Engaging Early-Career Scientists in Global Policy-Making

Pressing global challenges, such as climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, or antibiotic resistance, require coordinated international responses guided by evidence-informed decisions. For this purpose, it is critical that scientists engage in providing insights during the decision-making process. However, the mechanisms for the engagement of scientists in policy-making are complex and vary internationally, which often poses significant challenges to their involvement. Herein, we address some of the mechanisms and barriers for scientists to engage in policy-making with a global perspective by early-career scientists. We highlight the importance of scientific academies, societies, universities, and early-career networks as stakeholders and how they can adapt their structures to actively contribute to shaping global policies, with representative examples from chemistry-related disciplines. We showcase the importance of raising awareness, providing resources and training, and leading discussions about connecting emerging scientists with global decision-makers to address societal challenges through policies.

Why Should Health Researchers Use Policy Theories? Comment on "Modelling the Health Policy Process: One Size Fits All or Horses for Courses?"

Powell and Mannion suggest that 'health policy process' research should draw more lessons from 'the wider policy process literature.' While health research could continue with sector specific models, the wider literature is 'conceptually stronger.' In that context, I clarify how and why health researchers should use policy theories. I describe a review of the use of policy theories in public health research to show that many researchers use them to not only understand policy-making but also influence policy and policy-making. Most policy theories are not designed for that purpose, but it is still possible to produce practical lessons. I outline the issues that arise when repurposing theory-informed insights, such as that policy change takes a long time, and the scale of policy-making is potentially overwhelming. I then highlight the valuable role of theories in raising dilemmas in relation to modes of governance and evidence production.

Enhancing Multiple Ways of Knowing Comment on "Evaluating Public Participation in a Deliberative Dialogue: A Single Case Study"

This commentary reviews the Scurr and colleagues' article published in International Journal of Health Policy and Management in February 2022 on "Evaluating Public Participation in a Deliberative Dialogue: A Single Case Study." Schur adds to the current knowledge base by extending the stakeholder groups in deliberative dialogues (DD) to members of the affected community, a practice not commonly used in such DD strategies. Their study supports the inclusion of public participants in such dialogues, and offers practical guidelines for ways in which to accommodate these important participants. This commentary highlights the need to acknowledge diverse types of knowing into what is considered evidence and advocates for evidence to include a wide-ranging variety of sources including tacit knowledge via experience and ongoing learning.

Policy Instruments for Health Promotion: A Comparison of WHO Policy Guidance for Tobacco, Alcohol, Nutrition and Physical Activity

BACKGROUND

Policy is an important element of influencing individual health-related behaviours associated to major risk factors for non-communicable diseases (NCDs) such as smoking, alcohol consumption, unhealthy eating and physical inactivity. However, our understanding of the specific measures recommended in NCD prevention policy-making remains limited. This study analysed recent World Health Organization (WHO) documents to identify common policy instruments suggested for national NCD prevention policy and to assess similarities and differences between policies targeting different health-related behaviours.

METHODS

Evert Vedung's typology of policy instruments, which differentiates between regulatory, economic/ fiscal and soft instruments, served as a basis for this analysis. A systematic search on WHO websites was conducted to identify documents relating to tobacco, alcohol, nutrition and physical activity. The staff of the respective units at the WHO Regional Office for Europe conducted an expert validation of these documents. The resulting documents were systematically searched for policy instruments. A word frequency analysis was conducted to estimate the use of individual instruments in the different policy fields, followed by an additional in-depth coding and content analysis by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

Across all health-related behaviours, the following policy instruments were suggested most frequently in WHO guidance documents: laws, regulations, standards, taxes, prices, campaigns, recommendations, partnerships and coordination. The analysis showed that regulatory and economic/fiscal policy instruments are mainly applied in tobacco and alcohol policy, while soft instruments dominate in the fields of nutrition and especially physical activity.

CONCLUSION

The study confirms perceived differences regarding recommended policy instruments in the different policy fields and supports arguments that "harder" instruments still appear to be underutilized in nutrition and physical activity. However, more comprehensive research is needed, especially with respect to actual instrument use and effectiveness in national-level NCD prevention policy.

It Is Not Enough to Assess Conflicts of Interest When We Bring the Commercial Sector to the Policy Table Comment on "Towards Preventing and Managing Conflict of Interest in Nutrition Policy? An Analysis of Submissions to a Consultation on a Draft WHO Tool"

Ralston et al offer us an interesting analysis of the consultation process of World Health Organization's (WHO's) "Draft approach on the prevention and management of conflicts of interests in the policy development and implementation of nutrition programs at country level," in which it shows us how the industry tries to frame the discussion in individual conflicts of interest, avoiding structural conflicts of interest. We must not forget other issues of importance in policy-making, such as the imbalance of power between different actors and the strategies of undue influence used by food and beverage corporations. It is essential to develop regulatory-based tools and procedures that embody ethics and good governance and that can be applied systematically and routinely to prevent corporate influence in health policy-making. A global observatory of corporate practices would also be needed to recommend to governments efficient actions to avoid corporate capture of their policies.

Overcoming Barriers to Applying Systems Thinking Mental Models in Policy-Making Comment on "What Can Policy-Makers Get Out of Systems Thinking? Policy Partners' Experiences of a Systems-Focused Research Collaboration in Preventive Health"

Systems thinking provides the health system with important theories, models and approaches to understanding and assessing complexity. However, the utility and application of systems thinking for solution-generation and decision-making is uncertain at best, particularly amongst health policy-makers. This commentary aims to elaborate on key themes discussed by Haynes and colleagues in their study exploring policy-makers’ perceptions of an Australian researcher-policy-maker partnership focused on applications of systems thinking. Findings suggest that policy-makers perceive systems thinking as too theoretical and not actionable, and that the value of systems thinking can be gleaned from greater involvement of policy-makers in research (ie, through co-production). This commentary focuses on the idea that systems thinking is a mental model that, contrary to researchers’ beliefs, may be closely aligned with policy-makers’ existing worldviews, which can enhance adoption of this mental model. However, wider application of systems thinking beyond research requires addressing multiple barriers faced by policy-makers related to their capability, opportunity and motivation to action their systems thinking mental models. To make systems thinking applicable to the policy sphere, multiple approaches are required that focus on capacity building, and a shift in shared mental models (or the ideas and institutions that govern policy-making).

But Does It Work? Evidence, Policy-Making and Systems Thinking Comment on "What Can Policy-Makers Get Out of Systems Thinking? Policy Partners' Experiences of a Systems-Focused Research Collaboration in Preventive Health"

Systems thinking provides new ways of seeing the world, focusing attention on the relationship between elements in complex systems and the spaces inbetween. Haynes study shows that many policy-makers valued systems thinking as a new way to approach old problems. But they also wanted greater focus on useful policy solutions. This raises interesting questions about the tensions between complexity and simple, action-oriented solutions and how evidence is used in decision-making. Backstage understanding of the complexity of policy problems is matched with the frontstage need to focus on what works. This reflects trends in recent public policy for evidence centres providing decision-makers with toolkits and dashboards of 'proven' interventions. There are good examples of evaluations using systems thinking allowing for complexity while addressing policy-maker needs to be accountable for public investment and decisions. Strategic communication skills are needed to provide compelling stories which embrace systems thinking without losing clarity and impact.

Should Public Health and Policy Communities Interact With the Food Industry? It Depends on Context Comment on "Towards Preventing and Managing Conflict of Interest in Nutrition Policy? An Analysis of Submissions to a Consultation on a Draft WHO Tool"

The issue of public health and policy communities engaging with food sector companies has long caused tension and debate. Ralston and colleagues’ article ‘Towards Preventing and Managing Conflict of Interest in Nutrition Policy? An Analysis of Submissions to a Consultation on a Draft WHO Tool’ further examines this issue. They found widespread food industry opposition, not just to the details of the World Health Organization (WHO) tool, but to the very idea of it. In this commentary we reflect on this finding and the arguments for and against interacting with the food industry during different stages of the policy process. While involving the food industry in certain aspects of the policy process without favouring their business goals may seem like an intractable problem, we believe there are opportunities for progress that do not compromise our values as public health professionals. We suggest three key steps to making progress.

Health in All Policy Making Utilizing Big Data

INTRODUCTION

Health in all Policies (HiAP) is a valuable method for effective Healthcare policy development. Big data analysis can be useful to both individuals and clinicians so that the full potential of big data is employed.

AIM

The present paper deals with Health in All Policies, and how the use of Big Data can lead and support the development of new policies.

METHODS

To this end, in the context of the CrowdHEALTH project, data from heterogeneous sources will be exploited and the Policy Development Toolkit (PDT) model will be used. In order to facilitate new insights to healthcare by exploiting all available data sources.

RESULTS

In the case study that is being proposed, the NOHS Story Board (inpatient and outpatient health care) utilizing data from reimbursement of disease-related groups (DRGs), as well as medical costs for outpatient data, will be analyzed by the PDT.

CONCLUSION

PDT seems promising as an efficient decision support system for policymakers to align with HiAP as it offers Causal Analysis by calculating the total cost (expenses) per ICD-10, Forecasting Information by measuring the clinical effectiveness of reimbursement cost per medical condition, per gender and per age for outpatient healthcare, and Risk Stratification by investigating Screening Parameters, Indexes (Indicators) and other factors related to healthcare management. Thus, PDT could also support HiAP by helping policymakers to tailor various policies according to their needs, such as reduction of healthcare cost, improvement of clinical effectiveness and restriction of fraud.

What Can Policy-Makers Get Out of Systems Thinking? Policy Partners' Experiences of a Systems-Focused Research Collaboration in Preventive Health

BACKGROUND

There is increasing interest in using systems thinking to tackle 'wicked' policy problems in preventive health, but this can be challenging for policy-makers because the literature is amorphous and often highly theoretical. Little is known about how best to support health policy-makers to gain skills in understanding and applying systems thinking for policy action.

METHODS

In-depth interviews were conducted with 18 policy-makers who are participating in an Australian research collaboration that uses a systems approach. Our aim was to explore factors that support policy-makers to use systems approaches, and to identify any impacts of systems thinking on policy thinking or action, including the pathways through which these impacts occurred.

RESULTS

All 18 policy-makers agreed that systems thinking has merit but some questioned its practical policy utility. A small minority were confused about what systems thinking is or which approaches were being used in the collaboration. The majority were engaged with systems thinking and this group identified concrete impacts on their work. They reported using systems-focused research, ideas, tools and resources in policy work that were contributing to the development of practical methodologies for policy design, scaling up, implementation and evaluation; and to new prevention narratives. Importantly, systems thinking was helping some policy-makers to reconceptualise health problems and contexts, goals, potential policy solutions and methods. In short, they were changing how they think about preventive health.

CONCLUSION

These results show that researchers and policy-makers can put systems thinking into action as part of a research collaboration, and that this can result in discernible impacts on policy processes. In this case, action-oriented collaboration and capacity development over a 5-year period facilitated mutual learning and practical application. This indicates that policy-makers can get substantial applied value from systems thinking when they are involved in extended co-production processes that target policy impact and are supported by responsive capacity strategies.

Evaluating Health in All Policies Comment on "Developing a Framework for a Program Theory-Based Approach to Evaluating Policy Processes and Outcomes: Health in All Policies in South Australia"

Health in All Policies (HiAP) has gained attention as a potential tool to address complex health and societal challenges at global, regional, national and subnational levels. In a recent article, Lawless et al propose an evaluation framework developed in the context of the South Australia HiAP initiative. Strategies, mediators, activities and impacts identified in the framework could potentially be useful for evaluating HiAP in other settings. Creating and sustaining political will, managing conflicts of interest and achieving financially, politically and conceptually sustainable HiAP initiatives are challenges that could be further strengthened in the current framework.

An Assessment of National Maternal and Child Health Policy-Makers' Knowledge and Capacity for Evidence- Informed Policy-Making in Nigeria

BACKGROUND

There is increasing interest globally in the use of more rigorous processes to ensure that maternal, newborn, and child health (MNCH) care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence use. The purpose of this study was to engage Nigerian MNCH policy-makers and other stakeholders to consider issues around research to policy and practice interface and to assess their existing knowledge and capacity on the use of research evidence for policy-making and practice.

METHODS

The study design is a cross-sectional evaluation of MNCH stakeholders' knowledge as it pertains different dimensions of research to practice. This was undertaken during a national MNCH stakeholders' engagement event convened under the auspices of the West African Health Organization (WAHO) and the Federal Ministry of Health (FMoH) in Abuja, Nigeria. A questionnaire was administered to participants, which was designed to assess participants' knowledge, capacity and organizational process of generation, synthesis and utilization of research evidence in policy-making regarding MNCH.

RESULTS

A total of 40 participants signed the informed consent form and completed the questionnaire. The mean ratings (MNRs) of participants' knowledge of electronic databases and capacity to identify and obtain relevant research evidence from electronic databases ranged from 3.62-3.68 on the scale of 5. The MNRs of participants' level of understanding of a policy brief, a policy dialogue and the role of researchers in policy-making ranged from 3.50-3.86. The MNRs of participants' level of understanding of evidence in policy-making context, types and sources of evidence, capacity to identify, select, adapt, and transform relevant evidence into policy ranged from 3.63-4.08. The MNRs of the participants' organization's capacity to cover their geographical areas of operation were generally low ranging from 3.32-3.38 in terms of manpower, logistics, facilities, and external support. The lowest MNR of 2.66 was recorded in funding.

CONCLUSION

The outcomes of this study suggest that a stakeholders' engagement event can serve as an important platform to assess policy-makers' knowledge and capacity for evidence-informed policy-making and for the promotion of evidence use in the policy process.

Values in Health Policy - A Concept Analysis

Background: Despite the significant role "values" play in decision-making no definition or attributes regarding the concept have been provided in health policy-making. This study aimed to clarify the defining attributes of a concept of value and its irrelevant structures in health policy-making. We anticipate our findings will help reduce the semantic ambiguities associated with the use of "values" and other concepts such as principles, criteria, attitudes, and beliefs.

Methods: An extensive search of literature was carried out using electronic data base and library. The overall search strategy yielded about 1540 articles and 450 additional records. Based on traditional qualitative research, studies were purposefully selected and the coding of articles continued until data saturation was reached. Accordingly, 31 articles, 2 books, and 5 other documents were selected for the review. We applied Walker and Avant’s method of concept analysis in studying the phenomenon. Definitions, applications, attributes, antecedents, and consequences of the concept of "value in health policy-making" were extracted. We also identified similarities and differences that exist between and within them.

Results: We identified eight major attributes of "value in health policy-making": ideological origin, affect one’s choices, more resistant to change over time, source of motivation, ability to sacrifice one’s interest, goal-oriented nature for community, trans-situational and subjectivity. Other features pinpointed include alternatives, antecedents, and consequences. Alternative, antecedents and consequences case may have more or fewer attributes or may lack one of these attributes and at the same time have other distinctive ones.

Conclusion: Despite the use of the value framework, ambiguities still persist in providing definition of the concept value in health policy-making. Understanding the concept of value in health policy-making may provide extra theoretical support to decision-makers in their policy-making process, to help avoid poor policy formulation and wastage of limited resources.