The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Evidence based policy: proceed with careCommentary: research must be taken seriously
Open accessAbstract
# Evidence based policy: proceed with care {#article-title-2} The emergence of evidence based medicine in the early 1990s led to some clinicians challenging managers and policymakers to be equally evidence based in their policymaking. This demand was shared by some health policy analysts: “At a time when ministers are arguing that medicine should be evidence-based, is it not reasonable to suggest that this should also apply to health policy? If doctors are expected to base their decisions on the findings of research surely politicians should do the same … the case for evidence-based policymaking is difficult to refute.”1 The need to be seen to be making evidence based decisions has permeated all areas of British public policy. The government has proclaimed the need for evidence based policing, and the 1998 strategic defence review introduced evidence based defence.2 In the health sector, the concept of evidence based policy has gained ground, and a journal has been launched devoted to this challenge ( Journal of Evidence Based Health Policy and Management). Despite some groups using evidence based policy as a fig leaf, it seems difficult to argue with the idea that scientific research should drive policy. However, before accepting the argument we need to understand the implied model of policymaking. #### Summary points Evidence based policy is being encouraged in all areas of public service, including health care Research currently has little direct influence on health services policy or governance policies The implicit assumption of a linear relation between research evidence and policy needs to be replaced with a more interactive model Researchers need a better understanding of the policy process, funding bodies must change their conception of how research influences policy, and policy makers should become more involved in the conceptualisation and conduct of research Until then, researchers should be cautious about uncritically accepting the notion of evidence based policy In …
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
How Can Research Organizations More Effectively Transfer Research Knowledge to Decision Makers?
LAVIS, J. N., ROBERTSON, D., WOODSIDE, J. M., McLEOD, C. B., & ABELSON, J. (2003) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/1468-0009.t01-1-00052 · Cited by 1,176
Evidence-Based Public Health: Moving Beyond Randomized Trials
Victora, C. G., Habicht, J.-P., & Bryce, J. (2004) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.94.3.400 · Cited by 1,056
What Makes Clinical Research in Developing Countries Ethical? The Benchmarks of Ethical Research
Emanuel, E. J., Wendler, D., Killen, J., & Grady, C. (2004) · The Journal of Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/381709 · Cited by 966
The utilisation of health research in policy-making: concepts, examples and methods of assessment
Hanney, S. R., Gonzalez-Block, M. A., Buxton, M. J., & Kogan, M. (2003) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/1478-4505-1-2 · Cited by 678
Bridging the implementation gap between knowledge and action for health.
(2004) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · doi:10.1590/s0042-96862004001000005 · Cited by 527
Metadata
- Authors
- Black, N., & Donald, A.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2001-08-04
- Volume
- 323
- Issue
- 7307
- Pages
- 275-279
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W1590172184
- Cited by
- 588
- References
- 0
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Evidence based policy: proceed with careCommentary: research must be taken seriously. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.323.7307.275
- The paper
- Black, N., & Donald, A. (2001). Evidence based policy: proceed with careCommentary: research must be taken seriously. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7307.275
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.