Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2009 Sep 28:9:177.
doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-9-177.

The use of evidence in public governmental reports on health policy: an analysis of 17 Norwegian official reports (NOU)

Affiliations

The use of evidence in public governmental reports on health policy: an analysis of 17 Norwegian official reports (NOU)

Simon Innvaer. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: Governments increasingly require policy documents to be evidence-based. This paper analyses the use of scientific evidence in such documents by reviewing reports from government-appointed committees in Norway to assess the committees' handling of questions of effect.

Methods: This study uses the 'Index of Scientific Quality' (ISQ) to analyse all Norwegian official reports (NOUs) that were: (1) published by the Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services during 1994-1998 (N = 20); and (2) concerned with questions of effect either because these were included in the mandate or as a result of the committee's interpretation of the mandate. The ISQ is based on scientific criteria common in all research concerning questions of effect. The primary outcome measure is an ISQ score on a five-point scale.

Results: Three reports were excluded because their mandates, or the committees' interpretations of them, did not address questions of effect. For the remaining 17 NOUs in our study, overall ISQ scores were low for systematic literature search and for explicit validation of research. Two reports had an average score of three or higher, while scores for five other reports were not far behind. How committees assessed the relevant factors was often unclear.

Conclusion: The reports' evaluations of health evidence in relation to questions of effect lacked transparency and, overall, showed little use of systematic processes. A systematic, explicit and transparent approach, following the standards laid down in the ISQ, may help generate the evidence-based decision-making that Norway, the UK, the EU and the WHO desire and seek. However, policy-makers may find the ISQ criteria for assessing the scientific quality of a report too narrow to adequately inform policy-making.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Scores for all the 119 judgements on scientific quality (1-5 scale) (See box 3 for the 7 judgements for 17 NOUs, N = 119, overall quality not included).
Figure 2
Figure 2
This figure displays a graphs expressing Average scientific index for the 8 questions on quality.
Figure 3
Figure 3
This figure displays a graph illustrating Average scientific quality for each report.

References

    1. Lindblom CE, Cohen DK. Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press; 1979.
    1. Cabinet Office . Modernising Government: presented to parliament by The Prime Minister and the Minister for the Cabinet Office by Command of Her Majesty. Cm 4310. London, The Stationery Office; 1999.
    1. Muir Gray JA, Haynes RB, Sackett DL, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH. Transferring evidence from research into practice: 3. Developing evidence-based clinical policy [editorial] ACP J Club. 1997;126:A14–A16. - PubMed
    1. Muir Gray JA. Evidence-based Healthcare: How to Make Health Policy and Management Decisions. 4. London: Harcourt Brace and Company Limited; 1998.
    1. Macintyre S, Chalmers I, Horton R, Smith R. Using evidence to inform health policy: case study. British Medical Journal. 2001;322:222–225. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7280.222. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources