ArticleHealth research policy and systems2016
Evidence-based medicine - an appropriate tool for evidence-based health policy? A case study from Norway.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of Arts and Psychomotor Therapies in Personality Disorders. Developing a Treatment Guideline Based on a Systematic Review Using GRADE.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Pooled it
- What is context in knowledge translation? Results of a systematic scoping review.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- A landscape assessment of the activities and capacities of evidence-to-policy intermediaries (EPI) in behavioral health.Implementation science communications · 2023Article
- Knowledge, attitude, and practice of evidence-based medicine among resident physicians in hospitals of Syria: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- Evidence in decision-making in the context of COVID-19 in Latin America.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2022Article
- Value-Based Care for Musculoskeletal Pain: Are Physical Therapists Ready to Deliver?Physical therapy · 2020Article
- Exploring the solutions to the inherent perils of (the multitude of) guidelines - a focus group study of stakeholders' perceptions.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Subjective judgements - no more, no less? A response to Malterud, Bjelland and Elvbakken.Health research policy and systems · 2018Article
- Systematic reviews for policy-making - critical reflections are needed.Health research policy and systems · 2018Article
- Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews?European journal of clinical investigation · 2018Article
- What do guidelines and systematic reviews tell us about the management of medically unexplained symptoms in primary care?BJGP open · 2017Article
- Systematic Reviews for Policymaking: Muddling Through.American journal of public health · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvidence-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.
methodsIn 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.
resultsFrom 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.
conclusionsThe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.