Mapping the Qualitative Evidence Base on the Use of Research Evidence in Health Policy-Making: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of research evidence in health policy-making is a popular line of inquiry for scholars of public health and policy studies, with qualitative methods constituting the dominant strategy in this area. Research on this subject has been criticized for, among other things, disproportionately focusing on high-income countries; overemphasizing 'barriers and facilitators' related to evidence use to the neglect of other, less descriptive concerns; relying on descriptive, rather than in-depth explanatory designs; and failing to draw on insights from political/policy studies theories and concepts. We aimed to comprehensively map the global, peer-reviewed qualitative literature on the use of research evidence in health policy-making and to provide a descriptive overview of the geographic, temporal, methodological, and theoretical characteristics of this body of literature. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We searched nine electronic databases, hand-searched 11 health- and policy-related journals, and systematically scanned the reference lists of included studies and previous reviews. No language, date or geographic limitations were imposed. RESULTS: The review identified 319 qualitative studies on a diverse array of topics related to the use of evidence in health policy-making, spanning 72 countries and published over a nearly 40 year period. A majority of these studies were conducted in high-income countries, but a growing proportion of the research output in this area is now coming from low- and middle-income countries, especially from sub-Saharan Africa. While over half of all studies did not use an identifiable theory or framework, and only one fifth of studies used a theory or conceptual framework drawn from policy studies or political science, we found some evidence that theory-driven and explanatory (eg, comparative case study) designs are becoming more common in this literature. Investigations of the barriers and facilitators related to evidence use constitute a large proportion but by no means a majority of the work in this area. CONCLUSION: This review provides a bird's eye mapping of the peer reviewed qualitative research on evidence-to-policy processes, and has identified key features of - and gaps within - this body of literature that will hopefully inform, and improve, research in this area moving forward.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.079 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".