Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36707839›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2023

An ethical analysis of policy dialogues.

Polly Mitchell, Marge Reinap, Kaelan Moat, Tanja Kuchenmüller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors.

Polly MitchellCentre for Public Policy Research, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. polly.mitchell@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7680-0264
Marge ReinapWorld Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Kaelan MoatMcMaster Health Forum, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Tanja KuchenmüllerWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 221503/Z/20/ZWorld Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA 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.

methodsWe conduct a philosophical conceptual analysis of policy dialogues, informed by a formal and an interpretative literature review.

resultsWe 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.

conclusionsPolicy 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.

Indexed as

Health PolicyPolicy MakingEthical AnalysisHumansProspective StudiesDeliberationEthicsEvidence-informed policyKnowledge translationPolicy dialogueProcedural valuesPublic healthSubstantive values

Identifiers

PMID36707839
PMCPMC9881302

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.