Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 193

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

“Developing Good Taste in Evidence”: Facilitators of and Hindrances to Evidence‐Informed Health Policymaking in State Government

Open access
JEWELL, CHRISTOPHER J., BERO, LISA A.·2008·The Milbank Quarterly

Abstract

Context: Policymaking is a highly complex process that is often difficult to predict or influence. Most of the scholarship examining the role of research evidence in policymaking has focused narrowly on characteristics of the evidence and the interactions between scientists and government officials. The real‐life context in which policymakers are situated and make decisions also is crucial to the development of evidence‐informed policy. Methods: This qualitative study expands on other studies of research utilization at the state level through interviews with twenty‐eight state legislators and administrators about their real‐life experiences incorporating evidence into policymaking. The interviews were coded inductively into the following categories: (1) the important or controversial issue or problem being addressed, (2) the information that was used, (3) facilitators, and (4) hindrances. Findings: Hindrances to evidence‐informed policymaking included institutional features; characteristics of the evidence supply, such as research quantity, quality, accessibility, and usability; and competing sources of influence, such as interest groups. The policymakers identified a number of facilitators to the use of evidence, including linking research to concrete impacts, costs, and benefits; reframing policy issues to fit the research; training to use evidence‐based skills; and developing research venues and collaborative relationships in order to generate relevant evidence. Conclusions: Certain hindrances to the incorporation of research into policy, like limited budgets, are systemic and not readily altered. However, some of the barriers and facilitators of evidence‐informed health policymaking are amenable to change. Policymakers could benefit from evidence‐based skills training to help them identify and evaluate high‐quality information. Researchers and policymakers thus could collaborate to develop networks for generating and sharing relevant evidence for policy.

Overview

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/j.1468-0009.2008.00519.x

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 193

Metadata

Authors
JEWELL, C. J., & BERO, L. A.
Venue
The Milbank Quarterly
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-06
Volume
86
Issue
2
Pages
177-208
ISSN
  • 0887-378X (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-0009
OpenAlex
W1971123156
Cited by
193
References
4
FWCI
21.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: “Developing Good Taste in Evidence”: Facilitators of and Hindrances to Evidence‐Informed Health Policymaking in State Government. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2008.00519.x
The paper
JEWELL, C. J., & BERO, L. A. (2008). “Developing Good Taste in Evidence”: Facilitators of and Hindrances to Evidence‐Informed Health Policymaking in State Government. The Milbank Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2008.00519.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.