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
. 2018 May 31;16(1):47.
doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0323-z.

Development of measurable indicators to enhance public health evidence-informed policy-making

Valentina Tudisca  1 , Adriana Valente  2 , Tommaso Castellani  2 , Timo Stahl  3 , Petru Sandu  4 , Diana Dulf  4 , Hilde Spitters  5 , Ien Van de Goor  5 , Christina Radl-Karimi  6 , Mohamed Ahmed Syed  7 , Natasa Loncarevic  6 , Cathrine Juel Lau  8 , Susan Roelofs  9 , Maja Bertram  6 , Nancy Edwards  9 , Arja R Aro  6 ; REPOPA Consortium
Collaborators, Affiliations

Development of measurable indicators to enhance public health evidence-informed policy-making

Valentina Tudisca et al. Health Res Policy Syst. .

Abstract

Background: Ensuring health policies are informed by evidence still remains a challenge despite efforts devoted to this aim. Several tools and approaches aimed at fostering evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM) have been developed, yet there is a lack of availability of indicators specifically devoted to assess and support EIPM. The present study aims to overcome this by building a set of measurable indicators for EIPM intended to infer if and to what extent health-related policies are, or are expected to be, evidence-informed for the purposes of policy planning as well as formative and summative evaluations.

Methods: The indicators for EIPM were developed and validated at international level by means of a two-round internet-based Delphi study conducted within the European project 'REsearch into POlicy to enhance Physical Activity' (REPOPA). A total of 82 researchers and policy-makers from the six European countries (Denmark, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania, the United Kingdom) involved in the project and international organisations were asked to evaluate the relevance and feasibility of an initial set of 23 indicators developed by REPOPA researchers on the basis of literature and knowledge gathered from the previous phases of the project, and to propose new indicators.

Results: The first Delphi round led to the validation of 14 initial indicators and to the development of 8 additional indicators based on panellists' suggestions; the second round led to the validation of a further 11 indicators, including 6 proposed by panellists, and to the rejection of 6 indicators. A total of 25 indicators were validated, covering EIPM issues related to human resources, documentation, participation and monitoring, and stressing different levels of knowledge exchange and involvement of researchers and other stakeholders in policy development and evaluation.

Conclusion: The study overcame the lack of availability of indicators to assess if and to what extent policies are realised in an evidence-informed manner thanks to the active contribution of researchers and policy-makers. These indicators are intended to become a shared resource usable by policy-makers, researchers and other stakeholders, with a crucial impact on fostering the development of policies informed by evidence.

Keywords: Delphi methodology; Evidence-informed policy-making; co-production of knowledge; indicators; physical activity; public health.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Before the REPOPA project started, each country team sought ethical clearance in their respective countries in the forms required by therein [94]. Before the two internet-based Delphi rounds, an informed consent form for the REPOPA Delphi study was signed by participants. The 82 experts who agreed to become part of the Delphi panel remained anonymous throughout the two internet-based Delphi rounds; their names were circulated only among REPOPA researchers and the data obtained were analysed anonymously. The research in general followed the ethics guidelines specifically developed and accepted by the REPOPA Consortium. Data was collected respecting the national ethical regulations and clearance procedures specific to each setting.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Algorithm for the selection of indicators based on the results of the two Delphi round
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Schematic summary of the process of developing REPOPA indicators for evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bowen S, Zwi AB. Pathways to “evidence-informed” policy and practice: a framework for action. PLoS Med. 2005;2(7):e166. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020166. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Majone G. Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1989.
    1. Collin J, Johnson E, Hill S. Government support for alcohol industry: promoting exports, jeopardising global health? BMJ. 2014;348:g3648. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g3648. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Volmink J. Evidence-informed policy making: challenges and opportunities. BMJ Glob Health. 2017;2:A3. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000260.3. - DOI
    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(7):e21704. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0021704. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources