Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26416368›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2015

Evidence based policy making and the 'art' of commissioning - how English healthcare commissioners access and use information and academic research in 'real life' decision-making: an empirical qualitative study.

Lesley Wye, Emer Brangan, Ailsa Cameron, John Gabbay, Jonathan H Klein, Catherine Pope

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. A win-win scenario? Restrictive policies from alternative standpoints.Journal of health organization and management · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Lesley WyeResearch Fellow, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, BS8 2PS, Bristol, UK. Lesley.wye@bristol.ac.uk.
Emer BranganSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. e.brangan@bristol.ac.uk.
Ailsa CameronSchool of Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. a.cameron@bristol.ac.uk.
John GabbayWessex Institute for Health Research and Development, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. j.gabbay@soton.ac.uk.
Jonathan H KleinSouthampton Business School, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. j.h.klein@soton.ac.uk.
Catherine PopeFaculty of Health Sciences, Southampton, UK. c.j.pope@soton.ac.uk.

Funding

Department of Health 09/1002/09Department of Health KMRF-2013-02-05
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPolicymakers such as English healthcare commissioners are encouraged to adopt 'evidence-based policy-making', with 'evidence' defined by researchers as academic research. To learn how academic research can influence policy, researchers need to know more about commissioning, commissioners' information seeking behaviour and the role of research in their decisions.

methodsIn case studies of four commissioning organisations, we interviewed 52 people including clinical and managerial commissioners, observed 14 commissioning meetings and collected documentation e.g. meeting minutes and reports. Using constant comparison, data were coded, summarised and analysed to facilitate cross case comparison.

resultsThe 'art of commissioning' entails juggling competing agendas, priorities, power relationships, demands and personal inclinations to build a persuasive, compelling case. Policymakers sought information to identify options, navigate ways through, justify decisions and convince others to approve and/or follow the suggested course. 'Evidence-based policy-making' usually meant pragmatic selection of 'evidence' such as best practice guidance, clinicians' and users' views of services and innovations from elsewhere. Inconclusive or negative research was unhelpful in developing policymaking plans and did not inform disinvestment decisions. Information was exchanged through conversations and stories, which were fast, flexible and suited the rapidly changing world of policymaking. Local data often trumped national or research-based evidence. Local evaluations were more useful than academic research. DISCUSSION: Commissioners are highly pragmatic and will only use information that helps them create a compelling case for action.Therefore, researchers need to start producing more useful information.

conclusionsTo influence policymakers' decisions, researchers need to 1) learn more about local policymakers' priorities 2) develop relationships of mutual benefit 3) use verbal instead of writtencommunication 4) work with intermediaries such as public health consultants and 5) co-produce local evaluations.

Indexed as

Access to InformationContract ServicesDecision MakingEvidence-Based MedicinePolicy MakingResearchConsultantsDelivery of Health CareHumansInterviews as TopicOrganizationsQualitative ResearchUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID26416368
PMCPMC4587739

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.