학술논문
Challenges to evidence-informed decision-making in the context of pandemics: qualitative study of COVID-19 policy advisor perspectives.
Document Type
Academic Journal
Author
Vickery J; Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA vickeryj@uw.edu.; Atkinson P; Department of Public Health Policy and Systems/Institute of Infection, Veterinary & Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.; Lin L; Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.; Rubin O; Department of Social Sciences and Business, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.; Upshur R; Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.; Yeoh EK; The Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, New Territories, China.; Boyer C; Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.; Errett NA; Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Source
Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101685275 Publication Model: Print Cited Medium: Print ISSN: 2059-7908 (Print) Linking ISSN: 20597908 NLM ISO Abbreviation: BMJ Glob Health Subsets: MEDLINE
Subject
Language
English
ISSN
2059-7908
Abstract
Introduction: The exceptional production of research evidence during the COVID-19 pandemic required deployment of scientists to act in advisory roles to aid policy-makers in making evidence-informed decisions. The unprecedented breadth, scale and duration of the pandemic provides an opportunity to understand how science advisors experience and mitigate challenges associated with insufficient, evolving and/or conflicting evidence to inform public health decision-making.
Objectives: To explore critically the challenges for advising evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) in pandemic contexts, particularly around non-pharmaceutical control measures, from the perspective of experts advising policy-makers during COVID-19 globally.
Methods: We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with 27 scientific experts and advisors who are/were engaged in COVID-19 EIDM representing four WHO regions and 11 countries (Australia, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Ghana, Hong Kong, Nigeria, Sweden, Uganda, UK, USA) from December 2020 to May 2021. Participants informed decision-making at various and multiple levels of governance, including local/city (n=3), state/provincial (n=8), federal or national (n=20), regional or international (n=3) and university-level advising (n=3). Following each interview, we conducted member checks with participants and thematically analysed interview data using NVivo for Mac software.
Results: Findings from this study indicate multiple overarching challenges to pandemic EIDM specific to interpretation and translation of evidence, including the speed and influx of new, evolving, and conflicting evidence; concerns about scientific integrity and misinterpretation of evidence; the limited capacity to assess and produce evidence, and adapting evidence from other contexts; multiple forms of evidence and perspectives needed for EIDM; the need to make decisions quickly and under conditions of uncertainty; and a lack of transparency in how decisions are made and applied.
Conclusions: Findings suggest the urgent need for global EIDM guidance that countries can adapt for in-country decisions as well as coordinated global response to future pandemics.
Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.
(© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)
Objectives: To explore critically the challenges for advising evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) in pandemic contexts, particularly around non-pharmaceutical control measures, from the perspective of experts advising policy-makers during COVID-19 globally.
Methods: We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with 27 scientific experts and advisors who are/were engaged in COVID-19 EIDM representing four WHO regions and 11 countries (Australia, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Ghana, Hong Kong, Nigeria, Sweden, Uganda, UK, USA) from December 2020 to May 2021. Participants informed decision-making at various and multiple levels of governance, including local/city (n=3), state/provincial (n=8), federal or national (n=20), regional or international (n=3) and university-level advising (n=3). Following each interview, we conducted member checks with participants and thematically analysed interview data using NVivo for Mac software.
Results: Findings from this study indicate multiple overarching challenges to pandemic EIDM specific to interpretation and translation of evidence, including the speed and influx of new, evolving, and conflicting evidence; concerns about scientific integrity and misinterpretation of evidence; the limited capacity to assess and produce evidence, and adapting evidence from other contexts; multiple forms of evidence and perspectives needed for EIDM; the need to make decisions quickly and under conditions of uncertainty; and a lack of transparency in how decisions are made and applied.
Conclusions: Findings suggest the urgent need for global EIDM guidance that countries can adapt for in-country decisions as well as coordinated global response to future pandemics.
Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.
(© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)