Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice

Publisher: Policy Press

Journal description

Evidence & Policy is the first peer-reviewed journal dedicated to comprehensive and critical treatment of the relationship between research evidence and the concerns of policy makers and practitioners, as well as researchers. International in scope and interdisciplinary in focus, it addresses the needs of those who provide public services, and those who provide the research base for evaluation and development across a wide range of social and public policy issues - from social care to education, from public health to criminal justice. As well as more traditional research articles, the journal includes contemporary debate pieces, articles from practice and an invaluable sources and resources section.

Current impact factor: 0.00

Impact Factor Rankings

Additional details

5-year impact 0.00
Cited half-life 0.00
Immediacy index 0.00
Eigenfactor 0.00
Article influence 0.00
Website Evidence and Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice website
Other titles Evidence & policy (Online), Evidence and policy
ISSN 1744-2648
OCLC 60617224
Material type Document, Periodical, Internet resource
Document type Internet Resource, Computer File, Journal / Magazine / Newspaper

Publisher details

Policy Press

  • Pre-print
    • Author can archive a pre-print version
  • Post-print
    • Author cannot archive a post-print version
  • Restrictions
    • 12 months embargo
  • Conditions
    • Pre-print can be posted on any non-commercial website, institutional repository or funders repository
    • Post-print on author's personal website, institutional repository or subject-based repository
    • Post-print on a non-profit server
    • Publisher's version/PDF cannot be used
    • Set statement ("This is a post-peer-review, pre-copy edited version of an article published in [insert name of relevant Policy Press journal here]. The definitive publisher-authenticated version [insert complete citation information here] is available online at: [insert URL here]")
    • Must link to publisher version
    • Publisher copyright and source must be acknowledged with citation
    • Publisher last contacted on 23/07/2013
  • Classification
    ​ yellow

Publications in this journal

  • Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 01/2015; 11(1). DOI:10.1332/174426415X14213380592611
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An impact assessment of research into children's concerns about their families and relationships found many ways research had been used in different sectors by different actors. Specific impacts from the research were harder to identify. However, instances where there were clear impacts highlighted the ways research users had adapted research to fit the context for research use in order to create impact. Research users continued to draw on the research for many years after publication, creating further impact as new policy or practice agendas arose.
    Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 01/2015; 11(1):35-55. DOI:10.1332/174426514X13976529631798
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this paper we describe a systematic attempt to determine whether child and adolescent mental health policy demonstrably draws upon peer-reviewed evidence, and to discover which other sources of evidence could be considered influential in policy development. In brief, we found that the scientific evidence base had been underutilised. However, peer-reviewed research was the most frequently documented source of information in the policies analysed. Overall, policies provided little information on the sources that informed them. We suggest development of a framework where decisions regarding evidence selection for use in informing health policy development are explicitly stated and can be openly evaluated.
    Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 01/2015; 11(1):7-18. DOI:10.1332/174426414X13940168597987
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: When swift, accurate appraisal of evidence is required to inform policy concerning broad research questions, and budgetary constraints limit the employment of large research teams, researchers face a significant challenge which is sometimes met by reviewing existing systematic reviews. In this paper we highlight the challenges inherent in the reviews of reviews (RoR) method in order to advance understanding of this important tool for policy makers. Drawing on our experiences, we present, where possible, potential solutions to these challenges to demonstrate that RoRs, despite their limitations, can be useful for mediating policy-relevant evidence at speed.
    Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 01/2015; 11(1):81-97. DOI:10.1332/174426514X13988609036850
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper illustrates the use of a quality assessment tool for regression analysis. It is designed for non-specialist 'consumers' of evidence, such as policy makers. The tool provides a series of questions such consumers of evidence can ask to interrogate regression analysis, and is illustrated with reference to a recent study published in a peer-reviewed journal. The application of the tool highlights the need for non-specialists to develop their critical skills to ensure regression analysis meets methodological norms. They cannot rely on the fact that it has undergone a peer-review process to assume that the evidence is credible.
    Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 01/2015; 11(1). DOI:10.1332/174426414X14042146202920
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article investigates the role of locally based research and development units (R&Ds) focusing on health and social services. Nearly 300 local R&Ds are funded by the Swedish government with the intention to facilitate knowledge transfer and development of high quality and effective health and social care organisations. Based on analyses of archival data on aims, activities and outputs of R&Ds focusing on care for older people the authors argue that local R&Ds have potentials to act as knowledge brokers, change agents and researchers, but these overlapping roles need clarified strategies and enactment of a variety of skills.
    Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 01/2015; 11(1):57-80. DOI:10.1332/174426514X14098428292539
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article explores the perceived value of public health research and the types of research considered useful in Ghana. Sixty-nine decision makers, researchers and stakeholders were interviewed. A broad range of research was highly valued. Two traits were important: an applied, relevant topic and quickly produced findings. Interviewees valued research which explored implementation issues or identified and increased understanding of health problems. Effectiveness research often lacked these traits and was not generally considered as important because it was implicitly assumed that as long as interventions (that were based on a good understanding of the situation) were implemented well, they would be effective.
    Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 01/2015; 11(1):19-33. DOI:10.1332/174426514X13990430410723
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Researchers are increasingly being asked to demonstrate the impact of their research on policy. Unfortunately, evidence on what works is scarce because it is rarely reported and evaluated. This paper describes a programme of facilitated engagement between knowledge producers and users on topics of joint research and policy interest, and validates a six-item evaluation instrument. Our results confirm a simple instrument can be used to assess the effectiveness and relevance of presentations and to gauge the users’ receptivity to research. The success of our knowledge mobilisation strategy relies upon a favourable alignment of the social, political and economic contexts.
    Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 11/2014;
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper describes the collaborative application of three theoretical models for supporting service planning (Hunter, 2006), programme planning (Chorpita et al, 2005a), and implementation (Meyers et al, 2012) to develop and implement a Resilience Practice Framework (RPF). Specifically, we (1) describe a theory of change framework (Hunter, 2006) to clarify the target for intervention and outcomes to be achieved; (2) describe a common elements approach (Chorpita et al, 2005a) to select evidence-informed practices; (3) describe the application of the Quality Implementation Framework (QIF) (Meyers et al, 2012) to implement an RPF; and lastly (4) present preliminary findings for early implementation efforts and future directions.
    Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 11/2014; 10(4). DOI:10.1332/174426414X14144212688862
  • Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 11/2014; 10(4). DOI:10.1332/174426414X14144204801909
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The article describes and analyses some preliminary working methods for user involvement in child welfare. The models are based on the results of a national project in Sweden where children and young people have been involved as informants. How experiences and viewpoints from children and young people can be a source of knowledge in child welfare organisations is one of the main questions. The performance and the results of the project are analysed in relation to a theoretical macro-oriented model created to illustrate the need for different kinds of knowledge in supporting the implementation of an evidence-based practice.
    Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 11/2014; 10(4). DOI:10.1332/174426414X14144219467266
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The drive for sector-led improvement within children's services has a more prominent place in improving outcomes for children and young people than ever before. Concurrently, the imperative to access and utilise evidence to inform practice has become increasingly important, enabling scarce resources to be allocated according to 'what works'. This paper examines features of the current model of sector-led improvement and evidence-informed practice, demonstrating that there is an undeniable congruence between the two. The role of intermediary organisations is considered. The paper concludes that sector-led improvement cannot be effectively achieved without an underpinning understanding of, and access to, robust evidence.
    Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 11/2014; 10(4). DOI:10.1332/174426414X14144210266583
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper explores ways in which IRISS (Institute for Research and Innovation in Social Services) promotes the delivery of cost effective social services in Scotland that support the achievement of positive outcomes. The approach to evidence-informed practice is characterised as four pillars of activity. The first focuses on improving awareness and access to evidence. The second refers to strengthening the evidence base and is discussed in the context of work on self-directed support. Improving skills and confidence to use evidence forms the third pillar. The final pillar is embedding evidence in organisations, through coproduction, creating spaces to test and challenge evidence, and through the development of evidence-based products.
    Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 11/2014; 10(4). DOI:10.1332/174426414X14144247109334
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Using principles of Applied Implementation Science, this paper examines strategies for systematically selecting and operationalising National clinical practice guidelines and intentionally creating implementation supports to ensure high fidelity use and sustainable application and outcomes. In the spirit of participatory action research, key pan-Canadian stakeholders including funders, researchers, providers and patients were brought together around shared interests of optimal patient outcomes, improved provider performance, and continuous quality improvement of practices targeting the three most common secondary complications that patients with spinal cord injuries experience: pressure ulcers, bladder dysfunction and pain. Implementation capacity development at site and project levels will be described.
    Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 10/2014; 10(4):565-77. DOI:10.1332/174426414X14144260932218
  • Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 08/2014; 10(3). DOI:10.1332/174426514X684116
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Much of the evidence translation literature focuses narrowly on the use of evidence in the initial policy formulation stages, and downplays the crucial role of institutions and the inherently political nature of policy making. More recent approaches acknowledge the importance of institutional and political factors, but make no attempt to incorporate their influence into new models of evidence translation. To address this issue, this article uses data from a comparative case study of bowel cancer screening policy in Australia, the United Kingdom and New Zealand, to propose alternative models of evidence incorporation which apply to all stages of the policy process.
    Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 08/2014; 10(3). DOI:10.1332/174426514X672399
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper examines notions of power in relation to evidence-informed policy making and explores four key areas. First, I outline contemporary conceptualisations of how power operates in society; second, I spotlight the implications of power inequalities for how evidence is used by policy makers (and present the policy 'agora'; a discursively controlled paradigm of ideology and epistemology which serves to distinguish between the types of evidence that policy makers will and won't engage with); third, I then define what I consider as evidence 'misuse'; before finishing with an analysis of why evidence misuse materialises and how its enactment might be minimised.
    Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 08/2014; 10(3). DOI:10.1332/174426514X672353
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The last 20 years have seen significant international shifts towards greater patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research and development (R and D). In England, then first health R and D strategy in 1991 did not mention PPI. Twenty years later, PPI is deeply embedded within the National Institute for Health Research. This article examines the evolving relationship between evidence and policy on PPI in research through a documentary analysis of English health R and D policy documents published between 1991 and 2010. It then considers what model of the research-policy interface best explains the expansion of PPI in research and why this is important.
    Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 08/2014; 10(3). DOI:10.1332/174426413X662770
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective of this paper is to conduct comparative analysis about the views and practices of policy makers and researchers on the use of health systems evidence in policy making in selected Eastern Mediterranean countries. We analysed data from two self-reported surveys, one targeted at policy makers and the other at researchers. Results show a wide gap between policy makers and researchers when comparing perceptions on factors influencing the policy-making process and use of evidence in health policy making. Findings highlight specific areas for undertaking knowledge translation activities and implementing interventions to narrow the gap between policy makers and researchers.
    Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 08/2014; 10(3). DOI:10.1332/174426514X672380