Article type
Abstract
Globally, there is recognition that using research evidence in health policymaking can strengthen health systems and accelerate progress toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic increased demands for evidence to inform policy and enhance accountability and public trust in decision-makers. However, there is a lack of understanding of the landscape of evidence-informed policy (EIP) making in the WHO Southeast Asia region (SEAR).
To identify gaps in the use of evidence in health policy formulation in SEAR, a desk review was conducted. Using the review findings, a framework that grouped the member states according to their capacity to conduct EIP was developed, barriers were identified, and country action plans were outlined.
Group 1 (Thailand and India) possessed strong research capacity; however, identified barriers to EIP were capacity gaps in health systems among funders, researcher institutions, policymakers, health service managers, patients, and the public and the ease of research accessibility for policymakers. These were named T1 barriers. Group 2 (Bangladesh, Indonesia, Nepal, and Sri Lanka) possessed medium research capacity, but identified T2 EIP barriers included gaps in researchers’ knowledge, skills, attitude on EIP, and institutional support; researcher engagement with policymakers and policymakers’ research background; and T1 barriers. For Group 3 (Bhutan, Timor-Leste, and Maldives), the most immediate barriers are their low health research capacity in priority areas, policymakers’ research background, and T2 barriers.
Based on this, country actions were developed, aimed at improving imminent country needs. For all countries, the development of national EIP platforms will be advocated for to enhance communication among all EIP stakeholders. Group 1 country actions include the development of national databases for health research priorities and enhancing the capacity of EIP stakeholders, focusing on the health system and health managers. Group 2 country actions are to promote the establishment of an EIP team and formalize EIP within the Ministry of Health, enhance the EIP capacity of the Ministry of Health planning department, and facilitate communication between researchers and policymakers. Group 3 country actions are aimed at increasing research in the national priority areas and enhancing the capacity of EIP stakeholders, especially researchers and policymakers.
To identify gaps in the use of evidence in health policy formulation in SEAR, a desk review was conducted. Using the review findings, a framework that grouped the member states according to their capacity to conduct EIP was developed, barriers were identified, and country action plans were outlined.
Group 1 (Thailand and India) possessed strong research capacity; however, identified barriers to EIP were capacity gaps in health systems among funders, researcher institutions, policymakers, health service managers, patients, and the public and the ease of research accessibility for policymakers. These were named T1 barriers. Group 2 (Bangladesh, Indonesia, Nepal, and Sri Lanka) possessed medium research capacity, but identified T2 EIP barriers included gaps in researchers’ knowledge, skills, attitude on EIP, and institutional support; researcher engagement with policymakers and policymakers’ research background; and T1 barriers. For Group 3 (Bhutan, Timor-Leste, and Maldives), the most immediate barriers are their low health research capacity in priority areas, policymakers’ research background, and T2 barriers.
Based on this, country actions were developed, aimed at improving imminent country needs. For all countries, the development of national EIP platforms will be advocated for to enhance communication among all EIP stakeholders. Group 1 country actions include the development of national databases for health research priorities and enhancing the capacity of EIP stakeholders, focusing on the health system and health managers. Group 2 country actions are to promote the establishment of an EIP team and formalize EIP within the Ministry of Health, enhance the EIP capacity of the Ministry of Health planning department, and facilitate communication between researchers and policymakers. Group 3 country actions are aimed at increasing research in the national priority areas and enhancing the capacity of EIP stakeholders, especially researchers and policymakers.