Challenges to generating evidence-informed policy and the role of systematic reviews and (perceived) conflicts of interest

References

• Lemieux-Charles L, Barnsley J. An innovation diffusion perspective on knowledge and evidence in health care. In: Lemieux-Charles L, Champagne F, (eds.) Using knowledge and evidence in health care: multidisplinary perspectives. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press; 2004. p. 115–38.
   Google Scholar
• Denis J-L, Lehoux P, Champagne F. A knowledge utilization perspective on fine-tuning dissemination and contextualizing knowledge. In: Lemieux-Charles L, Champagne F, (eds.) Using knowledge and evidence in health care: multidisciplinary perspectives. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press; 2004. p. 18–40.
   Google Scholar
• Fielding J, Marks J, Myers B, Nolan P, Rawson R, Toomey K. How do we translate science into public health policy and law? J Law Med Ethics 2002;30(supplement 3):s22–s32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stillman FA, Cronin KA, Evans WD, Ulasevich A. Can media advocacy influence newspaper coverage of tobacco: measuring the effectiveness of the American stop smoking intervention study's (ASSIST) media advocacy strategies. Tob Control 2001;10:137–44. doi: 10.1136/tc.10.2.137
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taroni F, Grilli R. Mass media interventions. Int Encyclopedia Public Health 2008;4:202–10.
   Google Scholar
• Lavis JN. A political science perspective on evidence-based decision-making. In: Lemieux-Charles L, Champagne F, (eds.) Using knowledge and evidence in health care: multidisciplinary perspectives. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 2004. p. 70–85.
   Google Scholar
• Ham C. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005;10(supplement 1): s1:51–s51:52.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wye L, Brangan E, Cameron A, Gabbay J, Klein JH, Pope C. Evidence based policy making and the ‘art’ of commissioning – how English healthcare commissioners access and use information and academic research in ‘real life’ decision-making: an empirical qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 2015;15(1):118. doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-1091-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Innvaer S, Vist G, Trommald M, Oxman AD. Health policy-makers’ perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy 2002;7(4):239–44. doi: 10.1258/135581902320432778
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lavis JN, Davies H, Oxman A, Denis J-L, Golden-Biddle K, Ferlie E. Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005;10(supplement 1):35–48. doi: 10.1258/1355819054308549
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yeates G. A journey into unfamiliar terrain. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005;10(supplement 1):55–6. doi: 10.1258/1355819054308503
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Champagne F, Lemieux-Charles L, McGuire W. Introduction: towards a broader understanding of the use of knowledge and evidence in health care. In: Lemieux-Charles L, Champagne F, (eds.) Using knowledge and evidence in health care: multidisciplinary perspectives. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press; 2004. p. 3–17.
   Google Scholar
• Petticrew MP, Platt S, McCollam A, Wilson S, Thomas S. We're not short of people telling us what the problems are. We're short of people telling us what to do: an appraisal of public policy and mental health. BMC Public Health 2008;8(1):314. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-8-314
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jewell CJ, Bero LA. “Developing good taste in evidence”: facilitators of and hindrances to evidence-informed policymaking in state government. Milbank Q 2008;86(2):177–208. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2008.00519.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polsby NW. Congress and the presidency. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1986.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson SP, Greenfield TK, Giesbrecht N, Kaskutas LA, Anglin L. The role of research in the development of U.S. federal alcohol control policy. Contemp Drug Probl 2004;31:737–58.
   Google Scholar
• Sheldon TA. Making evidence synthesis more useful for management and policy-making. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005;10(supplement 1):s1–s5. doi: 10.1258/1355819054308521
   Google Scholar
• Dickinson HD. A sociological perspective on the transfer and utilization of social scientific knowledge for policy-making. In: Lemieux-Charles L, Champagne F, (eds.) Using knowledge and evidence in health care: multidisciplinary perspectives. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press; 2004. p. 41–69.
   Google Scholar
• Currie D. Health workers continue fight against Ebola as West Africa outbreak rages: APHA offers tools. Nation's Health 2015;44(10):1–16.
   Google Scholar
• van der Linden S, Maibach E, Leiserowitz A. Improving public engagement with climate change: five “best practice” insights from psychological science. Perspect Psychol Sci: J Assoc Psychol Sci 2015;10(6):758–63. doi: 10.1177/1745691615598516
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slavin JL. The challenges of nutrition policymaking. Nutr J 2015;14:15. doi: 10.1186/s12937-015-0001-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norrander B, Wilcox C. Public opinion and policymaking in the states: the case of post-Roe abortion policy. Policy Stud J: J Policy Stud Organ 1999;27(4):707–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.1999.tb01998.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Head BW. Three lenses of evidence-based policy. Aust J Public Admin 2008;67(11):1–11. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8500.2007.00564.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Opel DJ, Omer SB. MEasles, mandates, and making vaccination the default option. JAMA Pediatr 2015;169(4):303–4. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.0291
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Majumder MS, Cohn EL, Mekaru SR, Huston JE, Brownstein JS. Substandard vaccination compliance and the 2015 measles outbreak. JAMA Pediatr 2015;169(5):494–5. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.0384
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feemster KA. Remembering the benefits of vaccination. JAMA Pediatr 2015;169(7):624–6. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.0647
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brownson RC, Baker EA, Leet TL, Gillespie KN. Evidence-based public health. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, Busuioc OA, Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;(12). Art. No. MR000033. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kingdon JW. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. 2nd ed. New York: Longman; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Ornstein NJ, Elder S. Interest groups, lobbying, and policymaking. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press; 1978.
   Google Scholar
• Potters J, Van Winden F. Lobbying and asymmetric information. Public Choice 1992;74:269–92. doi: 10.1007/BF00149180
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiorina MP. Representatives, roll calls, and constituencies. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company; 1974.
   Google Scholar
• Wright JR. Interest groups and congress: lobbying, contributions, and influence. New York, NY: Longman; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Bodensteiner CA. Special interest group coalitions: ethical standards for broad-based support efforts. Public Relat Rev 1997;23(1):31–46. doi: 10.1016/S0363-8111(97)90004-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lohmann S. A signaling model of informative and manipulative political action. Am Polit Sci Rev 1993;87(2):319–33. doi: 10.2307/2939043
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kersh R. The well-informed lobbyist: information and interest group lobbying. In: Cigler AJ, Loomis BA, (eds.) Interest group politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press; 2007. p. 389–411.
   Google Scholar
• Milbrath LW. Lobbyists approach government. In: Salisbury RH, (ed.) Interest group politics in America. New York: Harper & Row; 1970. p. 374–403.
   Google Scholar
• Hansen JM. Gaining access: congress and the farm lobby 1919–1981. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Schlozman KL, Tierney JT. Organized interests and American democracy. New York: Harper and Row; 1986.
   Google Scholar
• Truman DB. The governmental process. New York: Knopf; 1951.
   Google Scholar
• Berry JM. The interest group society. Boston: Little Brown; 1989.
   Google Scholar
• Esterling KM. The political economy of expertise. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Bauer R, Pool IdS, Dexter LA. American business and public policy: the politics of foreign trade. New York, NY: Atherton Press; 1963.
   Google Scholar
• Smith H. The power game: how Washington works. New York: Ballantine Books; 1988.
   Google Scholar
• Whiteman D. Communication in congress: members, staff, and the search for information. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Dexter LA. How organizations are represented in Washington. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill; 1969.
   Google Scholar
• Payne JL. Show horses and work horses in The United States house of representatives. Polity 1980;12(3):428–56. doi: 10.2307/3234215
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ainsworth S. Regulating lobbyists and interest group influence. J Polit 1993;55(1):41–56. doi: 10.2307/2132227
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyon TP, Maxwell JW. Astroturf: interest group lobbying and corporate strategy. J Econ Manage Strat 2004;13(4):561–97. doi: 10.1111/j.1430-9134.2004.00023.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schattschneider EE. Politics, pressures, and the tariff. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1935.
   Google Scholar
• Sanchez S. How the west is won: astroturf lobbying and the “wise use” movement. American Prospect 1996;25:37–42.
   Google Scholar
• Schriftgiesser K. The lobbyists: the art and business of influencing lawmakers. Boston: Little, Brown; 1951.
   Google Scholar
• Haug N, Shopshire M, Tajima B, Gruber V, Guydish J. Adoption of evidence-based practices among substance abuse treatment providers. J Drug Educ 2008;38(2):181–92. doi: 10.2190/DE.38.2.f
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinbrook R. Medical journals and medical reporting. New Engl J Med 2000;342(22):1668–71. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200006013422212
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwitzer G. How do US journalists cover treatments, tests, products, and procedures? An evaluation of 500 stories. PLoS Med 2008;5(5):e95. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050095
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voss M. Checking the pulse: midwestern reporters’ opinions about their ability to report health care news. Am J Public Health 2002;92:1158–60. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.92.7.1158
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Odierna DH, Forsyth SR, White J, Bero LA. The cycle of bias in health research: a framework and toolbox for critical appraisal training. Account Res 2013;20(2):127–41. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2013.768931
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger B, Steckelberg A, Meyer G, Kasper J, Muhlhauser I. Training of patient and consumer representatives in the basic competencies of evidence-based medicine: a feasibility study. BMC Med Educ 2010;10:16. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-10-16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nabulsi M, Harris J, Letelier L, Ramos K, Hopayian K, Parkin C, et al. Effectiveness of education in evidence-based healthcare: the current state of outcome assessments and a framework for future evaluations. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2007;5(4):468–76.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Odierna DH, White J, Forsyth S, Bero LA. Critical appraisal training increases understanding and confidence and enhances the use of evidence in diverse categories of learners. Health Expect: Int J Public Part Health Care Health Policy 2015;18(2):273–87. doi: 10.1111/hex.12030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar