Dynamics of interprofessional teamwork: Why three logics are better than one.

Much research has used three logics to understand the dynamics of interprofessionalism: 1) assimilation, that is, adapting the work of others; 2) segregation, where professional roles are separated and boundaries defended; and 3) integration, a perspective on the complementarity of professional roles. However, we found no studies analysing all three logics in connection with each other. Based on an ethnographic study of interprofessional teamwork in the field of mental health and substance use in Norway, this article explores the dynamics of interprofessionalism from all three perspectives. The data collection consisted of 14 observation sessions and 18 in-depth interviews of professionals in the field of health and social work. Investigating how, when and why each logic came into play, the results show the importance of including all three logics to leverage each one's purpose and function, and how they appear almost simultaneously in many situations. By investigating all three logics, the paper provides a broader, more comprehensive view of interprofessional teamwork.

New directions in evidence-based policy research: a critical analysis of the literature.

Despite 40 years of research into evidence-based policy (EBP) and a continued drive from both policymakers and researchers to increase research uptake in policy, barriers to the use of evidence are persistently identified in the literature. However, it is not clear what explains this persistence - whether they represent real factors, or if they are artefacts of approaches used to study EBP. Based on an updated review, this paper analyses this literature to explain persistent barriers and facilitators. We critically describe the literature in terms of its theoretical underpinnings, definitions of 'evidence', methods, and underlying assumptions of research in the field, and aim to illuminate the EBP discourse by comparison with approaches from other fields. Much of the research in this area is theoretically naive, focusing primarily on the uptake of research evidence as opposed to evidence defined more broadly, and privileging academics' research priorities over those of policymakers. Little empirical data analysing the processes or impact of evidence use in policy is available to inform researchers or decision-makers. EBP research often assumes that policymakers do not use evidence and that more evidence - meaning research evidence - use would benefit policymakers and populations. We argue that these assumptions are unsupported, biasing much of EBP research. The agenda of 'getting evidence into policy' has side-lined the empirical description and analysis of how research and policy actually interact in vivo. Rather than asking how research evidence can be made more influential, academics should aim to understand what influences and constitutes policy, and produce more critically and theoretically informed studies of decision-making. We question the main assumptions made by EBP researchers, explore the implications of doing so, and propose new directions for EBP research, and health policy.

The use of evidence in public governmental reports on health policy: an analysis of 17 Norwegian official reports (NOU).

BACKGROUND: Governments increasingly require policy documents to be evidence-based. This paper analyses the use of scientific evidence in such documents by reviewing reports from government-appointed committees in Norway to assess the committees' handling of questions of effect. METHODS: This study uses the 'Index of Scientific Quality' (ISQ) to analyse all Norwegian official reports (NOUs) that were: (1) published by the Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services during 1994-1998 (N = 20); and (2) concerned with questions of effect either because these were included in the mandate or as a result of the committee's interpretation of the mandate. The ISQ is based on scientific criteria common in all research concerning questions of effect. The primary outcome measure is an ISQ score on a five-point scale. RESULTS: Three reports were excluded because their mandates, or the committees' interpretations of them, did not address questions of effect. For the remaining 17 NOUs in our study, overall ISQ scores were low for systematic literature search and for explicit validation of research. Two reports had an average score of three or higher, while scores for five other reports were not far behind. How committees assessed the relevant factors was often unclear. CONCLUSION: The reports' evaluations of health evidence in relation to questions of effect lacked transparency and, overall, showed little use of systematic processes. A systematic, explicit and transparent approach, following the standards laid down in the ISQ, may help generate the evidence-based decision-making that Norway, the UK, the EU and the WHO desire and seek. However, policy-makers may find the ISQ criteria for assessing the scientific quality of a report too narrow to adequately inform policy-making.

Translating research into policy and practice in developing countries: a case study of magnesium sulphate for pre-eclampsia.

BACKGROUND: The evidence base for improving reproductive health continues to grow. However, concerns remain that the translation of this evidence into appropriate policies is partial and slow. Little is known about the factors affecting the use of evidence by policy makers and clinicians, particularly in developing countries. The objective of this study was to examine the factors that might affect the translation of randomised controlled trial (RCT) findings into policies and practice in developing countries. METHODS: The recent publication of an important RCT on the use of magnesium sulphate to treat pre-eclampsia provided an opportunity to explore how research findings might be translated into policy. A range of research methods, including a survey, group interview and observations with RCT collaborators and a survey of WHO drug information officers, regulatory officials and obstetricians in 12 countries, were undertaken to identify barriers and facilitators to knowledge translation. RESULTS: It proved difficult to obtain reliable data regarding the availability and use of commonly used drugs in many countries. The perceived barriers to implementing RCT findings regarding the use of magnesium sulphate for pre-eclampsia include drug licensing and availability; inadequate and poorly implemented clinical guidelines; and lack of political support for policy change. However, there were significant regional and national differences in the importance of specific barriers. CONCLUSION: The policy changes needed to ensure widespread availability and use of magnesium sulphate are variable and complex. Difficulties in obtaining information on availability and use are combined with the wide range of barriers across settings, including a lack of support from policy makers. This makes it difficult to envisage any single intervention strategy that might be used to promote the uptake of research findings on magnesium sulphate into policy across the study settings. The publication of important trials may therefore not have the impacts on health care that researchers hope for.

Health policy-makers' perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The empirical basis for theories and common wisdom regarding how to improve appropriate use of research evidence in policy decisions is unclear. One source of empirical evidence is interview studies with policy-makers. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the evidence from interview studies of facilitators of, and barriers to, the use of research evidence by health policy-makers. METHODS: We searched multiple databases, including Medline, Embase, Sociofile, PsychLit, PAIS, IBSS, IPSA and HealthStar in June 2000, hand-searched key journals and personally contacted investigators. We included interview studies with health policy-makers that covered their perceptions of the use of research evidence in health policy decisions at a national, regional or organisational level. Two reviewers independently assessed the relevance of retrieved articles, described the methods of included studies and extracted data that were summarised in tables and analysed qualitatively. RESULTS: We identified 24 studies that met our inclusion criteria. These studies included a total of 2041 interviews with health policy-makers. Assessments of the use of evidence were largely descriptive and qualitative, focusing on hypothetical scenarios or retrospective perceptions of the use of evidence in relation to specific cases. Perceived facilitators of, and barriers to, the use of evidence varied. The most commonly reported facilitators were personal contact (13/24), timely relevance (13/24), and the inclusion of summaries with policy recommendations (11/24). The most commonly reported barriers were absence of personal contact (11/24), lack of timeliness or relevance of research (9/24), mutual mistrust (8/24) and power and budget struggles (7/24). CONCLUSIONS: Interview studies with health policy-makers provide only limited support for commonly held beliefs about facilitators of, and barriers to, their use of evidence, and raise questions about commonsense proposals for improving the use of research for policy decisions. Two-way personal communication, the most common suggestion, may improve the appropriate use of research evidence, but it might also promote selective (inappropriate) use of research evidence.

[Evaluation of reimbursement applications for new drugs]. / Vurderinger av refusjonssøknader for nye legemidler.

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that decisions about which drugs should be reimbursed by the Norwegian National Insurance Administration (NIA) are ad hoc and made without explicit criteria for evaluating applications. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We assessed all documents that we were able to retrieve from the NIA for a sample of 31 applications to add new drugs to the drug benefit program, mainly in the 1990s. The assessment was done with respect to two questions. First, to what extent were different factors explicitly evaluated, such as treatment effects, side effects, cost-effectiveness and reimbursement costs? Second, to what extent did these factors affect the decisions that were made? RESULTS: We found documents for 19 of the 31 drugs. For the 19 drugs and nine factors that we considered as potentially important in making a decision (a total of 19 x 9 = 171 possible assessments), we found a total of only eight explicit written evaluations. In 10 out of 19 cases costs to the NIA and control of these costs, or use of the drug, appeared to have an important impact on the decision that was reached. INTERPRETATION: Based on the documents to which we have had access, the NIA's evaluations have not been systematic or transparent for the vast majority of drugs.