CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 402Health Policy Implementation ScienceSocial Science and Policy ResearchEvaluation and Performance Assessment

Examining the Role of Health Services Research in Public Policymaking

Open access
Lavis, John N., Ross, Suzanne E., Hurley, Jeremiah E.·2002·The Milbank Quarterly
DOI 10.1111/1468-0009.00005PMC PMC2690103
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Conceptual, methodological, and practical issues await those who seek to understand how to make better use of health services research in developing public policy. Some policies and some policymaking processes may lend themselves particularly well to being informed by research. Different conclusions about the extent to which policymaking is informed by research may arise from different views about what constitutes health services research (is it citable research or any professional social inquiry that can aid in problem solving?) or different views about what constitutes research use (is it explicit uses of research only, or does it also include tacit knowledge or the positions of stakeholders when they are informed by research and are influential in the policymaking process?). Some conditions may favor the use of research in policymaking, like sustained interactions between researchers and policymakers. Results from an exploratory study on the use of health services research by Canadian provincial policymakers illustrate these issues.

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 · 10.1111/1468-0009.00005

Cites

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?

  • Decision-making research has demonstrated that a decision maker's utility is highly subjective and may include variables, such as personal gain, risk tolerance, relevance to related events, and value of a decision to the organization.

    “Decision-making research has demonstrated that a decision maker's utility is highly subjective and may include variables, such as personal gain, risk tolerance, relevance to related events, and value of a decision to the organization [22,28,44,46,47,54].”

    From Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers (2010) · cites this paper as [22]

    In “Finding Patterns in When Research is Used and Not Used” (page unavailable), the paper identifies policymakers’ values and interests, including perceptions of who benefits or is harmed, as influences on policy decisions. “What Conditions We Found That Appear to Favor Research Use” also describes policy legacies and the credibility of another initiative as influences. The copy does not characterize these influences as a decision maker’s subjective utility or identify risk tolerance among its variables. (LLM, conf=0.79)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Policy makers in healthcare have been found to incorporate their self-interests (their personal utility) when prioritizing and developing policy.

    “Furthermore, policy makers in healthcare have been found to incorporate their self-interests (their personal utility) when prioritizing and developing policy [22].”

    From Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers (2010) · cites this paper as [22]

    In “What Conditions We Found That Appear to Favor Research Use” (page unavailable), the paper says policymakers’ interests often influenced prioritization. Its summary in “Additional information” (page unavailable) also identifies legislators’ and policy advisers’ interests as a major influence in one of eight policy-development cases. But the paper describes policy objectives and government interests, not policymakers’ personal utility; it also says stakeholders’ interests more often drove development. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Health policy outcomes may actually be, to a varying extent, subjectively derived despite the positive intent of EBDM.

    “Therefore, despite the positive intent of EBDM, health policy outcomes may actually be, to a varying extent, subjectively derived [22,23,33,40,45,61].”

    From Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers (2010) · cites this paper as [22]

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. Arnold, R.D. 1990. The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
  2. Beyer, J.M., and H.M. Trice. 1982. The Utilization Process: A Concep- tual Framework and Synthesis of Empirical Findings. Administrative Science Quarterly 27:591-622.
  3. Buxton, M., and S. Hanney. 1996. How Can Payback from Health Services Research Be Assessed? Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 1:35-43.
  4. Cohen, M.D., J.G. March, and J.P. Olsen. 1972. A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice. Administrative Science Quarterly 17:1-25.
  5. Dubnick, M.J., and B.A. Bardes. 1983. Thinking about Public Policy: A Problem-Solving Approach. New York: Wiley.
  6. Ginzberg, E. 1991. Health Services Research and Health Policy. In Health Services Research: Key to Health Policy, ed. E. Ginzberg, 1-19. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
  7. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
  8. Hall, P.A. 1993. Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain. Comparative Pol- itics 25(3):275-96.
  9. Hall, P.A. 1996. Politics and Markets in the Industrialized Nations: Interests, Institutions and Ideas in Comparative Political Eco- nomy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, Center for European Studies. Health Canada. 1997. Canada's Health System. Ottawa: Health Canada, Policy and Consultation Branch.
  10. Heclo, H. 1974. Social Policy and Political Learning. In Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden: From Relief to Income Maintenance, ed. H. Heclo, 284-322. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
  11. Klein, R. 1997. Learning from Others: Shall the Last Be the First? Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 22:1267-78.
  12. Lindblom, C.E. 1959. The Science of "Muddling Through." Public Administration Review 19:79-88.
  13. Lindblom, C.E., and D.K. Cohen. 1979. Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
  14. Lomas, J. 1990. Finding Audiences, Changing Beliefs: The Structure of Research Use in Canadian Health Policy. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 15:525-42.
  15. Lomas, J., J. Woods, and G. Veenstra. 1997. Devolving Authority for Health Care in Canada's Provinces: 1. An Introduction to the Issues. Canadian Medical Association Journal 156:371-77.
  16. Mintzberg, H., D. Raisinghani, and A. Theoret. 1976. The Structure of "Unstructured" Decision Processes. Administrative Science Quarterly 21:246-75.
  17. National Forum on Health. 1998. Canada Health Action: Building on the Legacy. Vol. 5, Making Decisions: Evidence and Information. Sainte-Foy, Quebec: Éditions MultiMondes.
  18. Pelz, D.C. 1978. Some Expanded Perspectives on Use of Social Science in Public Policy. In Major Social Issues: A Multidisciplinary View, eds. J.M. Yinger and S.J. Cutler, 346-57. New York: Free Press.
  19. Peterson, M.A. 1997. The Limits of Social Learning: Translating Analysis into Action. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 22:1077-114.
  20. Rich, R.F. 1979. The Pursuit of Knowledge. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 1(1):6-30.
  21. Rich, R.F. 1991. Knowledge Creation, Diffusion, and Utilization: Perspectives of the Founding Editor of Knowledge. Knowledge and Policy: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization 12:319-37.
  22. Shulock, N. 1999. The Paradox of Policy Analysis: If It Is Not Used, Why Do We Produce So Much of It? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 18:226-44.
  23. Soumerai, S.B., D. Ross-Degnan, E.E. Fortress, and B.L. Walser. 1997. Determinants of Change in Medicaid Pharmaceutical Cost Sharing: Does Evidence Affect Policy? Milbank Quarterly 7:511-34.
  24. Weiss, C.H. 1979. The Many Meanings of Research Utilization. Public Administration Review 39:426-31.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lavis, J. N., Ross, S. E., & Hurley, J. E.
Affiliations
  • Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CA)
  • Milbank Memorial Fund (US)
Corresponding author
Lavis, John N.
ORCID
Venue
The Milbank Quarterly
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-03
Volume
80
Issue
1
Pages
125-154
ISSN
  • 0887-378X (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-0009
DOI
10.1111/1468-0009.00005
PMC
PMC2690103
OpenAlex
W2166227248
Cited by
402
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 22
FWCI
40.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 164 d)
Locations
  • Milbank Quarterly (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Canadian Institute for Advanced Research
  • Canadian Health Services Research Foundation
  • McMaster University
  • Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Social Science and Policy Research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
Keywords
health services research, research use in policy, evidence-informed policy, research utilization, tacit knowledge, stakeholder influence, provincial health policy, Canadian provinces
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Organizational, Health Policy, Health Services Research, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Ontario, Policy Making, Public Health Administration, Sampling Studies, Saskatchewan, Evidence-Based Medicine, Advisory Committees

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