A purple patch for evidence-based health policy?
Mark Cormack A G , Anne-marie Boxall B , Carolyn Hullick
C D , Mark Booth E F and Russell L. Gruen A
A College of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
B Menzies Centre for Health Policy, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
C Belmont Hospital, Hunter New England Health District, Belmont, NSW, Australia.
D School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
E Food Standards Australia New Zealand, Australian Government, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
F Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Haymarket, NSW, Australia.
G Corresponding author. Email: mark.cormack@anu.edu.au
Australian Health Review - https://doi.org/10.1071/AH21016
Submitted: 12 January 2021 Accepted: 12 January 2021 Published online: 1 February 2021
Abstract
The global focus on nation states’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic has rightly highlighted the importance of science and evidence as the basis for policy action. Those with a lifelong passion for evidence-based policy (EBP) have lauded Australia’s and other nations’ policy responses to COVID-19 as a breakthrough moment for the cause. This article reflects on the complexity of the public policy process, the perspectives of its various actors, and draws on Alford’s work on the Blue, Red and Purple zones to propose a more nuanced approach to advocacy for EBP in health. We contend that the pathway for translation of research evidence into routine clinical practice is relatively linear, in contrast to the more complex course for translation of evidence to public policy – much to the frustration of health researchers and EBP advocates. Cairney’s description of the characteristics of successful policy entrepreneurs offers useful guidance to advance EBP and we conclude with proposing some practical mechanisms to support it. Finally, we recommend that researchers and policy makers spend more time in the Purple zone to enable a deeper understanding of, and mutual respect for, the unique contributions made by research, policy and political actors to sound public policy.
Keywords: clinical practice, evidence-based medicine, evidence-based policy, health research, knowledge translation, policy makers, public policy, research evidence.
References
[1] Baron J. A brief history of evidence based policy. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 2018; 678 40–50.| A brief history of evidence based policy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[2] Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP, Lavis JN, Hill SJ, Squires JE. Knowledge translation of research findings. Implement Sci 2012; 7 50
| Knowledge translation of research findings.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22651257PubMed |
[3] Lavis JN, Oxman AD, Souza NM, Lewin S, Gruen RL, Fretheim A. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 9: assessing the applicability of the findings of a systematic review. Health Res Policy Syst 2009; 7 S9
| SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 9: assessing the applicability of the findings of a systematic review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20018116PubMed |
[4] Translational Cancer Research Network. Translational research – defining the ‘Ts’. 2018. Available at: http://www.tcrn.unsw.edu.au/translational-research-definitions [verified 13 January 2021].
[5] Sydney Health Partners. Research translation or translational research? A simple explanation of two important terms. 2020. Available at: https://sydneyhealthpartners.org.au/research-translation-or-translational-research/ [verified 13 January 2021].
[6] Khoury MJ, Gwinn M, Yoon PW, Dowling N, Moore CA, Bradley L. The continuum of translation research in genomic medicine: how can we accelerate the appropriate integration of human genome discoveries into care and disease prevention? Genet Med 2007; 9 665–74.
| The continuum of translation research in genomic medicine: how can we accelerate the appropriate integration of human genome discoveries into care and disease prevention?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18073579PubMed |
[7] Eisenstadt N. Evidence-based policy and other myths. What researchers need to know to influence government. 22 September 2020. Available at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/09/22/evidence-based-policy-and-other-myths-what-researchers-need-to-know-to-influence-government/ [verified 13 January 2021].
[8] Alford J, Hartley J, Yates S, Hughes O. Into the purple zone: deconstructing the politics/administration distinction. Am Rev Public Adm 2017; 47 752–63.
| Into the purple zone: deconstructing the politics/administration distinction.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[9] Svara JH. The politics–administration dichotomy model as aberration. Public Adm Rev 1998; 58 51–8.
| The politics–administration dichotomy model as aberration.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[10] Mintrom M, O’Connor R. The importance of policy narrative: effective government responses to COVID-19. Policy Des Pract 2020; 3 205–27.
| The importance of policy narrative: effective government responses to COVID-19.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[11] Kingdon J. Agendas, alternatives and public policies. New York: Harper Collins; 1984.
[12] Cairney P. Three habits of successful policy entrepreneurs. Policy Polit 2018; 46 199–215.
| Three habits of successful policy entrepreneurs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
