Article type
Abstract
Background:
Evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) entails the identification, analysis, and utilisation of the best available evidence to inform policies and practices. The World Health Organization (WHO) has led global efforts to institutionalise EIDM in public health and healthcare delivery systems. One such initiative involves the development of a checklist aimed at promoting EIDM. This checklist is intended for use by government agencies, knowledge intermediaries, and researchers with the goal of establishing new institutions and strengthening existing ones to support EIDM.
Objectives:
The Southeast Asia Evidence Policy and Partnership (SEAEPP) is a platform for learning and engagement, aiming to build capacity and support EIDM across various policy sectors. We aim to share the experience of a recent effort to engage with researchers and policymakers to assess the infrastructure, resources, governance, partnerships, leadership, and culture related to EIDM in Thailand.
Methods:
Through a political and economic analytical lens, we present our case based on a) training workshops designed to support and promote EIDM among academics and policymakers in health and education and b) a pilot project of the WHO institutionalisation checklist to understand how political and economic factors may influence EIDM.
Results:
In Thailand, governance, institutions, and infrastructure for EIDM in health are well-established, emphasising on legitimacy, governance, resources, citizenship and social participation. Routinised EIDM processes are evident and embedded into health policy processes. In contrast, within education, while community participation, universities and citizen engagement have played significant roles in generating evidence for educational systems, there is limited awareness, resources, and capacity to mobilise evidence for informing educational policy decisions. Institutional memory and leadership commitment within education policymaking institutions emerge as primary barriers.
Conclusion:
The institutionalisation of EIDM in Thailand presents a mixed picture. Lessons could be gleaned from other contexts, such as establishing the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the International Public Policy Observatory in the United Kingdom, which support EIDM across various policy sectors.
Our work contributes to an understanding of policy decisions such as resource allocation and effective policy development, which is crucial to achieving sustainable development and improving health and well-being outcomes for all.
Evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) entails the identification, analysis, and utilisation of the best available evidence to inform policies and practices. The World Health Organization (WHO) has led global efforts to institutionalise EIDM in public health and healthcare delivery systems. One such initiative involves the development of a checklist aimed at promoting EIDM. This checklist is intended for use by government agencies, knowledge intermediaries, and researchers with the goal of establishing new institutions and strengthening existing ones to support EIDM.
Objectives:
The Southeast Asia Evidence Policy and Partnership (SEAEPP) is a platform for learning and engagement, aiming to build capacity and support EIDM across various policy sectors. We aim to share the experience of a recent effort to engage with researchers and policymakers to assess the infrastructure, resources, governance, partnerships, leadership, and culture related to EIDM in Thailand.
Methods:
Through a political and economic analytical lens, we present our case based on a) training workshops designed to support and promote EIDM among academics and policymakers in health and education and b) a pilot project of the WHO institutionalisation checklist to understand how political and economic factors may influence EIDM.
Results:
In Thailand, governance, institutions, and infrastructure for EIDM in health are well-established, emphasising on legitimacy, governance, resources, citizenship and social participation. Routinised EIDM processes are evident and embedded into health policy processes. In contrast, within education, while community participation, universities and citizen engagement have played significant roles in generating evidence for educational systems, there is limited awareness, resources, and capacity to mobilise evidence for informing educational policy decisions. Institutional memory and leadership commitment within education policymaking institutions emerge as primary barriers.
Conclusion:
The institutionalisation of EIDM in Thailand presents a mixed picture. Lessons could be gleaned from other contexts, such as establishing the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the International Public Policy Observatory in the United Kingdom, which support EIDM across various policy sectors.
Our work contributes to an understanding of policy decisions such as resource allocation and effective policy development, which is crucial to achieving sustainable development and improving health and well-being outcomes for all.