Including values in evidence-based policy making for breast screening: An empirically grounded tool to assist expert decision makers

What makes Indonesian government officials believe in and implement evidence-based policy: The mediating role of religion-science compatibility beliefs

This research is aimed at examining the relationship between religion-science compatibility belief (RSCB) and evidence-based policy (EBP) belief and implementation in Indonesia, a country with the biggest Muslim population in the world. A dataset containing responses to a questionnaire completed by 499 government officials in Indonesia was collected for the partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). This study finds a relationship between RSCB and EBP belief and implementation. In addition, EBP belief also affected the implementation of EBP. The effect that RSCB has on EBP implementation was partially mediated by EBP belief. Studying how these beliefs relate to the attitude of policy makers toward science in a sociocultural context is important, considering that the focus of previous research is on different contexts pertaining to levels of education, industrialization, wealth, and democratization. This is important to encourage a more comprehensive understanding of the public about science globally. This study responds to the need for the literature to examine factors influencing EBP beliefs and implementation at the individual level in non-health contexts and developing countries.

Disagreement among experts about public health decision making: is it polarisation and does it matter?

It is common for aspects of the COVID-19 response-and other public health initiatives before it-to be described as polarised. Public health decisions emerge from an interplay of facts, norms and preferred courses of action. What counts as 'evidence' is diverse and contestable, and disagreements over how it should be interpreted are often the product of differing choices between competing values. We propose a definition of polarisation for the context of public health expertise that acknowledges and accounts for epistemic and social values as part of evidence generation and its application to public health practice. The 'polarised' label should be used judiciously because the descriptor risks generating or exacerbating the problem by oversimplifying complex issues and positions and creating groups that seem dichotomous. 'Independence' as a one-size-fits-all answer to expert polarisation is insufficient; this solution is premised on a scientistic account of the role of evidence in decision making and does not make room for the value difference that is at the heart of both polarisation and evidence-based decision making.

Identifying and Classifying Tools for Health Policy Ethics Review: A Systematic Search and Review

Ethical review and analysis of health policy may help to ensure policies address the needs of society and align with relevant values and principles. Indeed, researchers and bioethicists have recognized the need for ethical frameworks specifically for public health applications. The objective of this research was to compile structured tools for ethical review of (drafted or existing) health policy and to analyze these tools for their scope and philosophical underpinnings. A systematic search and review of academic and grey literature was conducted to compile existing tools designed for health policy ethics review. The search yielded 13 health policy ethical review tools. Qualitative content analysis revealed that all of the tools were influenced by multiple ethical values and that a majority were influenced by more than one ethical theory. The most common values were non-maleficence and beneficence (92.3%). The most common influencing ethical theory was the Principles Approach (92.3%). The structure of the tools demonstrates a heterogeneity of methodology designs to approach policy ethics review. This research offers a unique contribution to the bioethics field that provides a useful resource and understanding of the current ethical review tools for health policy.

Four normative perspectives on public health policy-making and their preferences for bodies of evidence

Calls for evidence-informed public health policy-making often ignore that there are multiple, and often competing, bodies of potentially relevant evidence to which policy-makers have recourse in identifying policy priorities and taking decisions. In this paper, we illustrate how policy frames may favour the use of specific bodies of evidence. For the sixth Dutch Public Health Status and Foresight report (2014), possible future trends in population health and healthcare expenditure were used as a starting point for a deliberative dialogue with stakeholders to identify and formulate the most important societal challenges for the Dutch health system. Working with these stakeholders, we expanded these societal challenges into four normative perspectives on public health. These perspectives can be regarded as policy frames. In each of the perspectives, a specific body of evidence is favoured and other types of evidence are neglected. Crucial outcomes in one body may be regarded as irrelevant from other perspectives. Consequently, the results of research from a single body of evidence may not be helpful in the policy-making processes because policy-makers need to account for trade-offs between all competing interests and values. To support these policy processes, researchers need to combine qualitative and quantitative methodologies to address different outcomes from the start of their studies. We feel it is time for the research community to re-politicise the idea of evidence use and for policy-makers to demand research that helps them to account for all health-related policy goals. This is a prerequisite for real evidence-informed policy-making.