MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4328051830 · doi:10.17269/s41997-023-00752-x

Policy diffusion theory, evidence-informed public health, and public health political science: a scoping review

2023· review· en· W4328051830 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Katrina Fundytus, Cristina Santamaria-Plaza, Lindsay McLaren

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Public Health · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicy Transfer and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPublic policyContext (archaeology)ConceptualizationHealth policyPublic healthScholarshipPolicy studiesGovernment (linguistics)Political sciencePublic relationsPublic economicsMedicineEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to synthesize published scholarship that applies policy diffusion-a theory of the policy process that considers the interdependence of government-level public health policy choices. We paid particular attention to the role of scientific evidence in the diffusion process, and to identifying challenges and gaps towards strengthening the intersection of public health, public policy, and political science. METHODS: We systematically searched 17 electronic academic databases. We included English-language, peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2021. For each article, we extracted the following information: public health policy domain, geographic setting, diffusion directions and mechanisms, the role of scientific evidence in the diffusion process, and author research discipline. SYNTHESIS: We identified 39 peer-reviewed, primary research articles. Anti-smoking and tobacco control policies in the United States (n = 9/39) were the most common policy domain and geographic context examined; comparatively fewer studies examined policy diffusion in the Canadian context (n = 4/39). In terms of how policies diffuse, we found evidence of five diffusion mechanisms (learning, emulation, competition, coercion, and social contagion), which could moreover be conditional on internal government characteristics. The role of scientific evidence in the diffusion process was unclear, as only five articles discussed this. Policy diffusion theory was primarily used by public policy and political science scholars (n = 19/39), with comparatively fewer interdisciplinary authorship teams (n = 6/39). CONCLUSION: Policy diffusion theory provides important insights into the intergovernmental factors that influence public health policy decisions, thus helping to expand our conceptualization of evidence-informed public health. Despite this, policy diffusion research in the Canadian public health context is limited.

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

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.203
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.203
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0340.035
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0140.014
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0090.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.391
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.140 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2023
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Public HealthSame topicPolicy Transfer and LearningFrench-language works237,207