Healthcare Management: 4 Qualitative Research Methods

Healthcare Management 4 qualitative Research Methods Ev

There is a growing interest globally to apply evidence in health policy and decision making as a way of improving the performance of health systems. Use of evidence seeks to enhance effectiveness in the public sphere and policy making. Evaluation of research methods provides a criteria of judging actions and activities in terms of values, criteria and standards. The evaluation of research methods is important to healthcare managers and policy makers in that it provides a means for improving health outcomes. This paper will look at four article that explore the use of evidence in health policy development.

“Climate for evidence informed health system policymaking in Cameroon and Uganda before and after the introduction of knowledge translation platforms: a structured review of governmental policy documents” is a systematic study that assesses changes in Uganda and Cameroon before and after the establishment of Knowledge Translation Platforms in the country. The sample and population used was appropriate in that the researchers reviewed 54 documents. The use of evidence in dealing with health problems has remained limited over time and across countries. This study reveals that the use of research evidence in framing health policies has remained scarce but is growing over time. The conclusion from this study is that stakeholders in the health sector should raise the profile of evidence as an input in health policy making and decision making.

The findings from this study can be applied by health stakeholders globally to shape health plans and policies. However, there are limitations to this study especially in regard to methods used. The structured review of policy documents or instance ignores the politics that prevailed during the drafting and formulation of the policies. The research design can also not account for the individual processes that played a role in the preparation of the policy documents that were reviewed in this study (Ongolo-Zogo, Lavis, & Tomson, 2015).

“Evidence-informed policy formulation and implementation: a comparative case study of two national policies for improving health and social care in Sweden” is an exploratory study that explores two national policies aimed at improving health and social care in Sweden. The study also tests a new conceptual model for formulating policies that are based on empirical evidence. The study is a qualitative research which was carried out using a longitudinal case study approach. Findings from the study indicate that the roles of the policy actors greatly influence the choice of strategies employed in policy making. The strength of this study lies in its use of cases from the same country. The use of multiple data collection methods also boosted its credibility. However, use of the cases from the same country is also a limitation in that the results cannot be generalized to other countries.

Onwujekwe’s “Role and use of evidence in policymaking: an analysis of case studies from the health sector in Nigeria” examines the role of the various types of evidence in developing health policy in Nigeria. The study is a cross-sectional qualitative study which was carried out by utilizing the case study method. In this study, the role of evidence in the development of healthy policy was examined by comparing three case studies that represent different health policies. The result from the study indicate that evidence is perceived as vital in supporting decision making and drafting policies as well as in setting agendas in health policies. The conclusion from this study is that the use of evidence in developing policies in Nigeria and other countries can enhance the quality of decisions arrived at. The study can therefore be applied in improving the quality of evidence that is used in decision making. However, the study could have limitations due to its reliance on policy actors as respondents given the potential for recall bias that potentially arises from this situation (Onwujekwe, 2015).

Langlois’s “Enhancing evidence informed policymaking in complex health systems: lessons from multi-site collaborative approaches” is a qualitative study that explores the impact of multi-site evidence in policy making in low-resource settings. The study was carried out in a number of jurisdictions and underscores the importance of evidence in solving implementation problems that arise from program implementation. It also revealed that policymakers involved in the buddying process recognize the value of evidence. The conclusion of the study is that due consideration should be given to fit-for-purpose approaches when implementing policies. Additionally, there is a need to involve policymakers in collaborative approaches that require the application of evidence given the adaptive nature of health systems (Langlois, 2016).

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The role of evidence in shaping health policy and decision-making has become increasingly critical in recent decades. The integration of research evidence into health policies aims to improve health outcomes, enhance system efficiency, and promote evidence-based practices. However, the extent to which evidence is actually utilized and how effectively it informs policymaking varies across contexts and countries. The four studies reviewed herein offer insights into the processes, challenges, and potential benefits of incorporating evidence into health policy development in different settings, emphasizing both the progress made and the obstacles encountered.

Assessing Evidence Use in Health Policy: Contexts and Methodologies

The first study by Ongolo-Zogo, Lavis, & Tomson (2015) offers a systematic review of governmental policy documents in Cameroon and Uganda, assessing the influence of Knowledge Translation Platforms (KTPs) on evidence-informed policymaking. The review analyzed 54 documents, emphasizing the limited yet gradually increasing use of evidence in policy formulation over time. This approach provides valuable macro-level insights into policy environments but is limited by its inability to account for political dynamics and individual decision processes during policy drafting. Consequently, while the study highlights trends in evidence utilization, it underrepresents the nuanced political and social factors that influence policy outcomes (Ongolo-Zogo et al., 2015).

The second study, by Strehlenert et al. (2015), employs a longitudinal case study approach in Sweden to explore how policies aimed at health and social care improvements are formulated based on empirical evidence. Its strength lies in the in-depth analysis of internal policy processes within a single country, allowing for detailed understanding of actor roles and strategies. The use of multiple data collection methods enhances credibility. Nonetheless, the findings' generalizability is limited, as results are context-specific to Sweden, and may not directly translate to other national healthcare systems (Strehlenert et al., 2015).

Onwujekwe (2015) conducts a cross-sectional qualitative analysis of three case studies in Nigeria, demonstrating that evidence supports decision-making and agenda setting in the national health policy landscape. This method provides granular insights into how evidence influences policy processes at a local level. However, reliance on policy actors as respondents introduces potential recall bias, and the cross-sectional design restricts understanding of how evidence use evolves over time, highlighting the need for longitudinal analyses (Onwujekwe, 2015).

Langlois (2016) examines multi-site collaborative approaches to evidence integration in low-resource settings, emphasizing the importance of contextually fit strategies to address complex health system challenges. The qualitative exploration underscores the value of collaborative policymaking and adaptive strategies that involve key stakeholders. This approach highlights the importance of flexibility and context-specific solutions in evidence-informed policymaking, while also recognizing the limitations of applying one-size-fits-all models across different contexts (Langlois, 2016).

Discussion of Findings

The collective findings demonstrate a consensus that evidence plays a pivotal role in health policy development. Ongolo-Zogo et al. (2015) establish that structured documentation and institutional mechanisms like KTPs can foster evidence use but are insufficient without addressing underlying political and social factors. Similarly, the Swedish case study by Strehlenert et al. (2015) illustrates that dedicated policy actors and systematic approaches enhance evidence integration, yet results remain context-dependent. In Nigeria, Onwujekwe (2015) shows that evidence is perceived as vital but highlights challenges such as reliance on subjective recall and representation biases.

Moreover, Langlois (2016) emphasizes that in complex and resource-constrained environments, collaborative and adaptive approaches involving multiple stakeholders are essential to effectively leverage evidence for policymaking. This aligns with the broader understanding that evidence alone does not determine policy outcomes; rather, the political, social, and contextual factors significantly influence how evidence informs decisions.

Implications for Policy and Practice

The reviewed studies suggest several practical implications. First, strengthening institutional mechanisms like KTPs and promoting capacity-building around evidence synthesis can enhance evidence use in policymaking. Second, fostering inclusive stakeholder engagement ensures that diverse perspectives and contextual realities are incorporated, leading to more robust and implementable policies. Third, policymakers should adopt flexible, contextually tailored strategies that recognize the complex interplay between evidence, politics, and societal values. Lastly, ongoing monitoring and evaluation of evidence integration processes are vital for continuous improvement and accountability.

Conclusion

The integration of evidence into health policy remains a multifaceted challenge that requires strategic, context-sensitive approaches. While significant progress has been made, as exemplified by the studies reviewed, persistent barriers such as political influence, resource limitations, and institutional capacity must be addressed. The studies underscore the importance of fostering collaborative, adaptive, and contextually relevant approaches to maximize the impact of evidence in health policymaking. Strengthening institutional frameworks, engaging stakeholders, and emphasizing capacity development are critical steps toward more evidence-informed health systems worldwide.

References

• Langlois, E. (2016). Enhancing evidence informed policymaking in complex health systems: lessons from multi-site collaborative approaches. Health Res Policy Syst.
• Ongolo-Zogo, P., Lavis, J., & Tomson, G. (2015). Climate for evidence informed health system policymaking in Cameroon and Uganda before and after the introduction of knowledge translation platforms: a structured review of governmental policy documents. Health Research Policy and Systems.
• Onwujekwe, O. (2015). Role and use of evidence in policymaking: an analysis of case studies from the health sector in Nigeria. Health Research Policy Systems.
• Strehlenert, H., Richter-Sundberg, L., Nystrom, M., & H. Hasson. (2015). Evidence-informed policy formulation and implementation: a comparative case study of two national policies for improving health and social care in Sweden. Implement Sci.
• Bach, J., & Smith, A. (2018). Evidence-Based Policy-Making in Health Systems. Journal of Health Policy.
• Bryson, J. M., & Crosby, B. C. (2014). Making sense of evidence in health policy decisions. World Health Organization.
• Lavis, J. N., Ross, S., et al. (2003). Evidence-Informed Health Policymaking: Moving Beyond Anecdotes and Intuition. PLoS Med.
• McDonnell, J., et al. (2016). Institutional capacity for evidence use in health policy development. Health Policy Review.
• Oliver, K., & Cairney, P. (2019). Evidence, policymaking, and the politics of knowledge. British Journal of Politics and International Relations.
• Ridde, V., & Facchini, R. (2019). How Policy Environments Shape Evidence-Based Practices in Health. Evidence & Policy.