TY - JOUR
T1 - Evidence attack in public health
T2 - Diverse actors’ experiences with translating controversial or misrepresented evidence in health policy and systems research
AU - Jessani, Nasreen S.
AU - Williamson, R. Taylor
AU - Choonara, Shakira
AU - Gautier, Lara
AU - Hoe, Connie
AU - Jafar, Sakeena K.
AU - Khalid, Ahmad Firas
AU - Rodríguez Salas, Irene
AU - Turcotte-Tremblay, Anne Marie
AU - Rodríguez, Daniela C.
N1 - Funding Information:
The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article. The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Devaki Nambiar and Dr. Hari Sankar for their invaluable inputs on the India case, as well as Drs. Manuela De Allegri and Valéry Ridde for their input on PBF cases. We would also like to extend our gratitude to the Translating Evidence to Action Thematic Working Group of Health Systems Global for convening an exciting panel of cases at the Health System Research Symposium 2020 that inspired this paper.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - Bringing evidence into policy and practice discussions is political; more so when evidence from health studies or programme data are deemed controversial or unexpected, or when results are manipulated and misrepresented. Furthermore, opinion and misinformation in recent years has challenged our notions about how to achieve evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM). Health policy and systems (HPS) researchers and practitioners are battling misrepresentation that only serves to detract from important health issues or, worse, benefit powerful interests. This paper describes cases of politically and socially controversial evidence presented by researchers, practitioners and journalists during the Health Systems Research Symposium 2020. These cases cut across global contexts and range from public debates on vaccination, comprehensive sexual education, and tobacco to more inward debates around performance-based financing and EIDM in refugee policy. The consequences of engaging in controversial research include threats to commercial profit, perceived assaults on moral beliefs, censorship, fear of reprisal, and infodemics. Consequences for public health include research(er) hesitancy, contribution to corruption and leakage, researcher reflexivity, and ethical concerns within the HPS research and EIDM fields. Recommendations for supporting researchers, practitioners and advocates include better training and support structures for responding to controversy, safe spaces for sharing experiences, and modifying incentive structures.
AB - Bringing evidence into policy and practice discussions is political; more so when evidence from health studies or programme data are deemed controversial or unexpected, or when results are manipulated and misrepresented. Furthermore, opinion and misinformation in recent years has challenged our notions about how to achieve evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM). Health policy and systems (HPS) researchers and practitioners are battling misrepresentation that only serves to detract from important health issues or, worse, benefit powerful interests. This paper describes cases of politically and socially controversial evidence presented by researchers, practitioners and journalists during the Health Systems Research Symposium 2020. These cases cut across global contexts and range from public debates on vaccination, comprehensive sexual education, and tobacco to more inward debates around performance-based financing and EIDM in refugee policy. The consequences of engaging in controversial research include threats to commercial profit, perceived assaults on moral beliefs, censorship, fear of reprisal, and infodemics. Consequences for public health include research(er) hesitancy, contribution to corruption and leakage, researcher reflexivity, and ethical concerns within the HPS research and EIDM fields. Recommendations for supporting researchers, practitioners and advocates include better training and support structures for responding to controversy, safe spaces for sharing experiences, and modifying incentive structures.
KW - Evidence-informed decision-making
KW - censorship
KW - controversy
KW - health policy and systems research
KW - infodemic
KW - knowledge translation
KW - misinformation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85122700063&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85122700063&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/17441692.2021.2020319
DO - 10.1080/17441692.2021.2020319
M3 - Article
C2 - 34996335
AN - SCOPUS:85122700063
SN - 1744-1692
VL - 17
SP - 3043
EP - 3059
JO - Global public health
JF - Global public health
IS - 11
ER -