CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 79Evaluation and Performance AssessmentHealth Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and Education

Three lessons from evidence-based medicine and policy: increase transparency, balance inputs and understand power

Open access
Oliver, Kathryn, Pearce, Warren·2017·Palgrave Communications
DOI 10.1057/s41599-017-0045-9
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Evidence-based medicine is often described as the ‘template’ for evidence-based policymaking. EBM has evolved over the last 70 years, and now tends to be methodologically pluralistic, operates through specific structures to promote EBM, and is inclusive of a wide range of stakeholders. These strategies allow EBM practitioners to effectively draw on useful evidence, be transparent, and be inclusive; essentially, to share power. We identify three lessons EBP could learn from EBM. Firstly, to be more transparent about the processes and structures used to find and use evidence. Secondly, to consider how to balance evidence and other interests, and how to assemble the evidence jigsaw . Finally–and this is a lesson for EBM too–that understanding power is vital, and how it shapes how knowledge is produced and used. We suggest that advocates of evidence use, and commentators, should focus on thinking about how the type of problem faced by decision-makers should influence what evidence is produced, sought, and used.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1057/s41599-017-0045-9

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Arguments from experience and expert-led judgment come a poor second to statistical rigour and data-driven conclusions.

    “As the evidence revolution in medicine has made clear, arguments from experience and expert-led judgment—however well-intentioned they may be—come a poor second to statistical rigour and data-driven conclusions [16].”

    From Five studies evaluating the impact on mental health and mood of recalling, reading, and discussing fiction (2022) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Introduction (page not supplied) calls the idea that research evidence should overrule clinical experience a caricature. It says clinical and lay experience are vital components of decision-making alongside research evidence, rather than a poor second to it. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 92

  1. Ansari MT, Tsertsvadze A, Moher D (2009) Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations: a perspective. PLoS Med https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000151 · DOI
  2. Armstrong R et al. (2013) Knowledge translation strategies to improve the use of evidence in public health decision making in local government: intervention design and implementation plan. IS 8:121. http://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908- 8-121 · DOI
  3. Bang H (2009) Political community: the blind spot of modern democratic decision- making. Br Polit 4(1):100-116. https://doi.org/10.1057/bp.2008. · DOI
  4. Baron J (2009) Randomized trials: a way to stop 'spinning wheels'? Education Week 29(03):32
  5. Beresford P (2000) Service users' knowledges and social work theory: conflict or collaboration? Br J Social Work 30(4):489-503. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/ 30.4.489 · DOI
  6. Boaz A, Baeza J, Fraser A (2011) Effective implementation of research into practice: an overview of systematic reviews of the health literature. BMC Res Notes 4:212. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-4-212 · DOI
  7. Boote J, Baird W, Beecroft C (2010) Public involvement at the design stage of primary health research: A narrative review of case examples. Health Policy 95(1):10-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.11.007 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Boote J, Telford R, Cooper C (2002) Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda. Health Policy 61(2):213-236. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0168-8510(01)00214-7 · DOI
  9. Boswell J (2014) 'Hoisted with our own petard': evidence and democratic delib- eration on obesity. Policy Sci 47(4):345-365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077- 014-9195-4 · DOI
  10. Boswell J (2017) What makes evidence-based policy making such a useful myth? The case of NICE guidance on bariatric surgery in the United Kingdom. Governance. Online First: 26 April 2017, https://doi.org/10.1111/ gove.12285 · DOI
  11. Brennan J (2016) Against democracy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA
  12. Brown MB (2015) Politicizing science: conceptions of politics in science and technology studies. Social Stud Sci 45(1):3-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0306312714556694 · DOI
  13. Burgess MM (2014) From 'trust us' to participatory governance: deliberative publics and science policy. Public Underst Sci 23(1):48-52. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0963662512472160 · DOI
  14. Cairney P (2012) Understanding public policy. Theories and issues. https://doi.org/ JK468 P64 D95 2013
  15. Cairney P (2017) Evidence-based best practice is more political than it looks: a case study of the 'Scottish Approach'. Evidence and Policy 13(3):9-10. https://doi. org/10.1332/174426416X14609261565901 · DOI
  16. Cairney P, Oliver K (2017) Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy? Health Res Policy Syst 15(1):35
  17. Cartwright N (2007) Are RCTs the gold standard? BioSocieties 2(1):11-20.
  18. Cochrane AL (1972) Effectiveness and efficiency: random reflections on health services. The Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust. https://doi.org/10.1136/ bmj.328.7438.529 · DOI
  19. Davies JS (2009) The limits of joined-up government: towards a political analysis. Public Adm 87(1):80-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2008.01740.x · DOI
  20. Dobbins M, Hanna SE, Ciliska D, Manske S, Cameron R, Mercer SLSL, Robeson P (2009) A randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of knowledge translation and exchange strategies. Implement Sci 4(61):1-16. https://doi. org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-61 · DOI
  21. Dobrow MJ, Goel V, Upshur REG (2004) Evidence-based health policy: context and utilisation. Soc Sci Med 58(1):207-217
  22. Dryzek JS, Tucker A (2008) Deliberative innovation to different effect: consensus conferences in Denmark, France, and the United States. Public Adm Rev 68 (5):864-876. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00928.x · DOI
  23. Epstein D, Farina C, Heidt J (2014) The value of words: narrative as evidence in policy making. Evid Policy 10(2):243-258. https://doi.org/10.1332/ 174426514X13990325021128 · DOI
  24. Ettelt S, Mays N (2011) Health services research in Europe and its use for informing policy. J Health Serv Res Policy 16 Suppl 2:48-60 https://doi.org/ 10.1258/jhsrp.2011.011004 · DOI
  25. Ettelt S, Mays N, Allen P (2015) Policy experiments: investigating effectiveness or confirming direction? Evaluation 21(3):292-307. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1356389015590737 · DOI
  26. Fafard P (2015) Beyond the usual suspects: using political science to enhance public health policy making. J Epidemiol Community Health 69:1129-1132. http://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2014-204608 · DOI
  27. Flinders M, Dommett K (2013) Gap analysis: participatory democracy, public expectations and community assemblies in Sheffield. Local Gov Stud 39 (4):488-513. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2012.751023 · DOI
  28. Freiberg A, Carson WG (2010) The limits to evidence-based policy: evidence, emotion and criminal justice. Aust J Public Adm 69(2):152-164. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2010.00674.x · DOI
  29. Freudenberg N, Tsui E (2013) Evidence, power, and policy change in community- based participatory research. Am J Public Health 104(1):11-14. https://doi. org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301471 · DOI
  30. Gold M (2009) Pathways to the use of health services research in policy. Health Serv Res 44(4):1111-1136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2009.00958.x · DOI
  31. Greenhalgh T, Howick J, Maskrey N (2014) Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis? BMJ 348:g3725. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g3725 · DOI
  32. Greenhalgh T, Hurwitz B (1999) Narrative based medicine: why study narrative? BMJ 318(7175):48-50. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7175. · DOI · Paper page
  33. Green J, Thorogood N (2009) Qualitative methods for health research. Introducing qualitative methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305285708 · DOI
  34. Grundmann R (2017) The problem of expertise in knowledge societies. Minerva. 55 (1):25-48
  35. Grundmann R, Stehr N (2012) The power of scientific knowledge: from research to public policy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
  36. Haas PM (1992) Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination. Int Organ 46(1):1-35
  37. Hammersley M (2007) The issue of quality in qualitative research. Int J Res Method Educ 30(3):287-305. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437270701614782 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Hartley S, Pearce W, Taylor A (2017) Against the tide of depoliticisation: the politics of research governance. Policy Polit 45(3):361-377. https://doi.org/ 10.1332/030557316X14681503832036 · DOI
  39. Hawkins B, Parkhurst J (2015) The 'good governance' of evidence in health policy. Evid Policy 12(4):575-592. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426415X144300 58455412 · DOI
  40. Haynes L, Service O, Goldacre B, Torgerson D (2012) Test, learn, adapt: developing public policy with randomised controlled trials. cabinet office-behavioural. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2131581 · DOI
  41. Head BW (2008) Three lenses of evidence-based policy. Aust J Public Adm 67 (1):1-11
  42. Head BW (2010) Reconsidering evidence-based policy: key issues and challenges. Policy Soc 29(2):77-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.03.001 · DOI
  43. Hendriks CM (2009) Deliberative governance in the context of power. Policy Soc 28(3):173-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2009.08.004 · DOI
  44. Horst M, Irwin A (2010) Nations at ease with radical knowledge: on consensus, consensusing and false consensusness. Social Stud Sci 40(1):105-126. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0306312709341500 · DOI
  45. Ingold K, Varone F (2012) Treating policy brokers seriously: evidence from the climate policy. J Public Adm Res Theory 22(2):319-346. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/jopart/mur035 · DOI
  46. Innvaer S, Vist G, Trommald M, Oxman A (2002) Health policy-makers' per- ceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review-innvaer systematic review.pdf. J Health Serv Res & Policy 7(4):239-44. https://doi.org/10.1258/ 135581902320432778 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Kuntz M (2012) The postmodern assault on science. EMBO Rep 13(10):885-889
  48. Kuntz M (2016) Scientists should oppose the drive of postmodern ideology. Trends Biotechnol 34(12):943-945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2016.08.008 · DOI
  49. Lin V (2003) Competing rationalities: evidence-based health policy? in: Lin V, Gibson B (eds) Evidence-based health policy: Problems & Possibilities. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 3-17
  50. Liverani M, Hawkins B, Parkhurst JO (2013) Political and institutional influences on the use of evidence in public health policy. A systematic review. PloS One 8(10):e77404. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077404 · DOI
  51. Marmot MG (2004) Evidence based policy or policy based evidence? BMJ 328:906-907. https://doi.org/doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7445.906 · DOI
  52. McCluskey MR, Deshpande S, Shah DV, McLeod DM (2004) The efficacy gap and political participation: when political influence fails to meet expectations. Int J Public Opin Res 16(4):437-455. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edh038 · DOI
  53. Montori VM, Guyatt GH (2008) Progress in evidence-based medicine. Jama 300 (15):1814-1816
  54. Murphy K, Fafard P (2012) Taking power, politics, and policy problems seriously. J Urban Health 89(4):723-732
  55. Oakley A (2000) A historical perspective on the use of randomized trials in social science settings. Crime Delinquency 46(3):315-329. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0011128700046003004 · DOI
  56. Oliver K, de Vocht F (2017) Defining 'evidence' in public health: a survey of policymakers' uses and preferences. Eur J Public Health ckv082. 27(2): 112-117
  57. Oliver K, Everett M, Verma A, de Vocht F (2012) The human factor: re- organisations in public health policy. Health Policy 106(1):97-103
  58. Oliver K, Innvaer S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J (2013) Barriers and facil- itators of the use of evidence by policy makers: an updated systematic review. manchester.ac.uk.
  59. Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J (2014) A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res 14(1):2.
  60. Oliver K, Lorenc T (2014) New directions in evidence-based policy research: a critical analysis of the literature. Health Res Policy Syst 12(14):34
  61. Oliver S (2006) Patient involvement in setting research agendas. Eur J Gastro- enterol Hepatol 18(9):935-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.meg.0000230089. 68545. · DOI
  62. Oliver S, Bagnall A-M, Thomas J, Shepherd J, Sowden A, White I, Oliver K (2010) Randomised controlled trials for policy interventions: a review of reviews and meta-regression. Health Technol Assess Monogr 14(16):3-165
  63. Orton L, Lloyd-Williams F, Taylor-Robinson, D, O'Flaherty M, Capewell S (2011) The use of research evidence in public health decision making processes: systemic review. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021704 · DOI
  64. Pallett H (2015) Public participation organizations and open policy: a constitu- tional moment for British democracy? Sci Commun 37(6):769-794. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1075547015612787 · DOI
  65. Parkhurst JO (2017a) Mitigating evidentiary bias in planning and policy-making; comment on 'reflective practice: how the world bank explored its own bia- ses?'. Int J Health Policy Manag 6(2):103-105. https://doi.org/10.15171/ ijhpm.2016.96 · DOI
  66. Parkhurst JO (2017b) The politics of evidence: from evidence-based policy to the good governance of evidence. Routledge, New York, NY, Abingdon, Oxon
  67. Parkhurst JO, Abeysinghe S (2016) What constitutes 'good' evidence for public health and social policy-making? From hierarchies to appropriateness. Soc Epistemol 30(5-6):665-679. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2016.1172365 · DOI
  68. Parsons W (2001) Modernising policy-making for the twenty first century: the professional model. Public Policy Adm 16(3):93-110
  69. Parsons W (2002) From muddling through to muddling up-evidence based policy making and the modernisation of British government. Public Policy Adm 17 (3):43-60. https://doi.org/10.1177/095207670201700304 · DOI
  70. Pawson R (2002) Evidence-based policy: the promise of 'realist synthesis'. Eva- luation 8(3):340-358. https://doi.org/10.1177/135638902401462448 · DOI · Paper page
  71. Pearce W (2014) Scientific data and its limits: rethinking the use of evidence in local climate change policy. Evid Policy 10(2):187-203. https://doi.org/ 10.1332/174426514X13990326347801 · DOI
  72. Pearce W, Grundmann R, Hulme M, Raman S, Kershaw EH, Tsouvalis J (2017) Beyond counting climate consensus. Environ Commun 0(0):1-8. https://doi. org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1333965 · DOI
  73. Pearce W, Raman S (2014) The new randomised controlled trials (RCT) movement in public policy: challenges of epistemic governance. Policy Sci 47 (4):387-402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-014-9208-3 · DOI
  74. Pearce W, Raman S, Turner A (2015) Randomised trials in context: practical problems and social aspects of evidence-based medicine and policy. Trials 16 (1):394. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0917-5 · DOI
  75. Petticrew M, Roberts H (2003) Evidence, hierarchies, and typologies: horses for courses. J Epidemiol Community Health 57(7):527-529. https://doi.org/ 10.1136/jech.57.7.527 · DOI · Paper page
  76. Pope C, Mays N (1993) Opening the black box: an encounter in the corridors of health services research. Br Med J 306(6873):315-318. https://doi.org/ 10.1136/bmj.306.6873.315 · DOI
  77. Rhodes RAW, Marsh D (1992) New directions in the study of policy networks. Eur J Political Res 21(1-2):181-205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.1992. tb00294.x · DOI
  78. Russell J, Greenhalgh T, Byrne E, McDonnell J (2008) Recognizing rhetoric in health care policy analysis. J Health Serv Res Policy 13(1):40-6. https://doi. org/10.1258/jhsrp.2007.006029 · DOI
  79. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, Haynes RB, Richardson WS (1996) Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 312(7023):71-72. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71 · DOI · Paper page
  80. Sarewitz D (2009) The rightful place of science. Issues Sci Technol 25(4):89-94
  81. Smith K (2013a) Beyond evidence based policy in public health: The interplay of ideas. Springer, UK
  82. Smith K (2013b) Institutional filters: the translation and re-circulation of ideas about health inequalities within policy. Policy Polit 41(1):81-100. https://doi. org/10.1332/030557312X655413 · DOI
  83. Smith KE (2014) The politics of ideas: the complex interplay of health inequalities research and policy. Sci Public Policy 41(5):561-574. https://doi.org/10.1093/ scipol/sct085 · DOI
  84. Stewart RJ, Caird J, Oliver K, Oliver S (2011) Patients' and clinicians' research priorities. Health Expectations 14(4):439-448
  85. van Eeten MJG (1999) 'Dialogues of the deaf' on science in policy controversies. Sci Public Policy 26(3):185-192. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154399781782491 · DOI
  86. van Hulst M, Yanow D (2014) From policy 'frames' to 'framing' theorizing a more dynamic, political approach. Am Rev Public Adm 46(1):92-112. https://doi. org/10.1177/0275074014533142 · DOI
  87. Ward V (2017) Why, whose, what and how? A framework for knowledge mobi- lisers. Evidence Policy 13(3):477-497 https://doi.org/10.1332/174426416 · DOI
  88. X146347632787 · DOI
  89. Weiss CH (1979) The many meanings of research utilization. Public Adm Rev 39 (5):426. https://doi.org/10.2307/3109916 · DOI
  90. Weiss CH (1991) Policy research as advocacy: pro and con. Knowl Policy 4 (1):37-55
  91. Wesselink A, Colebatch H, Pearce W (2014) Evidence and policy: discourses, meanings and practices. Policy Sci 47(4):339-344. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11077-014-9209-2 · DOI
  92. Wynne B (1992) Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science. Public Underst Sci 1(3):281-304. https://doi.org/10.1088/ 0963-6625/1/3/004 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Oliver, K., & Pearce, W.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
Corresponding author
Pearce, Warren
ORCID
Venue
Palgrave Communications
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2017-12-12
Volume
3
Issue
1
ISSN
2055-1045 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1057/s41599-017-0045-9
OpenAlex
W2774681559
Cited by
79
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7
FWCI
7.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Humanities and Social Sciences Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
evidence-based medicine, evidence-based policy, transparency, power relations, stakeholder inclusion, evidence use, evidence generation, decision-making, methodological pluralism, health policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review