Subject(s)
Decision Making , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Humans , Choice Behavior , Informed ConsentABSTRACT
Depression in the elderly is common and exhibits a distinctive phenomenology, due to neurobiological, physiological, psychological and social changes related to ageing. Most elderly with depression are managed in primary health care. Although the number of scientific publications related to geriatric psychiatry has increased, there are still important gaps. Implementation of evidence-based guidelines for managing depression in primary care has had limited success, but has led to improvements compared to standard care. It is logical that the determinants (barriers and enablers) of implementing depression guidelines can be identified and can guide the selection of more effective implementation strategies that are tailored to address those determinants. We are testing that logic as part of a multinational implementation research project called 'Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases' (TICD). Our focus in Norway is on the management of depression in the elderly in primary care. We will identify the determinants of implementing evidence-based recommendations using various methods and comparing those methods. We will then use different methods to match the implementation interventions to the identified determinants and compare those methods. Finally, we will evaluate the resulting tailored implementation strategy in a randomized trial.
Subject(s)
Aged/psychology , Depressive Disorder/therapy , Evidence-Based Medicine , Guideline Adherence , Guidelines as Topic , Health Services Accessibility , Humans , Norway , Primary Health CareABSTRACT
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. In this article, we discuss the following three questions: What is evidence? What is the role of research evidence in informing health policy decisions? What is evidence-informed policymaking? Evidence-informed health policymaking is an approach to policy decisions that aims to ensure that decision making is well-informed by the best available research evidence. It is characterised by the systematic and transparent access to, and appraisal of, evidence as an input into the policymaking process.
Subject(s)
Humans , Evidence-Informed Policy , Policy MakingABSTRACT
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. In this article, we address ways of organising efforts to support evidence-informed health policymaking. Efforts to link research to action may include a range of activities related to the production of research that is both highly relevant to ? and appropriately synthesised for ? policymakers. Such activities may include a mix of efforts used to link research to action, as well as the evaluation of such efforts. Little is known about how best to organise the range of activity options available and, until recently, there have been relatively few organisations responsible for supporting the use of research evidence in developing health policy. We suggest five questions that can help guide considerations of how to improve organisational arrangements to support the use of research evidence to inform health policy decision making.
Subject(s)
Humans , Policy Making , Health Policy, Planning and Management/organization & administration , Evidence-Informed Policy , Use of Scientific Information for Health Decision MakingABSTRACT
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. The reliability of systematic reviews of the effects of health interventions is variable. Consequently, policymakers and others need to assess how much confidence can be placed in such evidence. The use of systematic and transparent processes to determine such decisions can help to prevent the introduction of errors and bias in these judgements. In this article, we suggest five questions that can be considered when deciding how much confidence to place in the findings of a systematic review of the effects of an intervention.
Subject(s)
Humans , Systematic Reviews as Topic , Policy Making , Decision MakingABSTRACT
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. Differences between health systems may often result in a policy or programme option that is used in one setting not being feasible or acceptable in another. Or these differences may result in an option not working in the same way in another setting, or even achieving different impacts in another setting. A key challenge that policymakers and those supporting them must face is therefore the need to understand whether research evidence about an option can be applied to their setting. Systematic reviews make this task easier by summarising the evidence from studies conducted in a variety of different settings.
Subject(s)
Humans , Health Systems/organization & administration , Scientific Research and Technological Development , Health Systems/trends , Systematic Reviews as TopicABSTRACT
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. In this article we address considerations of equity. Inequities can be defined as "differences in health which are not only unnecessary and avoidable but, in addition, are considered unfair and unjust". These have been well documented in relation to social and economic factors. Policies or programmes that are effective can improve the overall health of a population. However, the impact of such policies and programmes on inequities may vary: they may have no impact on inequities, they may reduce inequities, or they may exacerbate them, regardless of their overall effects on population health.
Subject(s)
Humans , Socioeconomic Factors , Health Equity , Systematic Reviews as Topic , Indicators (Statistics)ABSTRACT
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. Evidence about local conditions is evidence that is available from the specific setting(s) in which a decision or action on a policy or programme option will be taken. Such evidence is always needed, together with other forms of evidence, in order to inform decisions about options. Global evidence is the best starting point for judgements about effects, factors that modify those effects, and insights into ways to approach and address problems.
Subject(s)
Humans , Policy Making , Health Systems/organization & administration , Health Research Plans and ProgramsABSTRACT
In this article, we address considerations about resource use and costs. The consequences of a policy or programme option for resource use differ from other impacts (both in terms of benefits and harms) in several ways. However, considerations of the consequences of options for resource use are similar to considerations related to other impacts in that policymakers and their staff need to identify important impacts on resource use, acquire and appraise the best available evidence regarding those impacts, and ensure that appropriate monetary values have been applied. We suggest four questions that can be considered when assessing resource use and the cost consequences of an option. These are: 1. What are the most important impacts on resource use? 2. What evidence is there for importan (mais)
Subject(s)
Humans , Health Systems/organization & administration , Health Research Plans and Programs , Financial Resources in Health/economicsABSTRACT
Policy briefs are a relatively new approach to packaging research evidence for policymakers. The first step in a policy brief is to prioritise a policy issue. Once an issue is prioritised, the focus then turns to mobilising the full range of research evidence relevant to the various features of the issue. Drawing on available systematic reviews makes the process of mobilising evidence feasible in a way that would not otherwise be possible if individual relevant studies had to be identified and synthesised for every feature of the issue under consideration. In this article, we suggest questions that can be used to guide those preparing and using policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking. These are: 1. Does the policy brief address a high-priority issue and describe the re (mais)
Subject(s)
Humans , Health Systems/organization & administration , Evidence-Informed Policy , Systematic ReviewABSTRACT
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 highpriority 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 ques (mais)
