Policy and Real World Evidence - Revision history

Bosmana fem at 11:32, 3 June 2023

2023-06-03T11:32:19Z

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 The policy and decision-making processes in health are usually complex and rely on many factors besides RWE. Policies usually aim to reflect societal values and need to be aligned with related policies, in order to build a coherent and consistent frame of reference for public decision making. Evidence alone cannot guide a policy. For example, vaccine effectiveness (VE) is an epidemiological indicator that can be quantified and substantiated with real word data and expressed with confidence intervals. However, VE alone does not inform policymakers sufficiently WHOM to vaccinate (Bosman, 2019). That choice depends on many other factors than epidemiological evidence alone.
 During crises specifically, the complex policy process can be subject to various overt and covert pressures, leading governments to pursue policies that disregard real-world evidence or even rely on false evidence. Such a phenomenon can be observed in many different contexts, not just during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic. It can be due to a variety of reasons, including cognitive biases, political interests, and lack of quality information.
@@ Line 17: / Line 39: @@
 =References=
 * This article was written by ChatGPT4.0 on June 2, 2023 and revised by Arnold Bosman
 * Cairney, P. (2016). The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making. Palgrave Macmillan.
 * Grossmann, M. (2012). Interest group influence on US policy change: An assessment based on policy history. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 1(2), 171-192.

Bosmana fem at 08:22, 3 June 2023

2023-06-03T08:22:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:22, 3 June 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The field epidemiologist aims to provide, as reliable as possible, real-world evidence (RWE) to support policy decisions.		The field epidemiologist aims to provide, as reliable as possible, real-world evidence (RWE) to support policy decisions.

	The policy and decision-making processes in health are usually complex and rely on many factors besides RWE. Policies usually aim to reflect societal values and need to be aligned with related policies, in order to build a coherent and consistent frame of reference for public decision making. Evidence alone cannot guide a policy. For example, vaccine effectiveness (VE) is an epidemiological indicator that can be quantified and substantiated with real word data and expressed with confidence intervals. However, VE alone does not inform policymakers sufficiently WHOM to vaccinate. That choice depends on many other factors than epidemiological evidence alone.		The policy and decision-making processes in health are usually complex and rely on many factors besides RWE. Policies usually aim to reflect societal values and need to be aligned with related policies, in order to build a coherent and consistent frame of reference for public decision making. Evidence alone cannot guide a policy. For example, vaccine effectiveness (VE) is an epidemiological indicator that can be quantified and substantiated with real word data and expressed with confidence intervals. However, VE alone does not inform policymakers sufficiently WHOM to vaccinate (Bosman, 2019). That choice depends on many other factors than epidemiological evidence alone.

	During crises specifically, the complex policy process can be subject to various overt and covert pressures, leading governments to pursue policies that disregard real-world evidence or even rely on false evidence. Such a phenomenon can be observed in many different contexts, not just during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic. It can be due to a variety of reasons, including cognitive biases, political interests, and lack of quality information.		During crises specifically, the complex policy process can be subject to various overt and covert pressures, leading governments to pursue policies that disregard real-world evidence or even rely on false evidence. Such a phenomenon can be observed in many different contexts, not just during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic. It can be due to a variety of reasons, including cognitive biases, political interests, and lack of quality information.
Line 19:		Line 19:
	* Cairney, P. (2016). The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making. Palgrave Macmillan.		* Cairney, P. (2016). The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making. Palgrave Macmillan.
	* Grossmann, M. (2012). Interest group influence on US policy change: An assessment based on policy history. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 1(2), 171-192.		* Grossmann, M. (2012). Interest group influence on US policy change: An assessment based on policy history. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 1(2), 171-192.
			* Bosman, A (2019). Video masterclass on attitudes and values in the context of core competencies in public health. https://vimeo.com/404643912
	* Jacobs, L. R. (2011). Governing for the long term: Democracy and the politics of investment. Cambridge University Press.		* Jacobs, L. R. (2011). Governing for the long term: Democracy and the politics of investment. Cambridge University Press.
	* Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., & Cook, J. (2017). Beyond Misinformation: Understanding and Coping with the “Post-Truth” Era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 353–369.		* Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., & Cook, J. (2017). Beyond Misinformation: Understanding and Coping with the “Post-Truth” Era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 353–369.

Bosmana fem at 08:19, 3 June 2023

2023-06-03T08:19:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:19, 3 June 2023
Line 8:		Line 8:

	# '''[[Cognitive bias\|Cognitive biases]]''': Decision-makers, like all humans, are influenced by various cognitive biases. They may overemphasize evidence that supports their existing beliefs and disregard evidence that contradicts them, a phenomenon known as confirmation bias (Nickerson, 1998). Similarly, they may be affected by availability bias, where they give undue weight to immediate and memorable examples over statistically significant evidence (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973).		# '''[[Cognitive bias\|Cognitive biases]]''': Decision-makers, like all humans, are influenced by various cognitive biases. They may overemphasize evidence that supports their existing beliefs and disregard evidence that contradicts them, a phenomenon known as confirmation bias (Nickerson, 1998). Similarly, they may be affected by availability bias, where they give undue weight to immediate and memorable examples over statistically significant evidence (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973).

	# '''[[Political Interests and Populism]]''': Governments sometimes prioritize political interests over evidence-based policy. They might disregard evidence if it contradicts their political agenda or the preferences of their supporters (Cairney, 2016). Populist movements can exacerbate this tendency by appealing to emotions and popular beliefs over expert evidence (Mudde, 2004).		# '''[[Political Interests and Populism]]''': Governments sometimes prioritize political interests over evidence-based policy. They might disregard evidence if it contradicts their political agenda or the preferences of their supporters (Cairney, 2016). Populist movements can exacerbate this tendency by appealing to emotions and popular beliefs over expert evidence (Mudde, 2004).

	# '''[[Misinformation and False Evidence]]''': The spread of misinformation and fake news can also lead governments to rely on false evidence, especially if they lack the resources to properly vet information (Lewandowsky et al., 2012). This problem has been particularly pronounced during the COVID-19 pandemic, due to the rapid spread of misinformation on social media (Pennycook et al., 2020).		# '''[[Misinformation and False Evidence]]''': The spread of misinformation and fake news can also lead governments to rely on false evidence, especially if they lack the resources to properly vet information (Lewandowsky et al., 2012). This problem has been particularly pronounced during the COVID-19 pandemic, due to the rapid spread of misinformation on social media (Pennycook et al., 2020).

	# '''[[Scientific Uncertainty]]''': Especially in a rapidly evolving situation like the COVID-19 pandemic, scientific evidence is often uncertain and can change over time. This can make it difficult for governments to determine what the "real" evidence is, and can lead to flip-flopping on policy as new evidence emerges (Sarewitz, 2004).		# '''[[Scientific Uncertainty]]''': Especially in a rapidly evolving situation like the COVID-19 pandemic, scientific evidence is often uncertain and can change over time. This can make it difficult for governments to determine what the "real" evidence is, and can lead to flip-flopping on policy as new evidence emerges (Sarewitz, 2004).

	# '''Short-term focus''': Governments can sometimes be influenced by short-term interests, such as upcoming elections, rather than longer-term outcomes. This can lead them to implement policies that have immediate, visible benefits, rather than those that are most supported by evidence (Jacobs, 2011).		# '''Short-term focus''': Governments can sometimes be influenced by short-term interests, such as upcoming elections, rather than longer-term outcomes. This can lead them to implement policies that have immediate, visible benefits, rather than those that are most supported by evidence (Jacobs, 2011).

	# '''Influence of [[Lobbying]]''': Policy decisions can also be heavily influenced by lobbying from various interest groups. If these groups are promoting policies that are not based on solid evidence, this can lead to a disconnect between policy and evidence (Grossmann, 2012).		# '''Influence of [[Lobbying]]''': Policy decisions can also be heavily influenced by lobbying from various interest groups. If these groups are promoting policies that are not based on solid evidence, this can lead to a disconnect between policy and evidence (Grossmann, 2012).

	# '''Lack of expertise and resources''': Governments may not always have sufficient access to expertise or resources to fully evaluate the evidence. This is particularly likely in less developed countries, but can also be a problem in developed countries where government capacity has been eroded (Peters et al., 2019).		# '''Lack of expertise and resources''': Governments may not always have sufficient access to expertise or resources to fully evaluate the evidence. This is particularly likely in less developed countries, but can also be a problem in developed countries where government capacity has been eroded (Peters et al., 2019).

Bosmana fem: /* References */

2023-06-03T08:19:20Z

References

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:19, 3 June 2023
Line 22:		Line 22:

	=References=		=References=
			* This article was written by ChatGPT4.0 on June 2, 2023 and revised by Arnold Bosman
	* Cairney, P. (2016). The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making. Palgrave Macmillan.		* Cairney, P. (2016). The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making. Palgrave Macmillan.
	* Grossmann, M. (2012). Interest group influence on US policy change: An assessment based on policy history. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 1(2), 171-192.		* Grossmann, M. (2012). Interest group influence on US policy change: An assessment based on policy history. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 1(2), 171-192.

Bosmana fem at 07:57, 3 June 2023

2023-06-03T07:57:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:57, 3 June 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The field epidemiologist aims to provide, as reliable as possible, real-world evidence (RWE) to support policy decisions.		The field epidemiologist aims to provide, as reliable as possible, real-world evidence (RWE) to support policy decisions.

	The policy and decision-making processes in health are usually complex. During crises specifically, ~~this~~ complex process can be subject to various overt and covert pressures, leading governments to pursue policies that disregard real-world evidence or rely on false evidence. Such a phenomenon can be observed in many different contexts, not just during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic. It can be due to a variety of reasons, including cognitive biases, political interests, and lack of quality information.		The policy and decision-making processes in health are usually complex and rely on many factors besides RWE. Policies usually aim to reflect societal values and need to be aligned with related policies, in order to build a coherent and consistent frame of reference for public decision making. Evidence alone cannot guide a policy. For example, vaccine effectiveness (VE) is an epidemiological indicator that can be quantified and substantiated with real word data and expressed with confidence intervals. However, VE alone does not inform policymakers sufficiently WHOM to vaccinate. That choice depends on many other factors than epidemiological evidence alone.

			During crises specifically, the complex policy process can be subject to various overt and covert pressures, leading governments to pursue policies that disregard real-world evidence or even rely on false evidence. Such a phenomenon can be observed in many different contexts, not just during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic. It can be due to a variety of reasons, including cognitive biases, political interests, and lack of quality information.

	Possible explanations if this phenomenon:		Possible explanations if this phenomenon:

Bosmana fem at 07:40, 3 June 2023

2023-06-03T07:40:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:40, 3 June 2023
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Possible explanations if this phenomenon:		Possible explanations if this phenomenon:

	# '''Cognitive biases''': Decision-makers, like all humans, are influenced by various cognitive biases. They may overemphasize evidence that supports their existing beliefs and disregard evidence that contradicts them, a phenomenon known as confirmation bias (Nickerson, 1998). Similarly, they may be affected by availability bias, where they give undue weight to immediate and memorable examples over statistically significant evidence (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973).		# '''[[Cognitive bias\|Cognitive biases]]''': Decision-makers, like all humans, are influenced by various cognitive biases. They may overemphasize evidence that supports their existing beliefs and disregard evidence that contradicts them, a phenomenon known as confirmation bias (Nickerson, 1998). Similarly, they may be affected by availability bias, where they give undue weight to immediate and memorable examples over statistically significant evidence (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973).

	# '''Political Interests and Populism''': Governments sometimes prioritize political interests over evidence-based policy. They might disregard evidence if it contradicts their political agenda or the preferences of their supporters (Cairney, 2016). Populist movements can exacerbate this tendency by appealing to emotions and popular beliefs over expert evidence (Mudde, 2004).		# '''[[Political Interests and Populism]]''': Governments sometimes prioritize political interests over evidence-based policy. They might disregard evidence if it contradicts their political agenda or the preferences of their supporters (Cairney, 2016). Populist movements can exacerbate this tendency by appealing to emotions and popular beliefs over expert evidence (Mudde, 2004).

	# '''Misinformation and False Evidence''': The spread of misinformation and fake news can also lead governments to rely on false evidence, especially if they lack the resources to properly vet information (Lewandowsky et al., 2012). This problem has been particularly pronounced during the COVID-19 pandemic, due to the rapid spread of misinformation on social media (Pennycook et al., 2020).		# '''[[Misinformation and False Evidence]]''': The spread of misinformation and fake news can also lead governments to rely on false evidence, especially if they lack the resources to properly vet information (Lewandowsky et al., 2012). This problem has been particularly pronounced during the COVID-19 pandemic, due to the rapid spread of misinformation on social media (Pennycook et al., 2020).

	# '''Scientific Uncertainty''': Especially in a rapidly evolving situation like the COVID-19 pandemic, scientific evidence is often uncertain and can change over time. This can make it difficult for governments to determine what the "real" evidence is, and can lead to flip-flopping on policy as new evidence emerges (Sarewitz, 2004).		# '''[[Scientific Uncertainty]]''': Especially in a rapidly evolving situation like the COVID-19 pandemic, scientific evidence is often uncertain and can change over time. This can make it difficult for governments to determine what the "real" evidence is, and can lead to flip-flopping on policy as new evidence emerges (Sarewitz, 2004).

	# '''Short-term focus''': Governments can sometimes be influenced by short-term interests, such as upcoming elections, rather than longer-term outcomes. This can lead them to implement policies that have immediate, visible benefits, rather than those that are most supported by evidence (Jacobs, 2011).		# '''Short-term focus''': Governments can sometimes be influenced by short-term interests, such as upcoming elections, rather than longer-term outcomes. This can lead them to implement policies that have immediate, visible benefits, rather than those that are most supported by evidence (Jacobs, 2011).

	# '''Influence of Lobbying''': Policy decisions can also be heavily influenced by lobbying from various interest groups. If these groups are promoting policies that are not based on solid evidence, this can lead to a disconnect between policy and evidence (Grossmann, 2012).		# '''Influence of [[Lobbying]]''': Policy decisions can also be heavily influenced by lobbying from various interest groups. If these groups are promoting policies that are not based on solid evidence, this can lead to a disconnect between policy and evidence (Grossmann, 2012).

	# '''Lack of expertise and resources''': Governments may not always have sufficient access to expertise or resources to fully evaluate the evidence. This is particularly likely in less developed countries, but can also be a problem in developed countries where government capacity has been eroded (Peters et al., 2019).		# '''Lack of expertise and resources''': Governments may not always have sufficient access to expertise or resources to fully evaluate the evidence. This is particularly likely in less developed countries, but can also be a problem in developed countries where government capacity has been eroded (Peters et al., 2019).

Bosmana fem: Created page with "The field epidemiologist aims to provide, as reliable as possible, real-world evidence (RWE) to support policy decisions. The policy and decision-making processes in health a..."

2023-06-03T07:28:26Z

Created page with "The field epidemiologist aims to provide, as reliable as possible, real-world evidence (RWE) to support policy decisions. The policy and decision-making processes in health a..."

New page

The field epidemiologist aims to provide, as reliable as possible, real-world evidence (RWE) to support policy decisions.

The policy and decision-making processes in health are usually complex. During crises specifically, this complex process can be subject to various overt and covert pressures, leading governments to pursue policies that disregard real-world evidence or rely on false evidence. Such a phenomenon can be observed in many different contexts, not just during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic. It can be due to a variety of reasons, including cognitive biases, political interests, and lack of quality information.

Possible explanations if this phenomenon:

# '''Cognitive biases''': Decision-makers, like all humans, are influenced by various cognitive biases. They may overemphasize evidence that supports their existing beliefs and disregard evidence that contradicts them, a phenomenon known as confirmation bias (Nickerson, 1998). Similarly, they may be affected by availability bias, where they give undue weight to immediate and memorable examples over statistically significant evidence (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973).

# '''Political Interests and Populism''': Governments sometimes prioritize political interests over evidence-based policy. They might disregard evidence if it contradicts their political agenda or the preferences of their supporters (Cairney, 2016). Populist movements can exacerbate this tendency by appealing to emotions and popular beliefs over expert evidence (Mudde, 2004).

# '''Misinformation and False Evidence''': The spread of misinformation and fake news can also lead governments to rely on false evidence, especially if they lack the resources to properly vet information (Lewandowsky et al., 2012). This problem has been particularly pronounced during the COVID-19 pandemic, due to the rapid spread of misinformation on social media (Pennycook et al., 2020).

# '''Scientific Uncertainty''': Especially in a rapidly evolving situation like the COVID-19 pandemic, scientific evidence is often uncertain and can change over time. This can make it difficult for governments to determine what the "real" evidence is, and can lead to flip-flopping on policy as new evidence emerges (Sarewitz, 2004).

# '''Short-term focus''': Governments can sometimes be influenced by short-term interests, such as upcoming elections, rather than longer-term outcomes. This can lead them to implement policies that have immediate, visible benefits, rather than those that are most supported by evidence (Jacobs, 2011).

# '''Influence of Lobbying''': Policy decisions can also be heavily influenced by lobbying from various interest groups. If these groups are promoting policies that are not based on solid evidence, this can lead to a disconnect between policy and evidence (Grossmann, 2012).

# '''Lack of expertise and resources''': Governments may not always have sufficient access to expertise or resources to fully evaluate the evidence. This is particularly likely in less developed countries, but can also be a problem in developed countries where government capacity has been eroded (Peters et al., 2019).

=References=

* Cairney, P. (2016). The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making. Palgrave Macmillan.
* Grossmann, M. (2012). Interest group influence on US policy change: An assessment based on policy history. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 1(2), 171-192.
* Jacobs, L. R. (2011). Governing for the long term: Democracy and the politics of investment. Cambridge University Press.
* Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., & Cook, J. (2017). Beyond Misinformation: Understanding and Coping with the “Post-Truth” Era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 353–369.
* Mudde, C. (2004). The populist zeitgeist. Government and opposition, 39(4), 541-563.
* Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220.
* Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Zhang, Y., Lu, J. G., & Rand, D. G. (2020). Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy nudge intervention. Psychological Science, 31(7), 770-780.
* Peters, B. G., Jordan, A., & Tosun, J. (2019). Over-reaction and under-reaction in climate policy: an institutional analysis. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 21(5), 585-598.
* Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy, 7(5), 385-403.
* Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207–232.