DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Ron Joyce Centre Room 421, 4350 South Service Road, Burlington, ON, L7L 5R8, Canada.
DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada.
Implement Sci. 2017 Jul 28;12(1):96. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0627-3.
The knowledge exchange literature suggests that policy dialogues are intended to enhance short-, medium- and long-term capacities of individuals, organizations and health systems to use evidence to inform policy-making. Key features of effective dialogues have been suggested, but the linkages between these features and the realization of improved capacities for evidence-informed policy-making among dialogue attendees and the subsequent influence on policy-making activities are not well understood.
We conducted a qualitative case study of a series of four policy dialogues that were convened in Canada among national, provincial and regional stakeholders on topics pertaining to healthcare financing and funding in 2011. Data sources included videos of participant perspectives captured during or immediately following each event and follow-up key informant interviews among dialogue participants held 4 years later in 2015. Three conceptual frameworks pertaining to (i) policy dialogues and capacities for evidence use, (ii) factors shaping policy-making across the policy cycle and (iii) factors shaping implementation of evidence guided the thematic analysis. We then synthesized the findings across the three frameworks.
The results suggest the potential benefits of policy dialogues described in the literature were developed among the participants at these dialogues. Informants elaborated on how dialogue features influenced their capacities to use evidence, the ideas, interests and institutions during the agenda-setting and policy formulation stages of policy-making and how implementation was affected by characteristics of policy options, individuals, organizations, the external environment and processes.
We present a conceptual framework that furthers our understanding of the potential influence of policy dialogues on the content and mechanisms of policy development and illustrate pathways of influence on various stages of the policy cycle from agenda setting through formulation and implementation. The framework highlights important factors for consideration in designing and evaluating policy dialogues and in supporting post-dialogue knowledge exchange efforts.
知识交流文献表明，政策对话旨在增强个人、组织和卫生系统在短期、中期和长期内利用证据为决策提供信息的能力。已经提出了有效对话的关键特征，但这些特征与对话参与者实现证据为基础的决策能力的提高之间的联系，以及对决策活动的后续影响，尚未得到很好的理解。
我们对 2011 年在加拿大举行的四次政策对话进行了定性案例研究，这些对话是针对医疗保健融资和资金的国家、省和地区利益相关者举行的。数据来源包括参与者在每次活动期间或之后立即拍摄的参与者观点视频，以及 4 年后（即 2015 年）对对话参与者进行的后续关键知情者访谈。三个概念框架分别涉及（i）政策对话和证据使用能力，（ii）政策周期内影响决策的因素，以及（iii）影响循证指南实施的因素，为主题分析提供了指导。然后，我们综合了这三个框架的研究结果。
研究结果表明，文献中描述的政策对话的潜在好处是在这些对话中的参与者中发展起来的。受访者详细阐述了对话特征如何影响他们在政策制定的议程设置和政策制定阶段使用证据、想法、利益和机构的能力，以及实施如何受到政策选择、个人、组织、外部环境和过程特征的影响。
我们提出了一个概念框架，进一步加深了我们对政策对话对政策制定的内容和机制的潜在影响的理解，并说明了从议程设置到制定和实施的政策周期各个阶段的影响途径。该框架强调了在设计和评估政策对话以及支持对话后知识交流方面需要考虑的重要因素。
