Interpretation and use of evidence in state policymaking: a qualitative analysis

Institutional roles, structures, funding and research partnerships towards evidence-informed policy-making: a multisector survey among policy-makers in Nigeria

BACKGROUND

Evidence-informed policy-making aims to ensure that the best and most relevant evidence is systematically generated and used for policy-making. The aim of this study was to assess institutional structures, funding, policy-maker perspectives on researcher-policy-maker interactions and the use of research evidence in policy-making in five states in Nigeria.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study carried out among 209 participants from two geopolitical zones in Nigeria. Study participants included programme officers/secretaries, managers/department/facility heads and state coordinators/directors/presidents/chairpersons in various ministries and the National Assembly. A pretested semi-structured self-administered questionnaire on a five-point Likert scale was used to collect information on institutional structures for policy and policy-making in participants' organizations, the use of research evidence in policy and policy-making processes, and the status of funding for policy-relevant research in the participants' organizations. Data were analysed using IBM SPSS version 20 software.

RESULTS

The majority of the respondents were older than 45 years (73.2%), were male (63.2) and had spent 5 years or less (74.6%) in their present position. The majority of the respondents' organizations had a policy in place on research involving all key stakeholders (63.6%), integration of stakeholders' views within the policy on research (58.9%) and a forum to coordinate the setting of research priorities (61.2%). A high mean score of 3.26 was found for the use of routine data generated from within the participants' organizations. Funding for policy-relevant research was captured in the budget (mean = 3.47) but was inadequate (mean = 2.53) and mostly donor-driven (mean = 3.64). Funding approval and release/access processes were also reported to be cumbersome, with mean scores of 3.74 and 3.89, respectively. The results showed that capacity existed among career policy-makers and the Department of Planning, Research and Statistics to advocate for internal funds (mean = 3.55) and to attract external funds such as grants (3.76) for policy-relevant research. Interaction as part of the priority-setting process (mean = 3.01) was the most highly rated form of policy-maker-researcher interaction, while long-term partnerships with researchers (mean = 2.61) had the lower mean score. The agreement that involving policy-makers in the planning and execution of programmes could enhance the evidence-to-policy process had the highest score (mean = 4.40).

CONCLUSION

The study revealed that although institutional structures such as institutional policies, fora and stakeholder engagement existed in the organizations studied, there was suboptimal use of evidence obtained from research initiated by both internal and external researchers. Organizations surveyed had budget lines for research, but this funding was depicted as inadequate. There was suboptimal actual participation of policy-makers in the co-creation, production and dissemination of evidence. The implementation of contextually relevant and sustained mutual institutional policy-maker-researcher engagement approaches is needed to promote evidence-informed policy-making. Thus there is a need for institutional prioritization and commitment to research evidence generation.

Is There Something Else Beyond Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Public Health Decision Making?

Healthcare costs are a concern for the sustainability of health systems in both rich and poor countries. Achieving a balance between the aspirations of payers and the manufacturers of new technologies is a challenge for democratic societies. Evidence about the efficacy and effectiveness of a new intervention is a fundamental aspect for its inclusion, but additional information about organization, implementation, and feasibility is required. Economic evaluations, especially cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA), help inform the choice of a particular health intervention, but they are not the only input for decision making (DM). Use of CEA is relatively recent but has quickly become widespread. CEA techniques have evolved into increasingly complex and sophisticated methods intended to reflect reality closely but, at the same time, their results have become more difficult to verify and validate. In developed countries, CEA results have generated intense debates, but in developing countries, these reflections are still weak due to lack of technical capacity. Competing perspectives on CEAs exist and can heavily influence the DM process. The use of CEAs and the interpretation of their results requires critical analysis, especially when public funds are to be invested. Here, we present a perspective on the use of CEAs for DM that arises from our experience of its use in developing countries and requires the consideration of other rationalities, in addition to the economic one, for DM.

How can the integrity of occupational and environmental health research be maintained in the presence of conflicting interests?

BACKGROUND

The sciences, and especially the research subspecialties of occupational and environmental health, are being misused. The misuse serves to interfere with the advancement of policies that depend on rational evidence needed for policies to protect public health.

METHODS

We selectively surveyed the independent scientific literature. In addition, the efforts of respected international professional organizations of scientists whose focus is on maintaining and improving public health have been considered. This commentary is unique in assembling not only the factual basis for sounding alarms about significant bias in occupational and environmental health research, but also about the manipulative mechanisms used, and, in turn, the methods needed to keep science honest.

RESULTS

Scientific integrity is based on the principle that research is conducted as objectively as possible; it cannot be compromised by special interests whose primary goals are neither to seek truth nor to protect human health. Evidence demonstrates a significant risk of bias in research reports sponsored by financial interests. Practices of corporate malfeasance include the orchestrated contamination of editorial boards of peer-reviewed scientific journals with industry apologists; interference with activities of national regulatory bodies and international review panels engaged in safeguarding occupational and public health; constructing roadblocks by capitalizing on uncertainty to undermine scientific consensus for much-needed government regulation of carcinogenic, endocrine-disrupting and/or immunotoxic agents; promoting "causation" criteria that lack foundation and effectively block workers' access to legal remedies for harms from occupational exposures resulting in morbidity and premature mortality; and, violating standards of professional conduct by seducing reputable scientists with financial incentives that make them beholden to corporate agendas.

CONCLUSIONS

Well-orchestrated assaults on science continue unabated and must now be met head-on. Success could be achieved by promoting and protecting the integrity of research. Furthermore, avoiding influence by conflicted corporate affiliates in occupational and public health regulations is needed. Identifying, managing and, ideally, eliminating corporate influence on science and science policy are needed to protect research integrity. Protecting the public's health, preventing disease, and promoting well-being must be the unambiguous goals of research in occupational and environmental health.

Addressing Health and Well-Being Through State Policy: Understanding Barriers and Opportunities for Policy-Making to Prevent Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) in South Carolina

PURPOSE

As adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) become increasingly recognized as a root cause of unhealthy behaviors, researchers, practitioners, and legislators seek to understand policy strategies to prevent and mitigate its effects. Given the high prevalence of ACEs, policies that address ACEs can meaningfully prevent disease in adulthood and improve population health. We sought to understand barriers and opportunities for policies to prevent and mitigate ACEs by exploring state legislator perspectives.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-four current state legislators in South Carolina.

DESIGN

In 2018, we conducted semistructured interviews with 24 state legislators. Participants were recruited using maximum variation sampling. The researchers individually analyzed each interview transcript using focused coding qualitative techniques. A high inter-rater agreement was demonstrated (κ = .76 to .87), and discrepancies were resolved through discussion.

METHOD

The data collection and analysis were guided by Multiple Streams Theory, which identifies 3 key components (attention to the problem, decisions about policy options, and the impact of political landscape) that can lead windows of opportunity for passing policies.

RESULTS

Legislators identified several factors that can influence the passage of legislation on ACEs: awareness of ACEs; gaps in understanding about what can be done about ACEs; the use of data and stories that contextualize the problem of ACEs; capitalizing on the bipartisanship of children's issues; and linking to current ACEs-related issues on the policy agenda, such as school safety and violence prevention and the opioid epidemic.

CONCLUSION

Public health researchers and practitioners should focus on the factors identified to advocate for policies that prevent ACEs and/or address their health consequences.