4.4 Article

Determinants of evidence use in public health policy making: Results from a study across six EU countries

期刊

HEALTH POLICY
卷 121, 期 3, 页码 273-281

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.01.003

关键词

Policy development process; Evidence-informed policy; Public health policy; Barriers and facilitators; Semi-structured interviews; Individual and social factors; Policy context; Structural collaboration between; researchers and policy makers

资金

  1. European Union Seventh Framework Program (FP7) [281532]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The knowledge-practice gap in public health is widely known. The importance of using different types of evidence for the development of effective health promotion has also been emphasized. Nevertheless, in practice, intervention decisions are often based on perceived short-term opportunities, lacking the most effective approaches, thus limiting the impact of health promotion strategies. This article focuses on facilitators and barriers in the use of evidence in developing health enhancing physical activity policies. Data was collected in 2012 by interviewing 86 key stakeholders from six EU countries (FI, DK, UK, NL, IT, RO) using a common topic guide. Content analysis and concept mapping was used to construct a map of facilitators and barriers. Barriers and facilitators experienced by most stakeholders and policy context in each country are analysed. A lack of locally useful and concrete evidence, evidence on costs, and a lack of joint understanding were specific hindrances. Also users' characteristics and the role media play were identified as factors of influence. Attention for individual and social factors within the policy context might provide the key to enhance more sustainable evidence use. Developing and evaluating tailored approaches impacting on networking, personal relationships, collaboration and evidence coproduction is recommended. (C) 2017 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据