Evidence-informed policy formulation and implementation: a comparative case study of two national policies for improving health and social care in Sweden

Implementation Science

H. Hasson¹  M. E. Nyström³  L. Richter-Sundberg³  H. Strehlenert² 

[1] Center for Epidemiology and Community Medicine, Stockholm County Council, Stockholm, SE 171 29, Sweden;Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Medical Management Centre, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, SE 171 77, Sweden;Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Epidemiology and Global Health, Umeå University, Umeå, SE 901 87, Sweden

关键词: Advocacy Coalition Framework;    Stakeholders;    Implementation;    Health policy;    Governance;    Soft laws;    Policy analysis;    Policymaking;   

Others  :  1235174
DOI  :  10.1186/s13012-015-0359-1

 received in 2015-01-29, accepted in 2015-12-02,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Evidence has come to play a central role in health policymaking. However, policymakers tend to use other types of information besides research evidence. Most prior studies on evidence-informed policy have focused on the policy formulation phase without a systematic analysis of its implementation. It has been suggested that in order to fully understand the policy process, the analysis should include both policy formulation and implementation. The purpose of the study was to explore and compare two policies aiming to improve health and social care in Sweden and to empirically test a new conceptual model for evidence-informed policy formulation and implementation.

Methods

Two concurrent national policies were studied during the entire policy process using a longitudinal, comparative case study approach. Data was collected through interviews, observations, and documents. A Conceptual Model for Evidence-Informed Policy Formulation and Implementation was developed based on prior frameworks for evidence-informed policymaking and policy dissemination and implementation. The conceptual model was used to organize and analyze the data.

Results

The policies differed regarding the use of evidence in the policy formulation and the extent to which the policy formulation and implementation phases overlapped. Similarities between the cases were an emphasis on capacity assessment, modified activities based on the assessment, and a highly active implementation approach relying on networks of stakeholders. The Conceptual Model for Evidence-Informed Policy Formulation and Implementation was empirically useful to organize the data.

Conclusions

The policy actors’ roles and functions were found to have a great influence on the choices of strategies and collaborators in all policy phases. The Conceptual Model for Evidence-Informed Policy Formulation and Implementation was found to be useful. However, it provided insufficient guidance for analyzing actors involved in the policy process, capacity-building strategies, and overlapping policy phases. A revised version of the model that includes these aspects is suggested.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Strehlenert et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]What works?: evidence-based policy and practice in public services. The Policy Press, Bristol; 2000.
• [2]Oliver K, Lorenc T, Innvær S. New directions in evidence-based policy research: a critical analysis of the literature. Health Res Policy Syst. 2014; 12:34. BioMed Central Full Text
• [3]Head BW. Reconsidering evidence-based policy: key issues and challenges. Polic Soc. 2010; 29:77-94.
• [4]Bowen S, Zwi AB. Pathways to “evidence-informed” policy and practice: a framework for action. PLoS Med. 2005; 2:e166.
• [5]Dobrow MJ, Goel V, Upshur REG. Evidence-based health policy: context and utilisation. Soc Sci Med. 2004; 58:207-17.
• [6]Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014; 14:2. BioMed Central Full Text
• [7]Evans BA, Snooks H, Howson H, Davies M. How hard can it be to include research evidence and evaluation in local health policy implementation? Results from a mixed methods study. Implement Sci. 2013; 8:17. BioMed Central Full Text
• [8]Lomas J. Using research to inform healthcare managers’ and policy makers’ questions: from summative to interpretive synthesis. Healthc Policy. 2005; 1:55-71.
• [9]Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Lewin S, Fretheim A. SUPPORT tools for evidence-informed health policymaking (STP) 1: What is evidence-informed policymaking? Health Res Policy Syst. 2009; 7 Suppl 1:1-7. BioMed Central Full Text
• [10]Tomm-Bonde L, Schreiber RS, Allan DE, MacDonald M, Pauly B, Hancock T et al.. Fading vision: knowledge translation in the implementation of a public health policy intervention. Implement Sci. 2013; 8:59. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Nilsen P, Ståhl C, Roback K, Cairney P. Never the twain shall meet?—a comparison of implementation science and policy implementation research. Implement Sci. 2013; 8:63. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]Johansson S. Implementing evidence-based practices and programmes in the human services: lessons from research in public administration. Eur J Soc Work. 2010; 13:109-25.
• [13]Saetren H. Facts and myths about research on public policy implementation: out-of-fashion, allegedly dead, but still very much alive and relevant. Policy Stud J. 2005; 33:559-82.
• [14]Hill MJ, Hupe PL. Implementing public policy: governance in theory and practice. SAGE Publications, London; 2002.
• [15]Jenkins-Smith HC, Nohrstedt D, Weible CM, Sabatier PA. The advocacy coalition framework: foundations, evolution, and ongoing research. In: Theories of the policy process. 3rd ed. Sabatier PA, Weible CM, editors. Westview Press, Boulder; 2014: p.183-223.
• [16]Sabatier PA, Christopher W. The advocacy coalition framework: innovations and clarifications. In: Theories of the policy process. 2nd ed. Sabatier PA, editor. Westview Press, Boulder; 2007: p.189-222.
• [17]Dodson EA, Brownson RC, Weiss Stephen M. Policy dissemination research. In: Dissemination and implementation research in health. Translating science into practice. Brownson RC, Colditz GA, Proctor EK, editors. Oxford University Press, New York; 2012: p.437-58.
• [18]Buse K, Mays N, Walt G. Making health policy. 2nd ed. Open University Press, Maidenhead; 2012.
• [19]Fretheim A, Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Lewin S. SUPPORT tools for evidence-informed policymaking in health 18: planning monitoring and evaluation of policies. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009; 7 Suppl 1:S18. BioMed Central Full Text
• [20]Richter-Sundberg L, Kardakis T, Weinehall L, Garvare R, Nyström ME. Addressing implementation challenges during guideline development: a case study of Swedish national guidelines for methods of preventing disease. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015; 15:19. BioMed Central Full Text
• [21]Nyström ME, Strehlenert H, Hansson J, Hasson H. Strategies to facilitate implementation and sustainability of large system transformations: a case study of a national program for improving quality of care for elderly people. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014; 14:401. BioMed Central Full Text
• [22]Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005; 15:1277-88.
• [23]Black N. Evidence based policy: proceed with care. BMJ. 2001; 323:275-9.
• [24]Bjørndal A. Improving social policy and practice: knowledge matters. Lancet. 2009; 373:1829-31.
• [25]Brownson RC, Chriqui JF, Stamatakis KA. Understanding evidence-based public health policy. Am J Public Health. 2009; 99(9):1576-83.
• [26]Lasswell HD. Politics: who gets what, when and how. Peter Smith Publisher, Gloucester; 1990.
• [27]Fredriksson M, Blomqvist P, Winblad U. Conflict and compliance in Swedish health care governance: soft law in the “shadow of hierarchy”. Scan Polit Stud. 2012; 35:48-70.