You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for
- Author or Editor: Jonathan Lomas x
Evidence-informed decisions are conjectured to be better than un-evidenced ones. Evidence is classified into three types: context-free scientific, context-sensitive scientific and colloquial. A deliberative process provides guidance informed by relevant scientific evidence, interpreted in a relevant context wherever possible with context-sensitive scientific evidence and, where not, by the best available colloquial evidence. Some characteristics of an empirical approach to the evaluation of the impact of deliberative processes on the quality of decisions in healthcare are identified. These are centred on the selection of key outcomes, key characteristics and having explicit alternatives as comparator.
We investigated researchers’ experiences of, and views on, interacting with policy makers, using children’s mental health as an example. Qualitative methods were used to interview university researchers, policy researchers, and research funders. Participants spoke of contributions to policy that went beyond interaction with policy makers. We describe how participants became motivated, developed approaches, and created new environments to contribute to policy. Our findings suggest that university researchers should challenge their peers to better recognise and support policy interaction and public engagement. Both university and policy researchers must balance academic rigour and policy relevance to make meaningful contributions to policy.