↓ Skip to main content

New directions in evidence-based policy research: a critical analysis of the literature

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#13 of 1,393)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
policy
7 policy sources
twitter
96 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
307 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
505 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
New directions in evidence-based policy research: a critical analysis of the literature
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, July 2014
DOI 10.1186/1478-4505-12-34
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathryn Oliver, Theo Lorenc, Simon Innvær

Abstract

Despite 40 years of research into evidence-based policy (EBP) and a continued drive from both policymakers and researchers to increase research uptake in policy, barriers to the use of evidence are persistently identified in the literature. However, it is not clear what explains this persistence - whether they represent real factors, or if they are artefacts of approaches used to study EBP. Based on an updated review, this paper analyses this literature to explain persistent barriers and facilitators. We critically describe the literature in terms of its theoretical underpinnings, definitions of 'evidence', methods, and underlying assumptions of research in the field, and aim to illuminate the EBP discourse by comparison with approaches from other fields. Much of the research in this area is theoretically naive, focusing primarily on the uptake of research evidence as opposed to evidence defined more broadly, and privileging academics' research priorities over those of policymakers. Little empirical data analysing the processes or impact of evidence use in policy is available to inform researchers or decision-makers. EBP research often assumes that policymakers do not use evidence and that more evidence - meaning research evidence - use would benefit policymakers and populations. We argue that these assumptions are unsupported, biasing much of EBP research. The agenda of 'getting evidence into policy' has side-lined the empirical description and analysis of how research and policy actually interact in vivo. Rather than asking how research evidence can be made more influential, academics should aim to understand what influences and constitutes policy, and produce more critically and theoretically informed studies of decision-making. We question the main assumptions made by EBP researchers, explore the implications of doing so, and propose new directions for EBP research, and health policy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 96 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 505 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 7 1%
Germany 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Botswana 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Other 4 <1%
Unknown 486 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 101 20%
Researcher 90 18%
Student > Master 81 16%
Other 26 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 26 5%
Other 97 19%
Unknown 84 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 173 34%
Medicine and Dentistry 67 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 6%
Arts and Humanities 16 3%
Environmental Science 14 3%
Other 103 20%
Unknown 102 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 112. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 August 2023.
All research outputs
#375,742
of 25,436,226 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#13
of 1,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,228
of 241,453 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#2
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,436,226 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,393 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 241,453 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.