understudied but is deserving of greater attention, so as to ensure that the pursuit of evidence for decision making does not challenge timely and effective crisis management.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51652,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence & Policy\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"453-475\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1332/174426420x15808913064302\",\"citationCount\":\"42\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426420x15808913064302\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426420x15808913064302","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 42

摘要

背景:传染病爆发需要决策者在时间压力和科学不确定性的情况下做出快速决策,但人们对证据使用在这些情况下的作用知之甚少。目的和目标:界定科学证据在传染病疫情治理中的作用并结合具体情况,并确定克服证据知情决策常见障碍的建议。方法:范围界定审查和专家研讨会,为在欧洲环境中爆发传染病期间加强证据吸收的建议提供额外投入。研究结果:研究中包括了49份报告过去十年传染病爆发期间多个决策过程的记录。决策者优先考虑专家建议、流行病学数据和数学建模数据,以进行风险表征和管理,但往往会受到科学不确定性的挑战,这导致对证据的解释相互矛盾,并导致公众对决策过程的批评和质疑。通过投资决策能力、建立关系和促进透明的决策过程,优化证据使用以改善公共卫生政策和实践是有具体机会的。讨论和结论:在健康危机中,不一定是无视证据给决策带来压力,而是利益竞争,以及缺乏明确、明确和快速可用的证据来描述风险特征和应对措施的有效性。科学与公共卫生决策之间的关系研究相对不足,但值得更多关注,以确保为决策寻找证据不会挑战及时有效的危机管理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
To what extent does evidence support decision making during infectious disease outbreaks? A scoping literature review
Background:Infectious disease outbreaks require decision makers to make rapid decisions under time pressure and situations of scientific uncertainty, and yet the role of evidence usage in these contexts is poorly understood. Aims and objectives:To define and contextualise the role of scientific evidence in the governance of infectious disease outbreaks and to identify recommendations for overcoming common barriers to evidence-informed decision making. Methods:A scoping review and an expert workshop to provide additional input into recommendations on enhancing evidence uptake during infectious disease outbreaks taking place in European settings. Findings:Forty-nine records reporting on multiple decision-making processes during infectious disease outbreaks of the past ten years were included in the study. Decision makers prioritise expert advice, epidemiological data and mathematical modelling data for risk characterisation and management, but tend to be challenged by scientific uncertainties, which allow for conflicting interpretations of evidence and for public criticism and contestation of decision-making processes. There are concrete opportunities for optimising evidence usage to improve public health policy and practice through investment in decision-making competencies, relationship building, and promoting transparent decision-making processes. Discussion and conclusions:It is not necessarily a disregard of evidence that puts a strain on decision making in health crises, but rather competing interests and the lack of clear, unambiguous and rapidly available evidence for risk characterisation and effectiveness of response measures.The relationship between science and public health decision making is relatively understudied but is deserving of greater attention, so as to ensure that the pursuit of evidence for decision making does not challenge timely and effective crisis management.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Evidence & Policy
Evidence & Policy SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
53
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信