Search

How can UK and devolved governments be more effective when addressing chronic problems like inequalities or crises like climate change? The dominant story is of pessimism: policymaking is bound to a Westminster tradition of short-termism, elitism, and centralization, and reform efforts are doomed to failure. We present a more cautiously optimistic account about the prospects for a more effective government, grounded in theory-informed lessons from two decades of UK and devolved government reform efforts. We describe a potentially more innovative and less blundering state and present a coherent Positive Public Policy agenda that can help to realize this potential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The importance of evidence-informed health policymaking is widely recognized. However, many low- and middle-income countries lack evidence-informed mental health policies due to insufficient data, stigma or lack of resources. Various policies address adolescent mental health in India, but published knowledge on their evidence-informed nature is limited. In this paper, we report results of our analysis of the role of evidence in adolescent mental health policymaking in India. Methods: This paper reports findings from the document analysis of key policy documentation (n = 10) and in-depth interviews with policy actors including policymakers, researchers, practitioners and intermediaries (n = 13). Framework analysis was used, informed by the components of a conceptual framework adapted from the literature: actors, policy and evidence processes, nature of evidence itself and contextual influences. Results: Results show that adolescent mental health policies in India were generally evidence-informed, with more key evidence becoming generally available from 2010 onwards. Both formal and informal evidence informed mental health policies, particularly agenda-setting and policy development. Mental health policymaking in India is deemed important yet relatively neglected due to competing policy priorities and structural barriers such as stigma. Use of evidence in mental health policymaking reflected differing values, interests, relative powers and ideologies of policy actors. Involvement of government officials in evidence generation often resulted in successful evidence uptake in policy decisions. Policy actors often favoured formal and quantitative evidence, with a tendency to accept global evidence that aligns with personal values. Conclusions: There is a need to ensure a balanced and complementary combination of formal and informal evidence for policy decisions. Evidence generation, dissemination and use for policy processes should recognize evidence preferences by key stakeholders, while prioritizing locally available evidence where possible. To help this, a balanced involvement of policy actors can ensure complementary perspectives in evidence production and policy agendas. This continued generation and promotion of evidence can also help reduce societal stigma around mental health and promote mental health as a key policy priority. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The implementation of evidence-informed policies and practices across systems is a complex, multifaceted endeavor, often requiring the mobilization of multiple organizations from a range of contexts. In order to facilitate this process, policy makers, innovation developers and service deliverers are increasingly calling upon intermediaries to support implementation, yet relatively little is known about precisely how they contribute to implementation. This study examines the role of intermediaries supporting the implementation of evidence-informed policies and practices in the mental health and addictions systems of New Zealand, Ontario, Canada and Sweden. Methods: Using a comparative case study methodology and taking an integrated knowledge translation approach, we drew from established explanatory frameworks and implementation theory to address three questions: (1) Why were the intermediaries established? (2) How are intermediaries structured and what strategies do they use in systems to support the implementation of policy directions? and (3) What explains the lack of use of particular strategies? Data collection included three site visits, 49 key informant interviews and document analysis. Results: In each jurisdiction, a unique set of problems (e.g., negative events involving people with mental illness), policies (e.g., feedback on effectiveness of existing policies) and political events (e.g., changes in government) were coupled by a policy entrepreneur to bring intermediaries onto the decision agenda. While intermediaries varied greatly in their structure and characteristics, both the strategies they used and the strategies they didn't use were surprisingly similar. Specifically it was notable that none of the intermediaries used strategies that directly targeted the public, nor used audit and feedback. This emerged as the principle policy puzzle. Our analysis identified five reasons for these strategies not being employed: (1) their need to build/maintain healthy relationships with policy actors; (2) their need to build/maintain healthy relationships with service delivery system actors; (3) role differentiation with other system actors; (4) perceived lack of "fit" with the role of policy intermediaries; and (5) resource limitations that preclude intensive distributed (program-level) work. Conclusion: Policy makers and implementers must consider capacity to support implementation, and our study identifies how intermediaries can be developed and harnessed to support the implementation process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The importance of evidence-informed health policymaking is widely recognized. However, many low- and middle-income countries lack evidence-informed mental health policies due to insufficient data, stigma or lack of resources. Various policies address adolescent mental health in India, but published knowledge on their evidence-informed nature is limited. In this paper, we report results of our analysis of the role of evidence in adolescent mental health policymaking in India. Methods This paper reports findings from the document analysis of key policy documentation (n = 10) and in-depth interviews with policy actors including policymakers, researchers, practitioners and intermediaries (n = 13). Framework analysis was used, informed by the components of a conceptual framework adapted from the literature: actors, policy and evidence processes, nature of evidence itself and contextual influences. Results Results show that adolescent mental health policies in India were generally evidence-informed, with more key evidence becoming generally available from 2010 onwards. Both formal and informal evidence informed mental health policies, particularly agenda-setting and policy development. Mental health policymaking in India is deemed important yet relatively neglected due to competing policy priorities and structural barriers such as stigma. Use of evidence in mental health policymaking reflected differing values, interests, relative powers and ideologies of policy actors. Involvement of government officials in evidence generation often resulted in successful evidence uptake in policy decisions. Policy actors often favoured formal and quantitative evidence, with a tendency to accept global evidence that aligns with personal values. Conclusions There is a need to ensure a balanced and complementary combination of formal and informal evidence for policy decisions. Evidence generation, dissemination and use for policy processes should recognize evidence preferences by key stakeholders, while prioritizing locally available evidence where possible. To help this, a balanced involvement of policy actors can ensure complementary perspectives in evidence production and policy agendas. This continued generation and promotion of evidence can also help reduce societal stigma around mental health and promote mental health as a key policy priority.

Abstract Background Communication is a multifaceted process, ranging from linear, one-way approaches, such as transmitting a simple message, to continuous exchanges and feedback loops among stakeholders. In particular the COVID-19 pandemic underscored the critical need for timely, effective and credible evidence communication to increase awareness, levels of trust, and evidence uptake in policy and practice. However, whether to improve policy responses in crises or address more commonplace societal challenges, comprehensive guidance on evidence communication to decision-makers in health policies and systems remains limited. Our objective was to identify and systematize the global evidence on frameworks, guidance and tools supporting effective communication of research evidence to facilitate knowledge translation and evidence-informed policy-making processes, while also addressing barriers and facilitators. Methods We conducted a rapid scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Manual. Literature searches were performed across eight indexed databases and two sources of grey literature, without language or time restrictions. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed, and a narrative-interpretative synthesis was applied to present the findings. Results We identified 16 documents presenting either complete frameworks or framework components, including guidance and tools, aimed at supporting evidence communication for policy development. These frameworks outlined strategies, theoretical models, barriers and facilitators, as well as insights into policy-makers’ perspectives, communication needs, and preferences. Three primary evidence communication strategies, comprising eleven sub-strategies, emerged: “Health information packaging”, “Targeting and tailoring messages to the audience”, and “Combined communication strategies”. Based on the documented barriers and facilitators at micro, meso and macro levels, critical factors for successful communication of evidence to policy-makers were identified. Conclusions Effective communication is indispensable for facilitating knowledge translation and evidence-informed policy-making. Nonetheless gaps persist in frameworks designed to enhance research communication to policy-makers, particularly regarding the effectiveness of multiple communication strategies. To advance in this field, the development of comprehensive frameworks incorporating implementation strategies is warranted. Additionally, barriers and facilitators to implementing effective communication must be recognized and addressed taking diverse contexts into consideration. Registration https://zenodo.org/record/5578550

Objectives. To evaluate the structure and operation of national immunization technical advisory groups (NITAGs) in Latin America and the Caribbean and to make recommendations for improvement. Methods. A convenience sample of six current and eight former NITAG members representing 12 countries in the region were invited in 2022 to answer a web-based questionnaire on NITAG structure, organization, and procedures. The questionnaire used indicators similar to those in the Joint Reporting Form on Immunization. Participants were also asked about the role their NITAGs played in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) immunization policies. Results. Brazil, Dominican Republic, and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) reported not having an active NITAG. The nine active NITAGs are structured and organized according to World Health Organization and Pan American Health Organization recommendations, with variations between countries. Most NITAGs include representatives of the five recommended medical specialties with the participation of additional members possible. Only Bolivia (Plurinational State of) and Mexico have no explicit policy for managing members' potential conflicts of interest. All NITAGs have an exclusively technical advisory role and generally meet once a quarter. Usually, NITAGs are asked by health ministries to analyze issues and make recommendations. All NITAGs, except for Perus, actively participated in supporting decision-making for immunization policy on COVID-19. Conclusions. NITAGs have successfully supported vaccine policy-making through evidence-based recommendations. However, improvement in their structure, operation, and transparency is needed to help them keep up with the rapidly evolving field of immunization. Research on the impact of NITAGs is important to support the development of recommendations for improvement.

Abstract Background Globally, a growing number of calls to formalize and strengthen evidence-support systems have been released, all of which emphasize the importance of evidence-informed decision making. To achieve this, it is critical that evidence producers and decision-makers interact, and that decision-makers’ evidence needs can be efficiently translated into questions to which evidence producers can respond. This paper aims to create a taxonomy of demand-driven questions for use by evidence producers, intermediaries (i.e., people working in between researchers and decision-makers) and decision-makers. Methods We conducted a global cross-sectional survey of units providing some type of evidence support at the explicit request of decision-makers. Unit representatives were invited to answer an online questionnaire where they were asked to provide a list of the questions that they have addressed through their evidence-support mechanism. Descriptive analyses were used to analyze the survey responses, while the questions collected from each unit were iteratively analyzed to create a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive list of types of questions that can be answered with some form of evidence. Results Twenty-nine individuals completed the questionnaire, and more than 250 submitted questions were analysed to create a taxonomy of 41 different types of demand-driven questions. These 41 questions were organized by the goal to be achieved, and the goals were grouped in the four decision-making stages (i) clarifying a societal problem, its causes and potential impacts; (ii) finding and selecting options to address a problem; (iii) implementing or scaling-up an option; and (iv) monitoring implementation and evaluating impacts. Conclusion The mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive list of demand-driven questions will help decision-makers (to ask and prioritize questions), evidence producers (to organize and present their work), and evidence-intermediaries (to connect evidence needs with evidence supply).

Background: Communication is a multifaceted process, ranging from linear, one-way approaches, such as transmitting a simple message, to continuous exchanges and feedback loops among stakeholders. In particular the COVID-19 pandemic underscored the critical need for timely, effective and credible evidence communication to increase awareness, levels of trust, and evidence uptake in policy and practice. However, whether to improve policy responses in crises or address more commonplace societal challenges, comprehensive guidance on evidence communication to decision-makers in health policies and systems remains limited. Our objective was to identify and systematize the global evidence on frameworks, guidance and tools supporting effective communication of research evidence to facilitate knowledge translation and evidence-informed policy-making processes, while also addressing barriers and facilitators. Methods: We conducted a rapid scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Manual. Literature searches were performed across eight indexed databases and two sources of grey literature, without language or time restrictions. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed, and a narrative-interpretative synthesis was applied to present the findings. Results: We identified 16 documents presenting either complete frameworks or framework components, including guidance and tools, aimed at supporting evidence communication for policy development. These frameworks outlined strategies, theoretical models, barriers and facilitators, as well as insights into policy-makers' perspectives, communication needs, and preferences. Three primary evidence communication strategies, comprising eleven sub-strategies, emerged: "Health information packaging", "Targeting and tailoring messages to the audience", and "Combined communication strategies". Based on the documented barriers and facilitators at micro, meso and macro levels, critical factors for successful communication of evidence to policy-makers were identified. Conclusions: Effective communication is indispensable for facilitating knowledge translation and evidence-informed policy-making. Nonetheless gaps persist in frameworks designed to enhance research communication to policy-makers, particularly regarding the effectiveness of multiple communication strategies. To advance in this field, the development of comprehensive frameworks incorporating implementation strategies is warranted. Additionally, barriers and facilitators to implementing effective communication must be recognized and addressed taking diverse contexts into consideration. Registrationhttps://zenodo.org/record/5578550 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Foco (Interdisciplinary Studies Journal) is the property of Revista Foco and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Globally, a growing number of calls to formalize and strengthen evidence-support systems have been released, all of which emphasize the importance of evidence-informed decision making. To achieve this, it is critical that evidence producers and decision-makers interact, and that decision-makers' evidence needs can be efficiently translated into questions to which evidence producers can respond. This paper aims to create a taxonomy of demand-driven questions for use by evidence producers, intermediaries (i.e., people working in between researchers and decision-makers) and decision-makers. Methods: We conducted a global cross-sectional survey of units providing some type of evidence support at the explicit request of decision-makers. Unit representatives were invited to answer an online questionnaire where they were asked to provide a list of the questions that they have addressed through their evidence-support mechanism. Descriptive analyses were used to analyze the survey responses, while the questions collected from each unit were iteratively analyzed to create a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive list of types of questions that can be answered with some form of evidence. Results: Twenty-nine individuals completed the questionnaire, and more than 250 submitted questions were analysed to create a taxonomy of 41 different types of demand-driven questions. These 41 questions were organized by the goal to be achieved, and the goals were grouped in the four decision-making stages (i) clarifying a societal problem, its causes and potential impacts; (ii) finding and selecting options to address a problem; (iii) implementing or scaling-up an option; and (iv) monitoring implementation and evaluating impacts. Conclusion: The mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive list of demand-driven questions will help decision-makers (to ask and prioritize questions), evidence producers (to organize and present their work), and evidence-intermediaries (to connect evidence needs with evidence supply). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background There has been a proliferation of frameworks with a common goal of bridging the gap between evidence, policy, and practice, but few aim to specifically guide evaluations of academic-policy engagement. We present the modification of an action framework for the purpose of selecting, developing and evaluating interventions for academic-policy engagement. Methods We build on the conceptual work of an existing framework known as SPIRIT (Supporting Policy In Health with Research: an Intervention Trial), developed for the evaluation of strategies intended to increase the use of research in health policy. Our aim was to modify SPIRIT, (i) to be applicable beyond health policy contexts, for example encompassing social, environmental, and economic policy impacts and (ii) to address broader dynamics of academic-policy engagement. We used an iterative approach through literature reviews and consultation with multiple stakeholders from Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and policy professionals working at different levels of government and across geographical contexts in England, alongside our evaluation activities in the Capabilities in Academic Policy Engagement (CAPE) programme. Results Our modifications expand upon Redman et al.’s original framework, for example adding a domain of ‘Impacts and Sustainability’ to capture continued activities required in the achievement of desirable outcomes. The modified framework fulfils the criteria for a useful action framework, having a clear purpose, being informed by existing understandings, being capable of guiding targeted interventions, and providing a structure to build further knowledge. Conclusion The modified SPIRIT framework is designed to be meaningful and accessible for people working across varied contexts in the evidence-policy ecosystem. It has potential applications in how academic-policy engagement interventions might be developed, evaluated, facilitated and improved, to ultimately support the use of evidence in decision-making.

Background: Ensuring equal access to medicines and their appropriate and safe use at reasonable costs are core functions of health systems. Despite that, few descriptions of national medicines policies' development processes and implementation strategies have been published. This study aimed to describe the government program-based development of the Rational Pharmacotherapy Action Plan in Finland as a part of the undergoing major health and social service system reform, also covering the implementation of rational pharmacotherapy in the reformed system and processes. Methods: The data of this qualitative study consisted of public reports and Steering Group meeting memos related to the development of the national Rational Pharmacotherapy Action Plan that the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health coordinated. Qualitative content analysis applying systems theory and the conceptual framework of integrated services as theoretical frameworks was used as an analysis method. Results: The national Rational Pharmacotherapy Action Plan covering 2018–2022 was created in a bottom-up development process involving a wide range of stakeholders. Rational pharmacotherapy was redefined by adding equality as the fifth pillar to complement the previously defined pillars of being effective, safe, high-quality, and cost-effective. The Action Plan formed a normative framework for long-term development, with a vision and principles focusing on people-centeredness, better coordination and management of the medication use processes, the continuity of treatment paths and the flow of patient and medicines information through partnerships, and evidence-informed policies and practices. Conclusion: Through intensive stakeholder participation, the bottom-up approach created a national vision and principles of rational pharmacotherapy along with strong commitment to implementing the goals and measures. The concern lies in ensuring the continuity of the Action Plan implementation and achieving a balanced long-term development aligned with the integrated and reformed national social and health services system. The development of the pharmaceutical system has several national and EU-level dependencies requiring political long-term commitment. While the Action Plan differs from the national medicines policy, it forms a good basis for long-term development covering important parts of medicine policy at the micro, meso, and macro levels of the service system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There has been a proliferation of frameworks with a common goal of bridging the gap between evidence, policy, and practice, but few aim to specifically guide evaluations of academic-policy engagement. We present the modification of an action framework for the purpose of selecting, developing and evaluating interventions for academic-policy engagement. Methods: We build on the conceptual work of an existing framework known as SPIRIT (Supporting Policy In Health with Research: an Intervention Trial), developed for the evaluation of strategies intended to increase the use of research in health policy. Our aim was to modify SPIRIT, (i) to be applicable beyond health policy contexts, for example encompassing social, environmental, and economic policy impacts and (ii) to address broader dynamics of academic-policy engagement. We used an iterative approach through literature reviews and consultation with multiple stakeholders from Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and policy professionals working at different levels of government and across geographical contexts in England, alongside our evaluation activities in the Capabilities in Academic Policy Engagement (CAPE) programme. Results: Our modifications expand upon Redman et al.'s original framework, for example adding a domain of 'Impacts and Sustainability' to capture continued activities required in the achievement of desirable outcomes. The modified framework fulfils the criteria for a useful action framework, having a clear purpose, being informed by existing understandings, being capable of guiding targeted interventions, and providing a structure to build further knowledge. Conclusion: The modified SPIRIT framework is designed to be meaningful and accessible for people working across varied contexts in the evidence-policy ecosystem. It has potential applications in how academic-policy engagement interventions might be developed, evaluated, facilitated and improved, to ultimately support the use of evidence in decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

IntroductionThe implementation of evidence-informed policies and practices across systems is a complex, multifaceted endeavor, often requiring the mobilization of multiple organizations from a range of contexts. In order to facilitate this process, policy makers, innovation developers and service deliverers are increasingly calling upon intermediaries to support implementation, yet relatively little is known about precisely how they contribute to implementation. This study examines the role of intermediaries supporting the implementation of evidence-informed policies and practices in the mental health and addictions systems of New Zealand, Ontario, Canada and Sweden.MethodsUsing a comparative case study methodology and taking an integrated knowledge translation approach, we drew from established explanatory frameworks and implementation theory to address three questions: (1) Why were the intermediaries established? (2) How are intermediaries structured and what strategies do they use in systems to support the implementation of policy directions? and (3) What explains the lack of use of particular strategies? Data collection included three site visits, 49 key informant interviews and document analysis.ResultsIn each jurisdiction, a unique set of problems (e.g., negative events involving people with mental illness), policies (e.g., feedback on effectiveness of existing policies) and political events (e.g., changes in government) were coupled by a policy entrepreneur to bring intermediaries onto the decision agenda. While intermediaries varied greatly in their structure and characteristics, both the strategies they used and the strategies they didn't use were surprisingly similar. Specifically it was notable that none of the intermediaries used strategies that directly targeted the public, nor used audit and feedback. This emerged as the principle policy puzzle. Our analysis identified five reasons for these strategies not being employed: (1) their need to build/maintain healthy relationships with policy actors; (2) their need to build/maintain healthy relationships with service delivery system actors; (3) role differentiation with other system actors; (4) perceived lack of “fit” with the role of policy intermediaries; and (5) resource limitations that preclude intensive distributed (program-level) work.ConclusionPolicy makers and implementers must consider capacity to support implementation, and our study identifies how intermediaries can be developed and harnessed to support the implementation process.

In their study of sustaining knowledge translation (KT) practices, Borst et al found that this process is an interplay of: (i) constructing and extending networks, (ii) creating contexts that support KT practices, and (iii) understanding how actors create, maintain, and disrupt institutions. Their article is an important contribution to the body of research promoting KT. In this commentary we reflect on the convergences and differences between the concepts of ‘sustaining’ and ‘institutionalizing’ KT, highlighting domains and processes related to the institutionalization, providing an analysis of KT landscape in Brazil and making a case for the need to increase countries’ routine use of evidence.

IntroductionThere are currently over 50 dollar stores in Baltimore City, Maryland. Community perceptions of over-saturation and resulting neighborhood impacts have garnered recent attention. A Maryland State Senate Bill required further study of dollar stores in Baltimore City to inform future policy. Therefore, the over-arching goal of this study was to generate community-informed policy recommendations for the Baltimore City Council.MethodsThree methods of data collection were used: (1) in-depth interviews with community members, retail staff/owners, dollar store staff, and policy makers; (2) an online survey of Baltimore City residents; and (3) workshop with community members and one with policy makers. Triangulation across data sources, discussion amongst the research team, and member checking were used to generate the top four policy options: a conditional use ordinance, a community benefits agreements, a dispersal ordinance, and a staple foods ordinance.ResultsThere was strong support for policies that encourage dollar stores to better align with community priorities (e.g., improving store cleanliness and appearance, increasing availability of healthy foods), as opposed to closing or banning dollar stores entirely. There was also strong support for policies that would empower communities to participate in determining the role of dollar stores in their neighborhoods, for example through a conditional use ordinance or community benefits agreement. Key concerns included policy enforcement, given the additional funding required, and current limited capacity at the city government level. Strategies to address such challenges were generated including implementing business licenses at the city level, linking new ordinances to dollar store leases and permits, and encouraging dollar store participation in federal and local programs to more feasibly stock healthier food items (e.g., fresh produce). Dissatisfaction was expressed regarding a lack of policy options to address the existing dollar stores, not just new dollar stores entering the City.DiscussionThis study is the first of its kind to assess community support for dollar store policies at the local level, and serves to inform policies that improve dollar stores. A report of these findings was provided to Baltimore City Council to inform new, community-supported dollar store policies.

This article presents lessons on transcendence, from research on the socioeconomic impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic to policy, using experiences from Zimbabwe. The case study parallels literature on knowledge translation that suggests that the challenge of evidence-informed policy is more a problem of evidence production than evidence translation. The positioning, infuence, and leverage of the research team was predominantly built on a platform of personal relationship legacies, academic legitimacy, and networks. The data and model co-produced with state actors could infuence policy decisions and behaviours because they were designed with and for policymakers to assist with policy decisions. The results had direct implications for Covid-19 response measures, informing policymakers on what the impact on diferent groups is likely to be and indicating what policy measures could do to address impacts. Knowledge co-production also proved pivotal in reducing some of the concerns around the limitations of risk-based modelling in a crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Inadequate diet and nutritional status are important risk factors for noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). In Brazil, the city of Rio de Janeiro (RJ) has stood out for its high prevalence of obesity. Objective: To evaluate the temporal trend of indicators of food consumption and nutritional status related to NCDs in the adult population of the city of RJ and other Brazilian capitals. Method: Vigitel data between 2006 and 2019 were used. Prais-Winsten regression was used to evaluate the variation in the prevalence of interest indicators. These were defined based on the goals of the National Plan for Food and Nutritional Security (Plano Nacional de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional – 2016-19) and the Strategic Action Plan to Tackle NCDs in Brazil (Plano de Ações Estratégicas para o Enfrentamento das DCNT no Brasil – 2011-22). Results: Regular and recommended consumption of fruits and vegetables and regular consumption of sweets did not present significant variation, while the regular consumption of soft drinks decreased in RJ and other capitals during the period. The prevalence of excess weight and obesity increased significantly in RJ and in other capitals. Conclusions: The trend of the indicators reveals an unfavorable scenario for the health’s population and to achieve the goals proposed in the national plans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Evidence-informed decision-making is increasingly recognized as a standard for policymaking in many fields, including public health. However, many challenges exist in identifying the appropriate evidence, disseminating it to different stakeholders, and implementing it in various settings. The Israel Implementation Science and Policy Engagement Centre (IS-PEC) was established at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev to “bridge the gap” between scientific research and policy. As an illustrative case study, IS-PEC is conducting a scoping review on strategies to engage senior citizens in Israel when developing health policy. In May 2022, IS-PEC brought together international experts and Israeli stakeholders to increase knowledge in the field of evidence-informed policy, develop a research agenda, strengthen international collaborations, and create a community for sharing experience, research, and best practices. Panelists presented the importance of communicating clear, accurate bottom-line messages with the media. Also, they highlighted the once-in-a-generation opportunity to promote the uptake of evidence in public health due to the increased public interest in evidence-informed policymaking post-COVID-19 pandemic and the need to build systems and centers to support the systematic use of evidence. Group discussions focused on various aspects of communication, including challenges and strategies when communicating to policymakers, understanding the nuances of communication between scientists, journalists, and the public, and some ethical issues surrounding data visualization and infographics. Panelists participated in a passionate debate regarding whether and how values play a role when conducting, analyzing, and communicating evidence. Takeaway lessons from the workshop included that going forward, Israel must create lasting systems and a sustainable environment for evidence-informed policy. Novel and interdisciplinary academic programs must be developed to train future policymakers in various fields, including public health, public policy, ethics, communication, social marketing, and infographics. Sustainable professional relationships between journalists, scientists, and policymakers must be fostered and strengthened based on mutual respect and a shared commitment to creating, synthesizing, implementing, and communicating high-quality evidence to serve the public and individual wellbeing.

In recent years there has been growing interest in the policy community to apply insights from system dynamics modelling to address the complexity of many policy issues. This, however, has occurred in parallel to recent developments in critical scholarship on the nature of evidence use within public policymaking. While system dynamics aims to assist in the analysis and solving of complex policy problems, in doing so it also serves to identify which pieces of data and evidence are considered policy-relevant, or how pieces of evidence fit within a complex policy space. In this paper, we combine insights from the fields of complex systems modelling and critical policy studies in relation to these issues. Scholars working on the use of evidence within policymaking have explored how policy problems, and their potential solutions, have a range of potential framings and constructions. They further identify how processes are undertaken to define problems, apply evidence, and choose solutions can themselves specify which constructions become realized. As system dynamics modelling is increasingly applied as a policy-informing tool, it is critical to reflect on how policy issues and their solutions are constructed or understood, as well as whose values and views are represented in doing so. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background A policy dialogue is a tool which promotes evidence-informed policy-making. It involves deliberation about a high-priority issue, informed by a synthesis of the best-available evidence, where potential policy interventions are discussed by stakeholders. We offer an ethical analysis of policy dialogues – an argument about how policy dialogues ought to be conceived and executed – to guide those organizing and participating in policy dialogues. Our analysis focuses on the deliberative dialogues themselves, rather than ethical issues in the broader policy context within which they are situated. Methods We conduct a philosophical conceptual analysis of policy dialogues, informed by a formal and an interpretative literature review. Results We identify the objectives of policy dialogues, and consider the procedural and substantive values that should govern them. As knowledge translation tools, the chief objective of policy dialogues is to ensure that prospective evidence-informed health policies are appropriate for and likely to support evidence-informed decision-making in a particular context. We identify five core characteristics which serve this objective: policy dialogues are (i) focused on a high-priority issue, (ii) evidence-informed, (iii) deliberative, (iv) participatory and (v) action-oriented. In contrast to dominant ethical frameworks for policy-making, we argue that transparency and accountability are not central procedural values for policy dialogues, as they are liable to inhibit the open deliberation that is necessary for successful policy dialogues. Instead, policy dialogues are legitimate insofar as they pursue the objectives and embody the core characteristics identified above. Finally, we argue that good policy dialogues need to actively consider a range of substantive values other than health benefit and equity. Conclusions Policy dialogues should recognize the limits of effectiveness as a guiding value for policy-making, and operate with an expansive conception of successful outcomes. We offer a set of questions to support those organizing and participating in policy dialogues.

Objective. To assess the legislative frameworks concerning childhood vaccination in the English- and Dutch-speaking Caribbean and propose a model legislative framework for Caribbean countries. Methods. This study included a survey of 22 countries and territories in the Caribbean regarding legal vaccination mandates for school entry, budget allocations, sanctions, or exemptions. A legal consultant conducted a comprehensive search and analysis of legislation regarding vaccination among 13 Caribbean countries/territories. A comparative analysis of the legislation under five themes—legislative structure, mandatory vaccination, national immunization schedule, sanctions, and exemptions—formed the basis for the proposed model legislation. Results. Among the 22 Caribbean countries/territories, 17 (77%) had legislation mandating vaccination, 16 (94%) mandated vaccination for school entry, 8 (47%) had a dedicated budget for immunization programs, and 13 (76%) had no legislated national schedules. The source of legislation includes six (35%) using the Education Act, eight (47%) the Public Health Act, and five (29%) a free-standing Vaccination Act. Three countries/territories—Jamaica, Montserrat, and Saint Lucia—had immunization regulations. In 12 (71%) of the 17 countries with legislation, sanctions were included, and 10 (59%) permitted exemptions for medical or religious/philosophical beliefs. Conclusions. Several countries in the Caribbean have made failure to vaccinate a child an offense. By summarizing the existing legislative frameworks and approaches to immunization in the Caribbean, the analysis guides policymakers in making effective changes to immunization legislation in their own countries.

Evidence-informed decision-making is increasingly recognized as a standard for policymaking in many fields, including public health. However, many challenges exist in identifying the appropriate evidence, disseminating it to different stakeholders, and implementing it in various settings. The Israel Implementation Science and Policy Engagement Centre (IS-PEC) was established at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev to "bridge the gap" between scientific research and policy. As an illustrative case study, IS-PEC is conducting a scoping review on strategies to engage senior citizens in Israel when developing health policy. In May 2022, IS-PEC brought together international experts and Israeli stakeholders to increase knowledge in the field of evidence-informed policy, develop a research agenda, strengthen international collaborations, and create a community for sharing experience, research, and best practices. Panelists presented the importance of communicating clear, accurate bottom-line messages with the media. Also, they highlighted the once-in-a-generation opportunity to promote the uptake of evidence in public health due to the increased public interest in evidence-informed policymaking post-COVID-19 pandemic and the need to build systems and centers to support the systematic use of evidence. Group discussions focused on various aspects of communication, including challenges and strategies when communicating to policymakers, understanding the nuances of communication between scientists, journalists, and the public, and some ethical issues surrounding data visualization and infographics. Panelists participated in a passionate debate regarding whether and how values play a role when conducting, analyzing, and communicating evidence. Takeaway lessons from the workshop included that going forward, Israel must create lasting systems and a sustainable environment for evidence-informed policy. Novel and interdisciplinary academic programs must be developed to train future policymakers in various fields, including public health, public policy, ethics, communication, social marketing, and infographics. Sustainable professional relationships between journalists, scientists, and policymakers must be fostered and strengthened based on mutual respect and a shared commitment to creating, synthesizing, implementing, and communicating high-quality evidence to serve the public and individual wellbeing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy decisions should be guided by the relative degree of risk of error and bias and strength of evidence of the efficacy of alternative management interventions. This study describes the benefits and limitations of applying a sequential evidence hierarchy to evaluate alternative fisheries bycatch management strategies. Fisheries bycatch is an obstacle to global food and livelihood security and is a main anthropogenic threat to several threatened species. Independent synthesis of all accumulated information is a fundamental principle for developing transparent, evidence-informed regional conservation policy. Meta-analytic syntheses produce the most robust and generalizable findings that are optimal for guiding regional bycatch management. Otherwise, given too few studies to support robust meta-syntheses, decisions should rely on qualitative syntheses of accumulated studies. Bycatch mitigation methods with findings only available from studies with relatively weak forms of evidence, or lacking any evidence, should only be considered as a precautionary approach when more certain alternatives are unavailable. Strictly applying a hierarchical approach on study evidence to make policy decisions, however, risks ignoring potentially important findings derived from studies using methods low on an evidence hierarchy. Instead, in making bycatch management policies, authorities should account for all accumulated evidence and the implications of different approaches for testing different hypotheses. Fisheries bycatch policy guided, but not bounded, by a sequential evidence hierarchy promises to achieve ecological and socioeconomic objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundStigma is a significant barrier to the successful implementation of public health policies which aim to reduce harm from substance use disorders. Despite attention being given to stigma in the literature for at least a decade, evidence on what works to reduce it is limited and inconclusive. Without clear guidance, policymakers could be limited in their ability to develop evidence-informed strategies for reducing stigma. In response to a steep incline in drug-related deaths in Scotland since 1996, the Scottish Government has committed to tackling stigma in national drug policy. Scotland’s 31 Alcohol and Drug Partnerships are responsible for developing local strategies that aim to tackle harm from substance use disorders. This qualitative review explored how well these strategies respond to stigma and identified approaches mentioned that could have implicit implications for tackling stigma.MethodsThe strategic plans of Alcohol and Drug Partnerships across Scotland were identified and thematically analysed to identify key themes relating to stigma. Content of strategic plans was initially coded under a coding scheme of four broad categories: content that explicitly mentioned stigma; identity, status and power; deservedness of support; and attribution of responsibility for SUDs.ResultsTwenty-four strategic plans were identified and analysed, with four themes emerging: (1) limited clarity and consistency on how stigma will be directly tackled by ADPs; (2) recognition of the positive contribution that people with substance use disorders can make towards decisions about treatment and support; (3) diversion of people with substance use disorders away from the criminal justice system towards quality support underpinned by human rights; and (4) recognition of the complex determinants of substance use disorders and that everyone has a role to play.ConclusionAlcohol and Drug Partnerships acknowledged the importance of tackling stigma in their strategic plans but provide limited clarity on how this will be done. This review calls for the inclusion of more evidence-informed strategies for tackling stigma within the Scottish local policymaking context. This requires academic, policymaking and lived experience communities to collaborate to test and evaluate innovative responses to tackling in stigma to strengthen understanding of what works in which contexts.

BackgroundThe use of research evidence in health policy-making is a popular line of inquiry for scholars of public health and policy studies, with qualitative methods constituting the dominant strategy in this area. Research on this subject has been criticized for, among other things, disproportionately focusing on high-income countries; overemphasizing ‘barriers and facilitators’ related to evidence use to the neglect of other, less descriptive concerns; relying on descriptive, rather than in-depth explanatory designs; and failing to draw on insights from political/policy studies theories and concepts. We aimed to comprehensively map the global, peer-reviewed qualitative literature on the use of research evidence in health policy-making and to provide a descriptive overview of the geographic, temporal, methodological, and theoretical characteristics of this body of literature. MethodsWe conducted a systematic review following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We searched nine electronic databases, hand-searched 11 health- and policy-related journals, and systematically scanned the reference lists of included sudies and previous reviews. No language, date or geographic limitations were imposed. ResultsThe review identified 319 qualitative studies on a diverse array of topics related to the use of evidence in health policy-making, spanning 72 countries and published over a nearly 40 year period. A majority of these studies were conducted in high-income countries, but a growing proportion of the research output in this area is now coming from low- and middle-income countries, especially from sub-Saharan Africa. While over half of all studies did not use an identifiable theory or framework, and only one fifth of studies used a theory or conceptual framework drawn from policy studies or political science, we found some evidence that theory-driven and explanatory (eg, comparative case study) designs are becoming more common in this literature. Investigations of the barriers and facilitators related to evidence use constitute a large proportion but by no means a majority of the work in this area. ConclusionThis review provides a bird’s eye mapping of the peer reviewed qualitative research on evidence-to-policy processes, and has identified key features of – and gaps within – this body of literature that will hopefully inform, and improve, research in this area moving forward.

Background: A policy dialogue is a tool which promotes evidence-informed policy-making. It involves deliberation about a high-priority issue, informed by a synthesis of the best-available evidence, where potential policy interventions are discussed by stakeholders. We offer an ethical analysis of policy dialogues – an argument about how policy dialogues ought to be conceived and executed – to guide those organizing and participating in policy dialogues. Our analysis focuses on the deliberative dialogues themselves, rather than ethical issues in the broader policy context within which they are situated. Methods: We conduct a philosophical conceptual analysis of policy dialogues, informed by a formal and an interpretative literature review. Results: We identify the objectives of policy dialogues, and consider the procedural and substantive values that should govern them. As knowledge translation tools, the chief objective of policy dialogues is to ensure that prospective evidence-informed health policies are appropriate for and likely to support evidence-informed decision-making in a particular context. We identify five core characteristics which serve this objective: policy dialogues are (i) focused on a high-priority issue, (ii) evidence-informed, (iii) deliberative, (iv) participatory and (v) action-oriented. In contrast to dominant ethical frameworks for policy-making, we argue that transparency and accountability are not central procedural values for policy dialogues, as they are liable to inhibit the open deliberation that is necessary for successful policy dialogues. Instead, policy dialogues are legitimate insofar as they pursue the objectives and embody the core characteristics identified above. Finally, we argue that good policy dialogues need to actively consider a range of substantive values other than health benefit and equity. Conclusions: Policy dialogues should recognize the limits of effectiveness as a guiding value for policy-making, and operate with an expansive conception of successful outcomes. We offer a set of questions to support those organizing and participating in policy dialogues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ann Oakley, pioneering social researcher for nearly 60 years, is Professor of Sociology and Social Policy at IOE (Institute of Education), UCL's Faculty of Education and Society (University College London, UK). This article explores the innovation and influence of her work and the work of her close colleagues at the Social Science Research Unit (SSRU) and its Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Coordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre). It describes advances in research and knowledge that have their roots in listening to what women have to say about their lives. The resulting novel research methods have straddled academic boundaries - between qualitative and quantitative methodologies, between disciplines, and between academia and wider society - to enhance understanding of complex social issues and approaches to addressing them within the public sector. The impact of this work is seen in terms of influencing science, knowledge management, policy decisions, professional practice and the general public. These achievements come from approaches that are outward looking and straddle academic disciplines to produce evidence that is relevant to policymaking and to practice, with the ultimate aim being to improve day-to-day life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Knowledge Translation (KT) provides technologies that can be used to operationalize the collaboration between university and society for evidence-informed policy-making in response to health needs. Based on the formation of a working group (one of the available KT technologies) and to understand the health needs of Primary Health Care (PHC) workers in the city of São Paulo, this study aimed to report the experience of problematization and instrumentalization carried out with researchers, managers and PHC workers of the city of São Paulo. The Historical and Dialectical Materialism oriented the process of emancipatory workshops with the participants. The problems faced by the workers were raised and workshops and seminars were held to provide knowledge according to the needs of the group of participants. In the process of understanding the health needs of PHC workers the participants related the forms of work organization to the workers' wear out, which was emphasized by the group. The formation of the group was strategic to reach the objective and also to direct the research on the answers to the health needs of workers in the area, the next stage of the KT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In an 1854 lecture, TH Huxley suggested that physiology should be measured by its contribution to science, its practical worth and the extent to which it should be made a branch of education. Since macrophysiology, or the investigation of variation in physiological traits over large geographical and temporal scales and the ecological implications of this variation, is well‐established and approaching its third decade, these questions are posed for it here. The field is, of course, much older, but, over the last two decades, has contributed substantially to fundamental eco‐evolutionary research and to understanding the conservation consequences of physiological variation at regional and global scales. Its greatest successes have been in understanding variation in thermal and metabolic responses of animals and plants to variable environments and the significance thereof in the context of the climate crisis. By contrast, much less progress has been made in understanding the regulation of water in the context of currently changing environments and projections of further impacts associated with ongoing global change. The development of new datasets of physiological traits across broad spatial scales has been a slower enterprise than the further compilation of trait databases from extant data. Surprising insights have emerged from genomics‐based microbial macrophysiology, an approach which has much potential to span all of life's variety. The findings of macrophysiological investigations have been taken up within policy reports and/or implementation actions, such as those of the IPCC and the Antarctic Treaty System, that have resulted in benefits to society and to the environment. Yet, as is the case with other areas of research, much remains to be done to develop further strategies to counteract the anti‐science attitudes that are now so prevalent globally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. To identify strategies to increase adherence to systemic arterial hypertension (SAH) treatment and describe the barriers and facilitators for implementing these strategies in primary health care (PHC). Method. A rapid evidence review was performed. We included systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses, published in English, Spanish or Portuguese, covering adults (age 18 to ≤ 60 years) with SAH followed in the PHC. Searches were performed in nine databases in December 2020 and updated in April 2022. The systematic reviews were assessed for methodological quality using the AMSTAR 2 tool. Results. Fourteen systematic reviews on treatment adherence strategies and three on barriers and facilitators for implementation were included. Regarding methodological quality, one systematic review was classified as moderate, four as low, and the others as critically low. Four strategies were identified as options for health policies: actions performed by pharmacists; actions performed by non-pharmaceutical health professionals; self-monitoring, use of mobile apps, and text messages; and subsidies for the purchase of medicines. Low digital literacy, limited access to the internet, work process and incipient training were barriers for professionals. The users' educational and health literacy levels, accessibility to health services and good relationships with professionals were facilitators. Conclusions. Positive effects of strategies related to pharmaceutical care, self-monitoring, and the use of cell phone applications and text messages were identified to increase adherence to the treatment of SAH in the context of PHC. However, for implementation purposes, it is necessary to consider barriers and facilitators, in addition to the methodological limitations of the analyzed systematic reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. To assess the legislative frameworks concerning childhood vaccination in the English- and Dutch-speaking Caribbean and propose a model legislative framework for Caribbean countries. Methods. This study included a survey of 22 countries and territories in the Caribbean regarding legal vaccination mandates for school entry, budget allocations, sanctions, or exemptions. A legal consultant conducted a comprehensive search and analysis of legislation regarding vaccination among 13 Caribbean countries/ territories. A comparative analysis of the legislation under five themes--legislative structure, mandatory vaccination, national immunization schedule, sanctions, and exemptions--formed the basis for the proposed model legislation. Results. Among the 22 Caribbean countries/territories, 17 (77%) had legislation mandating vaccination, 16 (94%) mandated vaccination for school entry, 8 (47%) had a dedicated budget for immunization programs, and 13 (76%) had no legislated national schedules. The source of legislation includes six (35%) using the Education Act, eight (47%) the Public Health Act, and five (29%) a free-standing Vaccination Act. Three countries/ territories--Jamaica, Montserrat, and Saint Lucia--had immunization regulations. In 12 (71%) of the 17 countries with legislation, sanctions were included, and 10 (59%) permitted exemptions for medical or religious/ philosophical beliefs. Conclusions. Several countries in the Caribbean have made failure to vaccinate a child an offense. By summarizing the existing legislative frameworks and approaches to immunization in the Caribbean, the analysis guides policymakers in making effective changes to immunization legislation in their own countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Ciência & Saúde Coletiva is the property of Associacao Brasileira de Pos-Graduacao em Saude Coletiva and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In their study of sustaining knowledge translation (KT) practices, Borst et al found that this process is an interplay of: (i) constructing and extending networks, (ii) creating contexts that support KT practices, and (iii) understanding how actors create, maintain, and disrupt institutions. Their article is an important contribution to the body of research promoting KT. In this commentary we reflect on the convergences and differences between the concepts of 'sustaining' and 'institutionalizing' KT, highlighting domains and processes related to the institutionalization, providing an analysis of KT landscape in Brazil and making a case for the need to increase countries' routine use of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Salud UIS is the property of Universidad Industrial de Santander and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Abstract Background Timely knowledge mobilization has become increasingly critical during the COVID-19 pandemic and complicated by the need to establish or maintain lines of communication between researchers and decision-makers virtually. Our recent pan-Canadian research study on the mental health and substance use health (MHSUH) workforce during the pandemic identified key policy barriers impacting this essential workforce. To bridge the evidence–policy gap in addressing these barriers, we held a facilitated virtual policy dialogue. This paper discusses the insights generated at this virtual policy dialogue and highlights how this integrated knowledge mobilization strategy can help drive evidence-based policy in an increasingly digital world. Methods We held a 3-hour virtual policy dialogue with 46 stakeholders and policy decision-makers as the final phase in our year-long mixed-methods research study. The event was part of our integrated knowledge mobilization strategy and was designed to generate stakeholder-driven policy implications and priority actions based on our research findings. The data collected from the virtual policy dialogue included transcripts from the small-group breakout rooms and main sessions, reflective field notes and the final report from the external facilitator. Coded data were thematically analysed to inform our understanding of the prioritization of the policy implications and action items. Results Facilitated virtual policy dialogues generate rich qualitative insights that guide community-informed knowledge mobilization strategies and promote evidence-informed policy. Our policy dialogue identified actionable policy recommendations with equity as a cross-cutting theme. Adapting policy dialogues to virtual formats and including technology-assisted facilitation can offer advantages for equitable stakeholder participation, allow for deeper analysis and help build consensus regarding evidence-based policy priorities. Conclusions Our facilitated virtual policy dialogue was a key knowledge mobilization strategy for our research on the capacity of the Canadian MHSUH workforce to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. Our policy dialogue allowed us to engage a diverse group of MHSUH workforce stakeholders in a meaningful action-oriented way, provided an avenue to get feedback on our research findings, and generated prioritized action items that incorporated the knowledge and experience of these MHSUH workforce stakeholders.

Abstract Background While calls for institutionalization of evidence-informed policy-making (EIP) have become stronger in recent years, there is a paucity of methods that governments and organizational knowledge brokers can use to sustain and integrate EIP as part of mainstream health policy-making. The objective of this paper was to conduct a knowledge synthesis of the published and grey literatures to develop a theoretical framework with the key features of EIP institutionalization. Methods We applied a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) that allowed for a systematic, yet iterative and dynamic analysis of heterogeneous bodies of literature to develop an explanatory framework for EIP institutionalization. We used a “compass” question to create a detailed search strategy and conducted electronic searches to identify papers based on their potential relevance to EIP institutionalization. Papers were screened and extracted independently and in duplicate. A constant comparative method was applied to develop a framework on EIP institutionalization. The CIS was triangulated with the findings of stakeholder dialogues that involved civil servants, policy-makers and researchers. Results We identified 3001 references, of which 88 papers met our eligibility criteria. This CIS resulted in a definition of EIP institutionalization as the “process and outcome of (re-)creating, maintaining and reinforcing norms, regulations, and standard practices that, based on collective meaning and values, actions as well as endowment of resources, allow evidence to become—over time—a legitimate and taken-for-granted part of health policy-making”. The resulting theoretical framework comprised six key domains of EIP institutionalization that capture both structure and agency: (1) governance; (2) standards and routinized processes; (3) partnership, collective action and support; (4) leadership and commitment; (5) resources; and (6) culture. Furthermore, EIP institutionalization is being achieved through five overlapping stages: (i) precipitating events; (ii) de-institutionalization; (iii) semi-institutionalization (comprising theorization and diffusion); (iv) (re)-institutionalization; and (v) renewed de-institutionalization processes. Conclusions This CIS advances the theoretical and conceptual discussions on EIP institutionalization, and provides new insights into an evidence-informed framework for initiating, strengthening and/or assessing efforts to institutionalize EIP.

Ann Oakley, pioneering social researcher for nearly 60 years, is Professor of Sociology and Social Policy at IOE (Institute of Education), UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society (University College London, UK). This article explores the innovation and influence of her work and the work of her close colleagues at the Social Science Research Unit (SSRU) and its Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Coordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre). It describes advances in research and knowledge that have their roots in listening to what women have to say about their lives. The resulting novel research methods have straddled academic boundaries – between qualitative and quantitative methodologies, between disciplines, and between academia and wider society – to enhance understanding of complex social issues and approaches to addressing them within the public sector. The impact of this work is seen in terms of influencing science, knowledge management, policy decisions, professional practice and the general public. These achievements come from approaches that are outward looking and straddle academic disciplines to produce evidence that is relevant to policymaking and to practice, with the ultimate aim being to improve day-to-day life.

Objective. To present and assess evidence from Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) on public policies and targeted programs which may have influenced variations in adolescent pregnancy or its proximate determinants, and to identify knowledge gaps that require further research. Methods. A systematic review was performed based on the 2015 PRISMA protocol. Five databases were searched for articles published between 2000 and 2019 that refer to at least one country in LAC. The outcomes of interest were adolescent pregnancy or its proximate determinants (sexual behavior, contraceptive use, and/or abortion). Only studies exploring correlations between the outcomes of interest and public policies or targeted programs were included in the analysis. Results. Thirty studies spanning 14 countries were selected for analysis. Twenty-three of these (77%) were not included in prior systematic reviews on adolescent pregnancy. Public policies related to conditional cash transfers and compulsory education have the strongest evidence of correlation with adolescent pregnancy prevention. Emerging research points to the potential positive impact of life-skills programs for adolescents. Evidence from public health policies and programs was limited. Conclusions. Further research which incorporates an intersectional analysis is needed to better understand which policies and programs could lead to steeper declines in adolescent pregnancy in the region. Evidence on effects of expanded family planning services and secondary school attainment upon adolescent pregnancy are particularly absent.