FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2767983952> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2767983952 abstract "Discussions within the health community routinely emphasise the importance of evidence in informing policy formulation and implementation. Much of the support for the evidence-based policy movement draws from concern that policy decisions are often based on inadequate engagement with high-quality evidence. In many such discussions, evidence is treated as differing only in quality, and assumed to improve decisions if it can only be used more. In contrast, political science scholars have described this as an overly simplistic view of the policy-making process, noting that research 'use' can mean a variety of things and relies on nuanced aspects of political systems. An approach more in recognition of how policy-making systems operate in practice can be to consider how institutions and ideas influence which pieces of evidence appear to be relevant for, and are used within, different policy processes.Drawing on in-depth interviews undertaken in 2015-2016 with key health sector stakeholders in Cambodia, we investigate the evidence perceived to be relevant to policy decisions for three contrasting health policy examples, namely tobacco control, HIV/AIDS and performance-based salary incentives. These cases allow us to examine the ways that policy-relevant evidence may differ given the framing of the issue and the broader institutional context in which evidence is considered.The three health issues show few similarities in how pieces of evidence were used in various aspects of policy-making, despite all being discussed within a broad policy environment in which evidence-based policy-making is rhetorically championed. Instead, we find that evidence use can be better understood by mapping how these health policy issues differ in terms of the issue characteristics, and also in terms of the stakeholders structurally established as having a dominant influence for each issue. Both of these have important implications for evidence use. Contrasting concerns of key stakeholders meant that evidence related to differing issues could be understood in terms of how it was relevant to policy. The stakeholders involved, however, could further be seen to possess differing logics about how to go about achieving their various outcomes - logics that could further help explain the differences seen in evidence utilisation.A comparative approach reiterates that evidence is not a uniform concept for which more is obviously better, but rather illustrates how different constructions and pieces of evidence become relevant in relation to the features of specific health policy decisions. An institutional approach that considers the structural position of stakeholders with differing core goals or objectives, as well as their logics related to evidence utilisation, can further help to understand some of the complexities of evidence use in health policy-making." @default.
• W2767983952 created "2017-11-17" @default.
• W2767983952 creator A5057661179 @default.
• W2767983952 creator A5064281549 @default.
• W2767983952 creator A5076090904 @default.
• W2767983952 creator A5090668764 @default.
• W2767983952 date "2017-11-10" @default.
• W2767983952 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2767983952 title "The many meanings of evidence: a comparative analysis of the forms and roles of evidence within three health policy processes in Cambodia" @default.
• W2767983952 cites W1721394419 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W1891360074 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W190385620 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W1904896664 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W1974975401 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W1976823095 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W1977864436 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W1985732768 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W1991351010 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2002120664 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2005796256 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2009628634 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2015762761 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2019255802 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2029678497 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2035613827 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2047053687 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2061787399 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2072560454 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2076454843 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2077168759 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2079918239 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2084460808 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2094542703 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2103181252 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2104586338 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2106545070 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2106991615 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2108845899 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2111637361 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2113880439 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2116927628 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2125902622 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2139739986 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2143140210 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2144181266 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2145959030 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2156041668 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2156885153 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2162082669 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2162544110 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2162937501 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2165010366 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2165023937 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2167502199 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2168434488 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2168539640 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2169490447 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2170128099 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2317591260 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2329798770 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2464417203 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2529976728 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2530257411 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W2989834082 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W3124152787 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W4234064322 @default.
• W2767983952 cites W4253289976 @default.
• W2767983952 doi "https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-017-0260-2" @default.
• W2767983952 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/5681792" @default.
• W2767983952 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29126423" @default.
• W2767983952 hasPublicationYear "2017" @default.
• W2767983952 type Work @default.
• W2767983952 sameAs 2767983952 @default.
• W2767983952 citedByCount "12" @default.
• W2767983952 countsByYear W27679839522018 @default.
• W2767983952 countsByYear W27679839522019 @default.
• W2767983952 countsByYear W27679839522020 @default.
• W2767983952 countsByYear W27679839522021 @default.
• W2767983952 countsByYear W27679839522022 @default.
• W2767983952 countsByYear W27679839522023 @default.
• W2767983952 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2767983952 hasAuthorship W2767983952A5057661179 @default.
• W2767983952 hasAuthorship W2767983952A5064281549 @default.
• W2767983952 hasAuthorship W2767983952A5076090904 @default.
• W2767983952 hasAuthorship W2767983952A5090668764 @default.
• W2767983952 hasBestOaLocation W27679839521 @default.
• W2767983952 hasConcept C100001284 @default.
• W2767983952 hasConcept C109986646 @default.
• W2767983952 hasConcept C123587114 @default.
• W2767983952 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2767983952 hasConcept C141330323 @default.
• W2767983952 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2767983952 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2767983952 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W2767983952 hasConcept C160735492 @default.
• W2767983952 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2767983952 hasConcept C169087156 @default.
• W2767983952 hasConcept C175444787 @default.
• W2767983952 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2767983952 hasConcept C19648533 @default.

• next