Health Systems Program, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Department of Civil and Systems Engineering, Johns Hopkins University Whiting School of Engineering, 3400 N Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA.
Health Policy Plan. 2024 Apr 10;39(4):429-441. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czae009.
Most policy analysis methods and approaches are applied retrospectively. As a result, there have been calls for more documentation of the political-economy factors central to health care reforms in real-time. We sought to highlight the methods and previous applications of prospective policy analysis (PPA) in the literature to document purposeful use of PPA and reflect on opportunities and drawbacks. We used a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) approach as our initial scoping revealed that PPA is inconsistently defined in the literature. While we found several examples of PPA, all were researcher-led, most were published recently and few described mechanisms for engagement in the policy process. In addition, methods used were often summarily described and reported on relatively short prospective time horizons. Most of the studies stemmed from high-income countries and, across our sample, did not always clearly outline the rationale for a PPA and how this analysis was conceptualized. That only about one-fifth of the articles explicitly defined PPA underscores the fact that researchers and practitioners conducting PPA should better document their intent and reflect on key elements essential for PPA. Despite a wide recognition that policy processes are dynamic and ideally require multifaceted and longitudinal examination, the PPA approach is not currently frequently documented in the literature. However, the few articles reported in this paper might overestimate gaps in PPA applications. More likely, researchers are embedded in policy processes prospectively but do not necessarily write their articles from that perspective, and analyses led by non-academics might not make their way into the published literature. Future research should feature examples of testing and refining the proposed framework, as well as designing and reporting on PPA. Even when policy-maker engagement might not be feasible, real-time policy monitoring might have value in and of itself.
大多数政策分析方法和途径都是回顾性应用的。因此,有人呼吁更实时地记录对医疗改革至关重要的政治经济因素。我们试图在文献中突出前瞻性政策分析(PPA)的方法和以前的应用,以记录有目的的 PPA 使用情况,并思考机会和缺点。我们使用了关键解释性综合(CIS)方法,因为我们的初步范围界定表明,PPA 在文献中定义不一致。虽然我们找到了 PPA 的几个例子,但都是由研究人员主导的,大多数是最近发表的,很少有描述参与政策过程的机制。此外,使用的方法通常是简要描述的,并且报告的前瞻性时间范围相对较短。大多数研究都来自高收入国家,在我们的样本中,并非总是清楚地概述 PPA 的基本原理以及如何对这种分析进行概念化。只有大约五分之一的文章明确定义了 PPA,这突出表明,进行 PPA 的研究人员和从业者应该更好地记录他们的意图,并反思对 PPA 至关重要的关键要素。尽管人们广泛认识到政策过程是动态的,理想情况下需要多方面和纵向的审查,但 PPA 方法目前在文献中并未得到广泛记录。然而,本文报道的少数几篇文章可能夸大了 PPA 应用的差距。更有可能的是,研究人员从前瞻性的角度嵌入政策过程中,但不一定从那个角度撰写文章,非学术界人士领导的分析可能不会进入已发表的文献。未来的研究应该以测试和完善拟议框架以及设计和报告 PPA 为特色。即使与政策制定者的参与可能不可行,实时政策监测本身也可能具有价值。