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
. 2022 May 7;20(1):54.
doi: 10.1186/s12961-022-00852-z.

An evaluation of the evidence brief for policy development process in WHO EVIPNet Europe countries

Adrianna Murphy  1 , Maja Šubelj  2   3 , Balázs Babarczy  4 , Kristina Köhler  5 , Evelina Chapman  6 , Polonca Truden-Dobrin  2 , Kathryn Oliver  7 , Saskia Nahrgang  6 , Marge Reinap  6 , Tanja Kuchenmüller  6
Affiliations

An evaluation of the evidence brief for policy development process in WHO EVIPNet Europe countries

Adrianna Murphy et al. Health Res Policy Syst. .

Abstract

Background: Evidence briefs for policy (EBPs) represent a potentially powerful tool for supporting evidence-informed policy-making. Since 2012, WHO Evidence-Informed Policy Network (EVIPNet) Europe has been supporting Member States in developing EBPs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the process of developing EBPs in Estonia, Hungary and Slovenia.

Methods: We used a rapid appraisal approach, combining semi-structured interviews and document review, guided by the Medical Research Council (MRC) process evaluation framework. Interviews were conducted with a total of 20 individuals familiar with the EBP process in the three study countries. Data were analysed thematically, and emerging themes were related back to the MRC framework components (implementation, mechanisms of impact, and context). We also reflected on the appropriateness of this evaluation approach for EVIPNet teams without evaluation research expertise to conduct themselves.

Results: The following themes emerged as important to the EBP development process: how the focus problem is prioritized, who initiates this process, EBP team composition, EBP team leadership, availability of external support in the process, and the culture of policy-making in a country. In particular, the EBP process seemed to be supported by early engagement of the Ministry of Health and other stakeholders as initiators, clear EBP team roles and expectations, including a strong leader, external support to strengthen EBP team capacity and cultural acceptance of the necessity of evidence-informed policy-making. Overall, the evaluation approach was considered feasible by the EBP teams and captured rich qualitative data, but may be limited by the absence of external reviewers and long lag times between the EBP process and the evaluation.

Conclusions: This process occurs in a complex system and must be conceptualized in each country and each EBP project in a way that fits local policy-making culture, priorities, leadership and team styles, roles and available resources. The use of a rapid appraisal approach, combining qualitative interviews and document review, is a feasible method of process evaluation for EVIPNet member countries.

Keywords: Evidence-informed policy-making; Health policy; Health research systems; Knowledge translation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

We declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Framework for supporting countries in developing and implementing an integrated knowledge translation approach
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Walt G. How far does research influence policy? Eur J Public Health. 1994;4:233–235. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/4.4.233. - DOI
    1. Dodson EA, Eyler AA, Chalifour S, Wintrode CG. A review of obesity-themed policy briefs. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43(3 Suppl 2):S143–S148. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.05.021. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Beynon P, Chapoy C, Gaarder M, Masset E. What difference does a policy brief make? Full report of an IDS, 3ie, Norad study. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies; 2012.
    1. Dodd M, Ivers R, Zwi AB, Rahman A, Jagnoor J. Investigating the process of evidence-informed health policymaking in Bangladesh: a systematic review. Health Policy Plan. 2019;34(6):469–478. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czz044. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Shroff Z, Aulakh B, Gilson L, Agyepong IA, El-Jardali F, Ghaffar A. Incorporating research evidence into decision-making processes: researcher and decision-maker perceptions from five low- and middle-income countries. Health Res Policy Syst. 2015;13:70. doi: 10.1186/s12961-015-0059-y. - DOI - PMC - PubMed