Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.
Milbank Q. 2009 Dec;87(4):903-26. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00583.x.
As evidence-based medicine grows in influence and scope, its applicability to health policy prompts two questions: Can the principles and, more specifically, the tools used to bring research into the clinical world apply to civil servants offering advice to politicians? If not, what approach should the evidence-oriented health policy organization take to improve the use of research?
This article reviews evidence-based medicine and models of research use in policy. Then it reports the results of interviews with civil servants in the Ontario Ministry of Health, which recently adopted a stewardship rather than an operational role, incorporating many evidence-oriented strategies. The interviews focused on functional roles for research-based evidence in policy advice.
The clinical context and tools for evidence-based medicine can rarely be generalized to policy. Most current models of research use offer lessons to researchers wishing to apply their work to policy but little help for civil servants wishing to become more evidence oriented. The interviews revealed functional roles for research in setting agendas (noting upcoming issues and screening interest groups' claims), developing new policies (reducing uncertainty, helping speak truth to power, and preventing repetition and duplication), and monitoring or modifying existing policies (continuously improving programs and creating a culture of inquiry). Each area requires different tools to help filter the push of evidence from researchers and set agendas, to facilitate the urgent pull on relevant research by civil servants developing new policy, and to support ongoing linkage and exchange between civil servants and researchers for monitoring and modifying existing policy.
A functional framework for evidence-informed policy advice is useful for distinguishing the activity from evidence-based medicine and "auditing" the balance of efforts across the different functional roles of research in policy.
随着循证医学的影响力和范围不断扩大,其在卫生政策中的应用引发了两个问题:能否将用于将研究引入临床实践的原则,更具体地说是工具,应用于向政治家提供建议的公务员?如果不能,循证卫生政策组织应采取什么方法来提高研究的使用?
本文回顾了循证医学和政策研究使用的模型。然后,报告了对安大略省卫生部公务员的访谈结果,该部最近采取了管理而非运营角色,纳入了许多循证策略。访谈重点是研究型证据在政策建议中的功能作用。
循证医学的临床背景和工具很少能推广到政策中。目前大多数研究使用模型都为希望将工作应用于政策的研究人员提供了经验教训,但对希望更加循证的公务员帮助不大。访谈揭示了研究在设定议程(注意即将出现的问题和筛选利益集团的主张)、制定新政策(减少不确定性、帮助对权力说真话以及防止重复和重复)以及监测或修改现有政策(不断改进计划和营造探究文化)方面的功能作用。每个领域都需要不同的工具来帮助筛选研究人员的证据推送并设定议程,为公务员制定新政策时急需的相关研究提供便利,并支持公务员和研究人员之间的持续联系和交流,以监测和修改现有政策。
循证政策建议的功能框架有助于将活动与循证医学区分开来,并“审核”研究在政策的不同功能角色中的努力平衡。