Abstract
Concerns about the limited influence of research on decision-making have prompted the development of tools intended to mediate evidence for policy audiences. This article focuses on three examples, prominent in public health: impact assessments; systematic reviews; and economic decision-making tools (cost-benefit analysis and scenario modelling). Each has been promoted as a means of synthesising evidence for policymakers but little is known about policy actors’ experiences of them. Employing a literature review and 69 interviews, we offer a critical analysis of their role in policy debates, arguing that their utility lies primarily in their symbolic value as markers of ‘good’ decision-making.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 415-437 |
| Number of pages | 23 |
| Journal | Evidence and Policy |
| Volume | 11 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 21 Aug 2015 |
Keywords
- impact assessments
- systematic review
- cost-benefit analysis (CBA)
- modelling
- evidence-based policy (EBP)
- advocacy
- decision-making tools
- public health
