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
. 2016 Mar 5:14:15.
doi: 10.1186/s12961-016-0088-1.

Evidence-based medicine - an appropriate tool for evidence-based health policy? A case study from Norway

Affiliations

Evidence-based medicine - an appropriate tool for evidence-based health policy? A case study from Norway

Kirsti Malterud et al. Health Res Policy Syst. .

Abstract

Background: Evidence-based policy (EBP), a concept modelled on the principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM), is widely used in different areas of policymaking. Systematic reviews (SRs) with meta-analyses gradually became the methods of choice for synthesizing research evidence about interventions and judgements about quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Critics have argued that the relation between research evidence and service policies is weak, and that the notion of EBP rests on a misunderstanding of policy processes. Having explored EBM standards and knowledge requirements for health policy decision-making, we present an empirical point of departure for discussing the relationship between EBM and EBP.

Methods: In a case study exploring the Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services (NOKC), an independent government unit, we first searched for information about the background and development of the NOKC to establish a research context. We then identified, selected and organized official NOKC publications as an empirical sample of typical top-of-the-line knowledge delivery adhering to EBM standards. Finally, we explored conclusions in this type of publication, specifically addressing their potential as policy decision tools.

Results: From a total sample of 151 SRs published by the NOKC in the period 2004-2013, a purposive subsample from 2012 (14 publications) advised major caution about their conclusions because of the quality or relevance of the underlying documentation. Although the case study did not include a systematic investigation of uptake and policy consequences, SRs were found to be inappropriate as universal tools for health policy decision-making.

Conclusions: The case study demonstrates that EBM is not necessarily suited to knowledge provision for every kind of policy decision-making. Our analysis raises the question of whether the evidence-based movement, represented here by an independent government organization, undertakes too broad a range of commissions using strategies that seem too confined. Policymaking in healthcare should be based on relevant and transparent knowledge, taking due account of the context of the intervention. However, we do not share the belief that the complex and messy nature of policy processes in general is compatible with the standards of EBM.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Annual number of publications from the Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services (2004–2013).
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Themes covered by systematic reviews (total numbers) from the Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services (2004–2013).
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Systematic reviews (annual number and distribution of themes) from the Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services (2004–2013).

Comment in

References

    1. Orton L, Lloyd-Williams F, Taylor-Robinson D, O’Flaherty M, Capewell S. The use of research evidence in public health decision making processes: systematic review. PLoS One. 2011;6:e21704. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0021704. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Klein R. From evidence-based medicine to evidence-based policy? J Health Serv Res Policy. 2000;5:65–6. - PubMed
    1. Black N. Evidence based policy: proceed with care. BMJ. 2001;323:275–9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7307.275. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cochrane AL. Archie Cochrane in his own words. Selections arranged from his 1972 introduction to “Effectiveness and Efficiency: Random Reflections on the Health Services” 1972. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:428–33. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(89)90008-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hill GB. Archie Cochrane and his legacy: An internal challenge to physicians’ autonomy? J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:1189–92. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00253-5. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources