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

@article{citeulike:5868800, abstract = {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.}, author = {Innvaer, Simon}, citeulike-article-id = {5868800}, citeulike-linkout-0 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-9-177}, citeulike-linkout-1 = {http://view.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19785760}, citeulike-linkout-2 = {http://www.hubmed.org/display.cgi?uids=19785760}, day = {28}, doi = {10.1186/1472-6963-9-177}, issn = {1472-6963}, journal = {BMC Health Services Research}, keywords = {health\_policy, hpsr}, month = {September}, number = {1}, pages = {177+}, posted-at = {2009-10-24 19:03:33}, priority = {2}, title = {The use of evidence in public governmental reports on health policy: an analysis of 17 Norwegian official reports (NOU)}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-9-177}, volume = {9}, year = {2009} }

TY - JOUR ID - citeulike:5868800 L3 - citeulike-article-id:5868800 N2 - 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. IS - 1 JF - BMC Health Services Research SN - 1472-6963 TI - The use of evidence in public governmental reports on health policy: an analysis of 17 Norwegian official reports (NOU) VL - 9 SP - 177 KW - health_policy KW - hpsr AU - Innvaer, Simon PY - 2009/09/28/ UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-9-177 ER -