You are here

  • Home
  • Online First
  • Efforts towards the institutionalisation of evidence-informed decision-making

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Analysis
Efforts towards the institutionalisation of evidence-informed decision-making
  1. Laura Boeira1,
  2. Emily Hayter2,
  3. Sandy Oliver3,
  4. Laurenz Mahlanza-Langer4,
  5. Donald Simeon5,
  6. Mukdarut Bangpan3,
  7. Veronica Osorio Calderon3,
  8. Ludovic Reveiz6,
  9. Shelly-Ann Hunte5,
  10. Firmaye Bogale Wolde7,
  11. Tanja Kuchenmuller8
  1. 1Instituto Veredas, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
  2. 2On Think Tanks Consulting, London, UK
  3. 3EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, UK
  4. 4Pan-African Collective for Evidence, Johannesburg, South Africa
  5. 5Caribbean Centre for Health Systems Research and Development, The University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago
  6. 6Department for Evidence and Intelligence for Action in Health, Pan American Health Organization, Washington, DC, Columbia, USA
  7. 7Knowledge Translation Directorate, Ethiopian Public Health Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
  8. 8Research for Health Department, Science Division, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
  1. Correspondence to Tanja Kuchenmuller; kuchenmullert@who.int

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2024-112962

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Efforts towards the institutionalisation of evidence-informed decision-making

    Evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) refers to the systematic and transparent process of identifying, appraising and mobilising the best available evidence to inform the development of safe and effective health policies and programmes.1 This approach has been applied across various contexts, such as improving health outcomes for Indigenous communities in Brazil, reforming alcohol legislation in Moldova and updating national treatment policy for drug-resistant malaria in Uganda.2 3 EIDM is not only a practical necessity for addressing public health challenges but also a moral imperative grounded in the principles of the respect for persons, responsibility and accountability. However, there remains a critical need for continuous support from local stakeholders and international funders to facilitate the institutionalisation of EIDM. This practice is understood as both a process and outcome, involving (re-)creating, maintaining and reinforcing norms, regulations and standard practices necessary for evidence to become a routine part of health policy-making.4

    The importance of EIDM in shaping global health policies and practices has gained considerable recognition, particularly as many countries experimented with and created new ways of applying evidence to policy-making during the COVID-19 pandemic.5 EIDM also plays a critical role in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. In response to this growing importance, the Evidence-informed Policy Network (EVIPNet), a key initiative of WHO to increase country capacity in accessing and using the best available evidence, issued a call for action in 2021,6 highlighting the need to strengthen the institutionalisation of EIDM structures and processes that are demand-driven, ethical and multidisciplinary.

    With this analysis, we aim to examine international efforts to strengthen the evidence ecosystem for health decision-making. By reviewing a range of tools, partnerships and strategies employed by international organisations, NGOs, think tanks and government agencies, we highlight both the differences and commonalities among these approaches. We explore how they …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors LB and TK conceptualised and drafted the manuscript with the critical support and input from LB, TK, EH, SO, LM-L, DS, MB, VOC, LR, S-AH, FBW. All authors discussed the results, and reviewed and commented on the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Disclaimer The authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this paper and they do not necessarily represent the views, decisions or policies of the institutions with which they are affiliated.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.