Challenges to evidence-informed decision-making in the context of pandemics: qualitative study of COVID-19 policy advisor perspectives

Vickery, Jamie, Atkinson, Paul ORCID: 0000-0001-8740-6561, Lin, Leesa, Rubin, Olivier, Upshur, Ross, Yeoh, Eng-Kiong, Boyer, Chris and Errett, Nicole A (2022) Challenges to evidence-informed decision-making in the context of pandemics: qualitative study of COVID-19 policy advisor perspectives. BMJ GLOBAL HEALTH, 7 (4). e008268-.

Text
Challenges to evidence-informed decision-making in the context of pandemics qualitative study of COVID-19 policy advisor per.pdf - Published version
Download (326kB) | Preview

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-008268

Abstract

<h4>Introduction</h4>The exceptional production of research evidence during the COVID-19 pandemic required deployment of scientists to act in advisory roles to aid policy-makers in making evidence-informed decisions. The unprecedented breadth, scale and duration of the pandemic provides an opportunity to understand how science advisors experience and mitigate challenges associated with insufficient, evolving and/or conflicting evidence to inform public health decision-making.<h4>Objectives</h4>To explore critically the challenges for advising evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) in pandemic contexts, particularly around non-pharmaceutical control measures, from the perspective of experts advising policy-makers during COVID-19 globally.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with 27 scientific experts and advisors who are/were engaged in COVID-19 EIDM representing four WHO regions and 11 countries (Australia, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Ghana, Hong Kong, Nigeria, Sweden, Uganda, UK, USA) from December 2020 to May 2021. Participants informed decision-making at various and multiple levels of governance, including local/city (n=3), state/provincial (n=8), federal or national (n=20), regional or international (n=3) and university-level advising (n=3). Following each interview, we conducted member checks with participants and thematically analysed interview data using NVivo for Mac software.<h4>Results</h4>Findings from this study indicate multiple overarching challenges to pandemic EIDM specific to interpretation and translation of evidence, including the speed and influx of new, evolving, and conflicting evidence; concerns about scientific integrity and misinterpretation of evidence; the limited capacity to assess and produce evidence, and adapting evidence from other contexts; multiple forms of evidence and perspectives needed for EIDM; the need to make decisions quickly and under conditions of uncertainty; and a lack of transparency in how decisions are made and applied.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Findings suggest the urgent need for global EIDM guidance that countries can adapt for in-country decisions as well as coordinated global response to future pandemics.

Item Type:	Article
Uncontrolled Keywords:	COVID-19, health policy, public health, QUAlitative study
Divisions:	Faculty of Health and Life Sciences Faculty of Health and Life Sciences > Institute of Population Health
Depositing User:	Symplectic Admin
Date Deposited:	19 May 2022 10:36
Last Modified:	18 Jan 2023 21:01
DOI:	10.1136/bmjgh-2021-008268
Related URLs:	Author Publisher
URI:	https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/id/eprint/3155115