Innvaer Simon, Vist Gunn, Trommald Mari, Oxman Andrew
Health Services Research Unit, National Institute of Public Health, Postboks 4404, Nydalen, 0403 Oslo, Norway.
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002 Oct;7(4):239-44. doi: 10.1258/135581902320432778.
The empirical basis for theories and common wisdom regarding how to improve appropriate use of research evidence in policy decisions is unclear. One source of empirical evidence is interview studies with policy-makers. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the evidence from interview studies of facilitators of, and barriers to, the use of research evidence by health policy-makers.
We searched multiple databases, including Medline, Embase, Sociofile, PsychLit, PAIS, IBSS, IPSA and HealthStar in June 2000, hand-searched key journals and personally contacted investigators. We included interview studies with health policy-makers that covered their perceptions of the use of research evidence in health policy decisions at a national, regional or organisational level. Two reviewers independently assessed the relevance of retrieved articles, described the methods of included studies and extracted data that were summarised in tables and analysed qualitatively.
We identified 24 studies that met our inclusion criteria. These studies included a total of 2041 interviews with health policy-makers. Assessments of the use of evidence were largely descriptive and qualitative, focusing on hypothetical scenarios or retrospective perceptions of the use of evidence in relation to specific cases. Perceived facilitators of, and barriers to, the use of evidence varied. The most commonly reported facilitators were personal contact (13/24), timely relevance (13/24), and the inclusion of summaries with policy recommendations (11/24). The most commonly reported barriers were absence of personal contact (11/24), lack of timeliness or relevance of research (9/24), mutual mistrust (8/24) and power and budget struggles (7/24).
Interview studies with health policy-makers provide only limited support for commonly held beliefs about facilitators of, and barriers to, their use of evidence, and raise questions about commonsense proposals for improving the use of research for policy decisions. Two-way personal communication, the most common suggestion, may improve the appropriate use of research evidence, but it might also promote selective (inappropriate) use of research evidence.
关于如何在政策决策中提高研究证据的合理使用,其理论和普遍认知的实证基础尚不明晰。实证证据的一个来源是对政策制定者的访谈研究。本系统评价的目的是总结来自对卫生政策制定者使用研究证据的促进因素和障碍的访谈研究的证据。
我们于2000年6月检索了多个数据库,包括医学索引数据库(Medline)、荷兰医学文摘数据库(Embase)、社会科学数据库(Sociofile)、心理学文摘数据库(PsychLit)、公共事务信息服务数据库(PAIS)、国际社会科学文献索引数据库(IBSS)、国际政治科学协会数据库(IPSA)和健康之星数据库(HealthStar),手工检索了关键期刊,并亲自联系了研究人员。我们纳入了对卫生政策制定者的访谈研究,这些研究涵盖了他们在国家、地区或组织层面上对卫生政策决策中研究证据使用的看法。两名评价人员独立评估检索到的文章的相关性,描述纳入研究的方法,并提取数据,这些数据在表格中进行总结并进行定性分析。
我们确定了24项符合我们纳入标准的研究。这些研究共包括对2041名卫生政策制定者的访谈。对证据使用的评估大多是描述性和定性的,重点关注假设情景或对与特定案例相关的证据使用的回顾性看法。对证据使用的促进因素和障碍的认知各不相同。最常报告的促进因素是个人联系(13/24)、及时性相关性(13/24)以及包含政策建议的摘要(11/24)。最常报告的障碍是缺乏个人联系(11/24)、研究缺乏及时性或相关性(9/24)、相互不信任(8/24)以及权力和预算斗争(7/24)。
对卫生政策制定者的访谈研究仅为关于其证据使用的促进因素和障碍的普遍看法提供了有限支持,并对改善政策决策中研究使用的常识性建议提出了疑问。最常见的建议——双向人际沟通,可能会改善研究证据的合理使用,但也可能会促进对研究证据的选择性(不适当)使用。