首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Health Research Policy and Systems >SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 14: Organising and using policy dialogues to support evidence-informed policymaking
【2h】

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 14: Organising and using policy dialogues to support evidence-informed policymaking

机译:支持以证据为依据的健康政策制定工具(STP)14:组织和使用政策对话来支持以证据为依据的政策制定

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers.Policy dialogues allow research evidence to be considered together with the views, experiences and tacit knowledge of those who will be involved in, or affected by, future decisions about a high-priority issue. Increasing interest in the use of policy dialogues has been fuelled by a number of factors: 1. The recognition of the need for locally contextualised 'decision support' for policymakers and other stakeholders 2. The recognition that research evidence is only one input into the decision-making processes of policymakers and other stakeholders 3. The recognition that many stakeholders can add significant value to these processes, and 4. The recognition that many stakeholders can take action to address high-priority issues, and not just policymakers. In this article, we suggest questions to guide those organising and using policy dialogues to support evidence-informed policymaking. These are: 1. Does the dialogue address a high-priority issue? 2. Does the dialogue provide opportunities to discuss the problem, options to address the problem, and key implementation considerations? 3. Is the dialogue informed by a pre-circulated policy brief and by a discussion about the full range of factors that can influence the policymaking process? 4. Does the dialogue ensure fair representation among those who will be involved in, or affected by, future decisions related to the issue? 5. Does the dialogue engage a facilitator, follow a rule about not attributing comments to individuals, and not aim for consensus? 6. Are outputs produced and follow-up activities undertaken to support action?
机译:本文是为负责制定卫生政策和计划的决策者以及支持这些决策者的人们撰写的系列文章的一部分。通过政策对话,可以将研究证据与那些将要做出决策的人们的观点,经验和默契知识一起考虑。参与或受有关高优先级问题的未来决策影响。许多因素加剧了人们对使用政策对话的兴趣:1.认识到需要为决策者和其他利益相关者提供本地背景下的“决策支持” 2.认识到研究证据只是决策的一项投入决策者和其他利益相关者的决策过程3.认识到许多利益相关者可以为这些过程增加重要的价值,并且4.认识到许多利益相关者可以采取行动解决高优先级问题,而不仅仅是决策者。在本文中,我们提出一些问题,以指导那些组织和使用政策对话来支持有据可依的决策的人。它们是:1.对话是否解决了高度优先的问题? 2.对话是否提供了讨论问题的机会,解决问题的方案以及主要的实施注意事项? 3.对话是否以预先分发的政策简介和关于可能影响决策过程的各种因素的讨论为基础? 4.对话是否确保在将要参与或受到与该问题有关的未来决定影响的人们之间公平代表? 5.对话是否邀请协调人参加,是否遵循关于不将评论归因于个人以及不旨在达成共识的规则? 6.是否产生了产出并采取了后续行动来支持行动?

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号