IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v108y2014icp120-127.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

External factors affecting decision-making and use of evidence in an Australian public health policy environment

Author

Listed:
  • Zardo, Pauline
  • Collie, Alex
  • Livingstone, Charles

Abstract

This study examined external factors affecting policy and program decision-making in a specific public health policy context: injury prevention and rehabilitation compensation in the Australian state of Victoria. The aim was twofold: identify external factors that affect policy and program decision-making in this specific context; use this evidence to inform targeting of interventions aimed at increasing research use in this context. Qualitative interviews were undertaken from June 2011 to January 2012 with 33 employees from two state government agencies. Key factors identified were stakeholder feedback and action, government and ministerial input, legal feedback and action, injured persons and the media. The identified external factors were able to significantly influence policy and program decision-making processes: acting as both barriers and facilitators, depending on the particular issue at hand. The factors with the most influence were the Minister and government, lawyers, and agency stakeholders, particularly health providers, trade unions and employer groups. This research revealed that interventions aimed at increasing use of research in this context must target and harness the influence of these groups. This research provides critical insights for researchers seeking to design interventions to increase use of research in policy environments and influence decision-making in Victorian injury prevention and rehabilitation compensation.

Suggested Citation

  • Zardo, Pauline & Collie, Alex & Livingstone, Charles, 2014. "External factors affecting decision-making and use of evidence in an Australian public health policy environment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 120-127.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:108:y:2014:i:c:p:120-127
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.02.046
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953614001506
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.02.046?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Abby S Haynes & Gemma E Derrick & Sally Redman & Wayne D Hall & James A Gillespie & Simon Chapman & Heidi Sturk, 2012. "Identifying Trustworthy Experts: How Do Policymakers Find and Assess Public Health Researchers Worth Consulting or Collaborating With?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(3), pages 1-8, March.
    2. Lois Orton & Ffion Lloyd-Williams & David Taylor-Robinson & Martin O'Flaherty & Simon Capewell, 2011. "The Use of Research Evidence in Public Health Decision Making Processes: Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-10, July.
    3. Dobrow, Mark J. & Goel, Vivek & Lemieux-Charles, Louise & Black, Nick A., 2006. "The impact of context on evidence utilization: A framework for expert groups developing health policy recommendations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(7), pages 1811-1824, October.
    4. Flitcroft, Kathy & Gillespie, James & Salkeld, Glenn & Carter, Stacy & Trevena, Lyndal, 2011. "Getting evidence into policy: The need for deliberative strategies?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(7), pages 1039-1046, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gaucher, Nathalie & Lantos, John & Payot, Antoine, 2013. "How do national guidelines frame clinical ethics practice? A comparative analysis of guidelines from the US, the UK, Canada and France," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 74-78.
    2. Giesbrecht, Melissa & Crooks, Valorie A. & Schuurman, Nadine & Williams, Allison, 2009. "Spatially informed knowledge translation: Informing potential users of Canada's Compassionate Care Benefit," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 411-419, August.
    3. Kathryn Oliver & Annette Boaz, 2019. "Transforming evidence for policy and practice: creating space for new conversations," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-10, December.
    4. Paula Hooper & Sarah Foster & Billie Giles-Corti, 2019. "A Case Study of a Natural Experiment Bridging the ‘Research into Policy’ and ‘Evidence-Based Policy’ Gap for Active-Living Science," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-14, July.
    5. Prosser, Brenton & Clark, Shannon & Davey, Rachel & Parker, Rhian, 2013. "Developing a public health policy-research nexus: An evaluation of Nurse Practitioner models in aged care," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 55-63.
    6. Karaulova, Maria & Edler, Jakob, 2023. "Bringing research into policy: Understanding context-specific requirements for productive knowledge brokering in legislatures," Discussion Papers "Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis" 77, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    7. Evans, Sarah & Scarbrough, Harry, 2014. "Supporting knowledge translation through collaborative translational research initiatives: ‘Bridging’ versus ‘blurring’ boundary-spanning approaches in the UK CLAHRC initiative," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 119-127.
    8. Nancy Li & Markus Luczak-Roesch & Flavia Donadelli, 2023. "A computational approach to study the gap and barriers between science and policy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(1), pages 15-29.
    9. Cyr, Pascale Renée & Jain, Vageesh & Chalkidou, Kalipso & Ottersen, Trygve & Gopinathan, Unni, 2021. "Evaluations of public health interventions produced by health technology assessment agencies: A mapping review and analysis by type and evidence content," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(8), pages 1054-1064.
    10. Matthew Calver, 2016. "Measuring the Appropriate Outcomes for Better Decision-Making: A Framework to Guide the Analysis of Health Policy," CSLS Research Reports 2016-03, Centre for the Study of Living Standards.
    11. Courtney A. Cuthbertson & Don E. Albrecht & Scott Loveridge, 2017. "Rural versus urban perspectives on behavioral health issues and priorities," Community Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(4), pages 515-526, August.
    12. Abelson, Julia & Forest, Pierre-Gerlier & Eyles, John & Casebeer, Ann & Martin, Elisabeth & Mackean, Gail, 2007. "Examining the role of context in the implementation of a deliberative public participation experiment: Results from a Canadian comparative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(10), pages 2115-2128, May.
    13. Heather Munthe‐Kaas & Heid Nøkleby & Sarah Rosenbaum, 2022. "User experiences of structured stakeholder engagement to consider transferability: The TRANSFER approach," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), December.
    14. Pierre-Olivier Bédard, 2015. "The Mobilization of Scientific Evidence by Public Policy Analysts," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(3), pages 21582440156, September.
    15. D’Este, Pablo & Robinson-García, Nicolás, 2023. "Interdisciplinary research and the societal visibility of science: The advantages of spanning multiple and distant scientific fields," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    16. Edwards, Rachael C. & Kneale, Dylan & Stansfield, Claire & Lester, Sarah, 2024. "What are the mechanisms driving the early stages of embedded researcher interventions? A qualitative process evaluation in English local government," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 340(C).
    17. Pauline Zardo & Adrian G Barnett & Nicolas Suzor & Tim Cahill, 2018. "Does engagement predict research use? An analysis of The Conversation Annual Survey 2016," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-21, February.
    18. Mark Rickinson & Connie Cirkony & Lucas Walsh & Jo Gleeson & Mandy Salisbury & Annette Boaz, 2021. "Insights from a cross-sector review on how to conceptualise the quality of use of research evidence," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12, December.
    19. Montesanti, Stephanie Rose & Abelson, Julia & Lavis, John N. & Dunn, James R., 2015. "The value of frameworks as knowledge translation mechanisms to guide community participation practice in Ontario CHCs," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 223-231.
    20. van de Goor, Ien & Hämäläinen, Riitta-Maija & Syed, Ahmed & Juel Lau, Cathrine & Sandu, Petru & Spitters, Hilde & Eklund Karlsson, Leena & Dulf, Diana & Valente, Adriana & Castellani, Tommaso & Aro, A, 2017. "Determinants of evidence use in public health policy making: Results from a study across six EU countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(3), pages 273-281.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:108:y:2014:i:c:p:120-127. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.