Examining self-described policy-relevant evidence base for policymaking: an evidence map of COVID-19 literature

Author:

Chukwu Emelda EORCID,Woolaston Katie,Kaufer Ricardo,Bortolus Alejandro,Hewitt Chad L,Schwindt Evangelina,Sogbanmu Temitope O,Schwenkenbecher Anne,Rubin Hannah,Slanickova Helena,Schneider Mike D,Heesen Remco,Mitova Veli

Abstract

BackgroundEvidence-based policymaking is a paradigm aimed at increasing the use of evidence by actors involved in policymaking processes. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted a heavy reliance on emerging evidence for policymaking during emergencies.ObjectiveThis study describes the focus and types of evidence in journal articles self-described as relevant to policymaking using the COVID-19 pandemic as a case study, identifying gaps in evidence and highlighting author stated perceived biases specifically in evidence-based policy making.DesignEvidence mapping.Data sourcesWe systematically searched SCOPUS, PubMed and LexisNexis for literature identifying policy-relevant evidence available on the COVID-19 pandemic.Eligibility criteriaThe study included only peer-reviewed literature identified as ‘article’, ‘book chapter’, ‘review’ covering the period from January 2020 to December 2022. Inclusion criteria required that articles have an abstract, authorship attribution and are written in English.Data extraction and synthesisA minimum of two authors independently extracted and coded for every level and final outputs were compared for consistency.ResultsA total of 213 articles met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed in this study. Lead authorship affiliations were from 50 countries with 70% of the outputs from developed economies including USA (20.2%), UK (18.3%) and Australia (7.5%). The most common purpose of the articles was the presentation of research findings the authors considered of relevance to policy (60.1%), followed by work that examined the impact of policy (28.6%) or highlighted or supported a policy need (22.5%), while some papers had multiple stated purposes. The most common challenges in policymaking identified by the authors of the reviewed papers wereprocess failuresandpoor evidenceutilisation during policymaking.ConclusionsThe evidence map identified the need for an interdisciplinary policy approach involving relevant stakeholders and driven by quality research as a progressive step towards prevention of future public health crises/pandemics.

Funder

Center for Interdisciplinary Research (Zentrum fur interdisziplinare Forschung, ZiF) at University of Bielefeld, Germany through grant for the study “The Epistemology of Evidence-Based Policy

Volkswagen Foundation through a Norbert Elias Fellowship

Publisher

BMJ

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3