IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v3y2017i1d10.1057_s41599-017-0045-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Three lessons from evidence-based medicine and policy: increase transparency, balance inputs and understand power

Author

Listed:
  • Kathryn Oliver

    (University of Oxford)

  • Warren Pearce

    (iHuman, University of Sheffield)

Abstract

Evidence-based medicine is often described as the ‘template’ for evidence-based policymaking. EBM has evolved over the last 70 years, and now tends to be methodologically pluralistic, operates through specific structures to promote EBM, and is inclusive of a wide range of stakeholders. These strategies allow EBM practitioners to effectively draw on useful evidence, be transparent, and be inclusive; essentially, to share power. We identify three lessons EBP could learn from EBM. Firstly, to be more transparent about the processes and structures used to find and use evidence. Secondly, to consider how to balance evidence and other interests, and how to assemble the evidence jigsaw. Finally–and this is a lesson for EBM too–that understanding power is vital, and how it shapes how knowledge is produced and used. We suggest that advocates of evidence use, and commentators, should focus on thinking about how the type of problem faced by decision-makers should influence what evidence is produced, sought, and used.

Suggested Citation

  • Kathryn Oliver & Warren Pearce, 2017. "Three lessons from evidence-based medicine and policy: increase transparency, balance inputs and understand power," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-7, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:3:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-017-0045-9
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-017-0045-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-017-0045-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-017-0045-9?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. Boote, Jonathan & Telford, Rosemary & Cooper, Cindy, 2002. "Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 213-236, August.
    2. Mohammed T Ansari & Alexander Tsertsvadze & David Moher, 2009. "Grading Quality of Evidence and Strength of Recommendations: A Perspective," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(9), pages 1-3, September.
    3. repec:mpr:mprres:6334 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Haas, Peter M., 1992. "Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 1-35, January.
    5. Warren Pearce & Sujatha Raman, 2014. "The new randomised controlled trials (RCT) movement in public policy: challenges of epistemic governance," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 387-402, December.
    6. Smith, K.E. & Stewart, E.A., 2017. "Academic advocacy in public health: Disciplinary ‘duty’ or political ‘propaganda’?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 35-43.
    7. Marco Liverani & Benjamin Hawkins & Justin O Parkhurst, 2013. "Political and Institutional Influences on the Use of Evidence in Public Health Policy. A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-9, October.
    8. John Boswell, 2014. "‘Hoisted with our own petard’: evidence and democratic deliberation on obesity," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 345-365, December.
    9. Boote, Jonathan & Baird, Wendy & Beecroft, Claire, 2010. "Public involvement at the design stage of primary health research: A narrative review of case examples," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 10-23, April.
    10. Oliver, Kathryn & Everett, Martin & Verma, Arpana & de Vocht, Frank, 2012. "The human factor: Re-organisations in public health policy," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 97-103.
    11. Katherine E. Smith, 2014. "The politics of ideas: The complex interplay of health inequalities research and policy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(5), pages 561-574.
    12. Marsha Gold, "undated". "Pathways to the Use of Health Services Research in Policy," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 7cb201fc1afe4ec9b2c1e7384, Mathematica Policy Research.
    13. Anna Wesselink & Hal Colebatch & Warren Pearce, 2014. "Evidence and policy: discourses, meanings and practices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 339-344, December.
    14. Victora, C.G. & Habicht, J.-P. & Bryce, J., 2004. "Evidence-Based Public Health: Moving Beyond Randomized Trials," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 94(3), pages 400-405.
    15. Esther Turnhout & Marian Stuiver & Judith Klostermann & Bette Harms & Cees Leeuwis, 2013. "New roles of science in society: Different repertoires of knowledge brokering," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(3), pages 354-365, February.
    16. Dobrow, Mark J. & Goel, Vivek & Upshur, R. E. G., 2004. "Evidence-based health policy: context and utilisation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 207-217, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Howard White, 2019. "The twenty-first century experimenting society: the four waves of the evidence revolution," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-7, December.
    2. Mohd Ghouse Ahmad Ghaus & Tuan Hairulnizam Tuan Kamauzaman & Mohd Noor Norhayati, 2021. "Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Evidence-Based Medicine among Emergency Doctors in Kelantan, Malaysia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-14, October.
    3. Simone Harmsen & Carina A C M Pittens & Eva Vroonland & Annemiek J M L van Rensen & Jacqueline E W Broerse, 2022. "Supporting health researchers to realize meaningful patient involvement in research: Exploring researchers’ experiences and needs [New Requirements for Patient and Public Involvement Statements in ," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(5), pages 751-764.
    4. Joosse, Iris R. & Tordrup, David & Bero, Lisa & Mantel-Teeuwisse, Aukje K. & van den Ham, Hendrika A., 2023. "A critical review of methodologies used in pharmaceutical pricing policy analyses," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    5. Lene Topp & David Mair & Laura Smillie & Paul Cairney, 2018. "Knowledge management for policy impact: the case of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-10, December.
    6. Megan C Evans & Christopher Cvitanovic, 2018. "An introduction to achieving policy impact for early career researchers," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-12, December.
    7. 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.
    8. Yongjin Choi & Ashley M. Fox & Jennifer Dodge, 2022. "What counts? Policy evidence in public hearing testimonies: the case of single-payer healthcare in New York State," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(4), pages 631-660, December.

    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. Anna Wesselink & Hal Colebatch & Warren Pearce, 2014. "Evidence and policy: discourses, meanings and practices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 339-344, December.
    2. Denitsa Marchevska, 2024. "Enlightenment, politicisation or mere window dressing? Europeanisation and the use of evidence for policy making in Bulgaria," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(2), pages 281-303, June.
    3. Weldon, Isaac & Parkhurst, Justin, 2022. "Governing evidence use in the nutrition policy process: evidence and lessons from the 2020 Canada food guide," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112430, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Imke Schilling & Ansgar Gerhardus, 2017. "Methods for Involving Older People in Health Research—A Review of the Literature," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-20, November.
    5. Yongjin Choi & Ashley M. Fox & Jennifer Dodge, 2022. "What counts? Policy evidence in public hearing testimonies: the case of single-payer healthcare in New York State," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(4), pages 631-660, December.
    6. Senier, Laura & Smollin, Leandra & Lee, Rachael & Nicoll, Lauren & Shields, Michael & Tan, Catherine, 2018. "Navigating the evidentiary turn in public health: Sensemaking strategies to integrate genomics into state-level chronic disease prevention programs," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 207-215.
    7. Margaret Dalziel, 2018. "Why are there (almost) no randomised controlled trial-based evaluations of business support programmes?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-9, December.
    8. Boote, Jonathan & Baird, Wendy & Sutton, Anthea, 2011. "Public involvement in the systematic review process in health and social care: A narrative review of case examples," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 105-116.
    9. 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.
    10. Shyamjeet Maniram Yadav & Saradindu Bhaduri, 2022. "Evidentiary vacuum, epistemic communities and rare disease policymaking in India: an evolutionary policy perspective," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 133-152, July.
    11. Ryan Petteway & Mahasin Mujahid & Amani Allen & Rachel Morello-Frosch, 2019. "Towards a People’s Social Epidemiology: Envisioning a More Inclusive and Equitable Future for Social Epi Research and Practice in the 21st Century," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-21, October.
    12. E. E. A. Wolf & Wouter Van Dooren, 2017. "How policies become contested: a spiral of imagination and evidence in a large infrastructure project," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(3), pages 449-468, September.
    13. Bullinger, Angelika C. & Rass, Matthias & Adamczyk, Sabrina & Moeslein, Kathrin M. & Sohn, Stefan, 2012. "Open innovation in health care: Analysis of an open health platform," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 165-175.
    14. Parkes, Jacqueline H. & Pyer, Michelle & Wray, Paula & Taylor, Jane, 2014. "Partners in projects: Preparing for public involvement in health and social care research," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(3), pages 399-408.
    15. Donovan, Kevin P., 2018. "The rise of the randomistas: on the experimental turn in international aid," SocArXiv xygzb, Center for Open Science.
    16. Redman, Sally & Turner, Tari & Davies, Huw & Williamson, Anna & Haynes, Abby & Brennan, Sue & Milat, Andrew & O'Connor, Denise & Blyth, Fiona & Jorm, Louisa & Green, Sally, 2015. "The SPIRIT Action Framework: A structured approach to selecting and testing strategies to increase the use of research in policy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 136, pages 147-155.
    17. Claude Paraponaris, 2017. "Plateformes numériques, conception ouverte et emploi," Post-Print halshs-01614430, HAL.
    18. Barry Eichengreen and Fabio Ghironi., 1997. "European Monetary Unification and International Monetary Cooperation," Center for International and Development Economics Research (CIDER) Working Papers C97-091, University of California at Berkeley.
    19. Jeanie Bukowski, 2017. "A “new water culture†on the Iberian Peninsula? Evaluating epistemic community impact on water resources management policy," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(2), pages 239-264, March.
    20. Mateos-Garcia, Juan & Steinmueller, W. Edward, 2008. "The institutions of open source software: Examining the Debian community," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 333-344, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:pal:palcom:v:3:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-017-0045-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    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.