Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://www.arca.fiocruz.br/handle/icict/59211
DOMAINS AND PROCESSES FOR INSTITUTIONALIZING EVIDENCE-INFORMED HEALTH POLICY-MAKING: A CRITICAL INTERPRETIVE SYNTHESIS
Institutionalization
Institutional capacity
Knowledge translation
Knowledge translation platform
Sustainability
Conceptual framework
Definition
Institucionalização
Fortalecimento Institucional
Ciência Translacional Biomédica
Desenvolvimento Sustentável
Author
Affilliation
World Health Organization. Research for Health. Science Division. Geneva, Switzerland.
Governo do Estado de São Paulo. Secretaria de Estado de Saúde. Instituto de Saude. São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
University College London. Social Research Institute. London, United Kingdom / University of Johannesburg. Faculty of Humanities. Johannesburg, South Africa.
McMaster University. World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Evidence‑Informed Policy. McMaster Health Forum. Hamilton, ON, Canada / McMaster University. Department of Health Evidence and Impact. Hamilton, ON, Canada.
American University of Beirut. World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Evidence‑Informed Policy and Practice. Knowledge to Policy (K2P) Center. Beirut, Lebanon / American University of Beirut. Department of Health Management and Policy. Beirut, Lebanon.
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Fiocruz Brasília. Brasília, DF, Brasil.
University of Johannesburg. Faculty of Humanities. Johannesburg, South Africa / McMaster University. World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Evidence‑Informed Policy. McMaster Health Forum. Hamilton, ON, Canada / McMaster University. Department of Health Evidence and Impact. Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Governo do Estado de São Paulo. Secretaria de Estado de Saúde. Instituto de Saude. São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
University College London. Social Research Institute. London, United Kingdom / University of Johannesburg. Faculty of Humanities. Johannesburg, South Africa.
McMaster University. World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Evidence‑Informed Policy. McMaster Health Forum. Hamilton, ON, Canada / McMaster University. Department of Health Evidence and Impact. Hamilton, ON, Canada.
American University of Beirut. World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Evidence‑Informed Policy and Practice. Knowledge to Policy (K2P) Center. Beirut, Lebanon / American University of Beirut. Department of Health Management and Policy. Beirut, Lebanon.
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Fiocruz Brasília. Brasília, DF, Brasil.
University of Johannesburg. Faculty of Humanities. Johannesburg, South Africa / McMaster University. World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Evidence‑Informed Policy. McMaster Health Forum. Hamilton, ON, Canada / McMaster University. Department of Health Evidence and Impact. Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Abstract
Background: While calls for institutionalization of evidence-informed policy-making (EIP) have become stronger
in recent years, there is a paucity of methods that governments and organizational knowledge brokers can use to
sustain and integrate EIP as part of mainstream health policy-making. The objective of this paper was to conduct a
knowledge synthesis of the published and grey literatures to develop a theoretical framework with the key features of
EIP institutionalization.
Methods: We applied a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) that allowed for a systematic, yet iterative and dynamic
analysis of heterogeneous bodies of literature to develop an explanatory framework for EIP institutionalization. We
used a “compass” question to create a detailed search strategy and conducted electronic searches to identify papers
based on their potential relevance to EIP institutionalization. Papers were screened and extracted independently
and in duplicate. A constant comparative method was applied to develop a framework on EIP institutionalization.
The CIS was triangulated with the fndings of stakeholder dialogues that involved civil servants, policy-makers and
researchers.
Results: We identifed 3001 references, of which 88 papers met our eligibility criteria. This CIS resulted in a defnition
of EIP institutionalization as the “process and outcome of (re-)creating, maintaining and reinforcing norms, regulations,
and standard practices that, based on collective meaning and values, actions as well as endowment of resources,
allow evidence to become—over time—a legitimate and taken-for-granted part of health policy-making”. The
resulting theoretical framework comprised six key domains of EIP institutionalization that capture both structure and
agency: (1) governance; (2) standards and routinized processes; (3) partnership, collective action and support; (4) lead‑
ership and commitment; (5) resources; and (6) culture. Furthermore, EIP institutionalization is being achieved through
fve overlapping stages: (i) precipitating events; (ii) de-institutionalization; (iii) semi-institutionalization (comprising
theorization and difusion); (iv) (re)-institutionalization; and (v) renewed de-institutionalization processes.
Conclusions: This CIS advances the theoretical and conceptual discussions on EIP institutionalization, and provides
new insights into an evidence-informed framework for initiating, strengthening and/or assessing eforts to institution‑
alize EIP.
Keywords
Evidence‑informed policyInstitutionalization
Institutional capacity
Knowledge translation
Knowledge translation platform
Sustainability
Conceptual framework
Definition
DeCS
Política Informada por EvidênciasInstitucionalização
Fortalecimento Institucional
Ciência Translacional Biomédica
Desenvolvimento Sustentável
Share