Suppr超能文献

循证决策与委托“艺术”——英国医疗保健委托机构在“现实生活”决策中获取和使用信息及学术研究的方式:一项实证定性研究

Evidence based policy making and the 'art' of commissioning - how English healthcare commissioners access and use information and academic research in 'real life' decision-making: an empirical qualitative study.

作者信息

Wye Lesley, Brangan Emer, Cameron Ailsa, Gabbay John, Klein Jonathan H, Pope Catherine

机构信息

Research Fellow, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, BS8 2PS, Bristol, UK.

School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

出版信息

BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 Sep 29;15:430. doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-1091-x.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Policymakers such as English healthcare commissioners are encouraged to adopt 'evidence-based policy-making', with 'evidence' defined by researchers as academic research. To learn how academic research can influence policy, researchers need to know more about commissioning, commissioners' information seeking behaviour and the role of research in their decisions.

METHODS

In case studies of four commissioning organisations, we interviewed 52 people including clinical and managerial commissioners, observed 14 commissioning meetings and collected documentation e.g. meeting minutes and reports. Using constant comparison, data were coded, summarised and analysed to facilitate cross case comparison.

RESULTS

The 'art of commissioning' entails juggling competing agendas, priorities, power relationships, demands and personal inclinations to build a persuasive, compelling case. Policymakers sought information to identify options, navigate ways through, justify decisions and convince others to approve and/or follow the suggested course. 'Evidence-based policy-making' usually meant pragmatic selection of 'evidence' such as best practice guidance, clinicians' and users' views of services and innovations from elsewhere. Inconclusive or negative research was unhelpful in developing policymaking plans and did not inform disinvestment decisions. Information was exchanged through conversations and stories, which were fast, flexible and suited the rapidly changing world of policymaking. Local data often trumped national or research-based evidence. Local evaluations were more useful than academic research.

DISCUSSION

Commissioners are highly pragmatic and will only use information that helps them create a compelling case for action.Therefore, researchers need to start producing more useful information.

CONCLUSIONS

To influence policymakers' decisions, researchers need to 1) learn more about local policymakers' priorities 2) develop relationships of mutual benefit 3) use verbal instead of writtencommunication 4) work with intermediaries such as public health consultants and 5) co-produce local evaluations.

摘要

背景

诸如英国医疗保健专员等政策制定者被鼓励采用“循证决策”,研究人员将“证据”定义为学术研究。为了解学术研究如何影响政策,研究人员需要更多地了解委托工作、专员的信息寻求行为以及研究在其决策中的作用。

方法

在对四个委托组织的案例研究中,我们采访了52人,包括临床和管理专员,观察了14次委托会议,并收集了会议记录和报告等文件。通过持续比较,对数据进行编码、总结和分析,以促进跨案例比较。

结果

“委托的艺术”需要在相互竞争的议程、优先事项、权力关系、需求和个人倾向之间周旋,以构建一个有说服力、令人信服的案例。政策制定者寻求信息以确定选项、找到解决办法、为决策辩护并说服他人批准和/或遵循建议的行动方针。“循证决策”通常意味着务实选择“证据”,如最佳实践指南、临床医生和服务使用者的观点以及来自其他地方的创新。不确定或负面的研究对制定政策计划没有帮助,也无法为撤资决策提供依据。信息通过对话和故事进行交流,这些方式快速、灵活,适合快速变化的政策制定世界。本地数据往往比国家或基于研究的证据更具优势。本地评估比学术研究更有用。

讨论

专员们非常务实,只会使用有助于他们为行动构建令人信服案例的信息。因此,研究人员需要开始提供更有用的信息。

结论

为了影响政策制定者的决策,研究人员需要:1)更多地了解当地政策制定者的优先事项;2)建立互利关系;3)使用口头而非书面沟通;4)与公共卫生顾问等中介合作;5)共同开展本地评估。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7dbd/4587739/7f1e318e2226/12913_2015_1091_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验