Cargando…
Evidence based policy making and the ‘art’ of commissioning – how English healthcare commissioners access and use information and academic research in ‘real life’ decision-making: an empirical qualitative study
BACKGROUND: Policymakers such as English healthcare commissioners are encouraged to adopt ‘evidence-based policy-making’, with ‘evidence’ defined by researchers as academic research. To learn how academic research can influence policy, researchers need to know more about commissioning, commissioners...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4587739/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26416368 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-1091-x |
_version_ | 1782392506167590912 |
---|---|
author | Wye, Lesley Brangan, Emer Cameron, Ailsa Gabbay, John Klein, Jonathan H. Pope, Catherine |
author_facet | Wye, Lesley Brangan, Emer Cameron, Ailsa Gabbay, John Klein, Jonathan H. Pope, Catherine |
author_sort | Wye, Lesley |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Policymakers such as English healthcare commissioners are encouraged to adopt ‘evidence-based policy-making’, with ‘evidence’ defined by researchers as academic research. To learn how academic research can influence policy, researchers need to know more about commissioning, commissioners’ information seeking behaviour and the role of research in their decisions. METHODS: In case studies of four commissioning organisations, we interviewed 52 people including clinical and managerial commissioners, observed 14 commissioning meetings and collected documentation e.g. meeting minutes and reports. Using constant comparison, data were coded, summarised and analysed to facilitate cross case comparison. RESULTS: The ‘art of commissioning’ entails juggling competing agendas, priorities, power relationships, demands and personal inclinations to build a persuasive, compelling case. Policymakers sought information to identify options, navigate ways through, justify decisions and convince others to approve and/or follow the suggested course. ‘Evidence-based policy-making’ usually meant pragmatic selection of ‘evidence’ such as best practice guidance, clinicians’ and users’ views of services and innovations from elsewhere. Inconclusive or negative research was unhelpful in developing policymaking plans and did not inform disinvestment decisions. Information was exchanged through conversations and stories, which were fast, flexible and suited the rapidly changing world of policymaking. Local data often trumped national or research-based evidence. Local evaluations were more useful than academic research. DISCUSSION: Commissioners are highly pragmatic and will only use information that helps them create a compelling case for action.Therefore, researchers need to start producing more useful information. CONCLUSIONS: To influence policymakers’ decisions, researchers need to 1) learn more about local policymakers’ priorities 2) develop relationships of mutual benefit 3) use verbal instead of writtencommunication 4) work with intermediaries such as public health consultants and 5) co-produce local evaluations. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-1091-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4587739 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-45877392015-09-30 Evidence based policy making and the ‘art’ of commissioning – how English healthcare commissioners access and use information and academic research in ‘real life’ decision-making: an empirical qualitative study Wye, Lesley Brangan, Emer Cameron, Ailsa Gabbay, John Klein, Jonathan H. Pope, Catherine BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Policymakers such as English healthcare commissioners are encouraged to adopt ‘evidence-based policy-making’, with ‘evidence’ defined by researchers as academic research. To learn how academic research can influence policy, researchers need to know more about commissioning, commissioners’ information seeking behaviour and the role of research in their decisions. METHODS: In case studies of four commissioning organisations, we interviewed 52 people including clinical and managerial commissioners, observed 14 commissioning meetings and collected documentation e.g. meeting minutes and reports. Using constant comparison, data were coded, summarised and analysed to facilitate cross case comparison. RESULTS: The ‘art of commissioning’ entails juggling competing agendas, priorities, power relationships, demands and personal inclinations to build a persuasive, compelling case. Policymakers sought information to identify options, navigate ways through, justify decisions and convince others to approve and/or follow the suggested course. ‘Evidence-based policy-making’ usually meant pragmatic selection of ‘evidence’ such as best practice guidance, clinicians’ and users’ views of services and innovations from elsewhere. Inconclusive or negative research was unhelpful in developing policymaking plans and did not inform disinvestment decisions. Information was exchanged through conversations and stories, which were fast, flexible and suited the rapidly changing world of policymaking. Local data often trumped national or research-based evidence. Local evaluations were more useful than academic research. DISCUSSION: Commissioners are highly pragmatic and will only use information that helps them create a compelling case for action.Therefore, researchers need to start producing more useful information. CONCLUSIONS: To influence policymakers’ decisions, researchers need to 1) learn more about local policymakers’ priorities 2) develop relationships of mutual benefit 3) use verbal instead of writtencommunication 4) work with intermediaries such as public health consultants and 5) co-produce local evaluations. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-1091-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2015-09-29 /pmc/articles/PMC4587739/ /pubmed/26416368 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-1091-x Text en © Wye et al. 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Wye, Lesley Brangan, Emer Cameron, Ailsa Gabbay, John Klein, Jonathan H. Pope, Catherine Evidence based policy making and the ‘art’ of commissioning – how English healthcare commissioners access and use information and academic research in ‘real life’ decision-making: an empirical qualitative study |
title | Evidence based policy making and the ‘art’ of commissioning – how English healthcare commissioners access and use information and academic research in ‘real life’ decision-making: an empirical qualitative study |
title_full | Evidence based policy making and the ‘art’ of commissioning – how English healthcare commissioners access and use information and academic research in ‘real life’ decision-making: an empirical qualitative study |
title_fullStr | Evidence based policy making and the ‘art’ of commissioning – how English healthcare commissioners access and use information and academic research in ‘real life’ decision-making: an empirical qualitative study |
title_full_unstemmed | Evidence based policy making and the ‘art’ of commissioning – how English healthcare commissioners access and use information and academic research in ‘real life’ decision-making: an empirical qualitative study |
title_short | Evidence based policy making and the ‘art’ of commissioning – how English healthcare commissioners access and use information and academic research in ‘real life’ decision-making: an empirical qualitative study |
title_sort | evidence based policy making and the ‘art’ of commissioning – how english healthcare commissioners access and use information and academic research in ‘real life’ decision-making: an empirical qualitative study |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4587739/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26416368 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-1091-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wyelesley evidencebasedpolicymakingandtheartofcommissioninghowenglishhealthcarecommissionersaccessanduseinformationandacademicresearchinreallifedecisionmakinganempiricalqualitativestudy AT branganemer evidencebasedpolicymakingandtheartofcommissioninghowenglishhealthcarecommissionersaccessanduseinformationandacademicresearchinreallifedecisionmakinganempiricalqualitativestudy AT cameronailsa evidencebasedpolicymakingandtheartofcommissioninghowenglishhealthcarecommissionersaccessanduseinformationandacademicresearchinreallifedecisionmakinganempiricalqualitativestudy AT gabbayjohn evidencebasedpolicymakingandtheartofcommissioninghowenglishhealthcarecommissionersaccessanduseinformationandacademicresearchinreallifedecisionmakinganempiricalqualitativestudy AT kleinjonathanh evidencebasedpolicymakingandtheartofcommissioninghowenglishhealthcarecommissionersaccessanduseinformationandacademicresearchinreallifedecisionmakinganempiricalqualitativestudy AT popecatherine evidencebasedpolicymakingandtheartofcommissioninghowenglishhealthcarecommissionersaccessanduseinformationandacademicresearchinreallifedecisionmakinganempiricalqualitativestudy |