Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice
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
|Website||Evidence and Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice website|
|Other titles||Evidence & policy (Online), Evidence and policy|
|Material type||Document, Periodical, Internet resource|
|Document type||Internet Resource, Computer File, Journal / Magazine / Newspaper|
- Author can archive a pre-print version
- Author cannot archive a post-print version
- 12 months embargo
- 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
Publications in this journal
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: End-of-life care is an important object of governance. Using the linguistic notions of polysemy, metaphorical blending and counterfactual reasoning, this paper critically examines epistemic issues in professional guidelines for palliative sedation of the dying. As a last resort option, palliative sedation is described as the intentional, pharmacological reduction of the patient's consciousness with the aim to reduce intolerable suffering from intractable physical symptoms that cannot be managed otherwise. Like a wilderness trail that simultaneously facilitates and constrains, the guidelines provide a set of 'due care requirements' that allows for the provision of end-of-life care in controversial territory.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Nikolas Rose's work on contemporary biopower centres the 'biocitizen' as a subject governed through freedom and made individually responsible in matters of health. This article argues that a focus on its conditions of possibility will enable a better contextualisation of the biocitizen as merely one subject position among others. Using a Swedish policy document on the treatment of depression as an empirical example, the article calls for a more heterogeneous understanding of healthcare, torn for instance between ideals of evidence-based treatment and patients' self-determination, inviting further empirical and theoretical investigation of the active biocitizen and its limitations.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Based on an ethnographic study, this article investigates an attempt by a multidisciplinary group to employ pre-developed guidelines for producing a knowledge base that was to be used in a policy decision. The article contributes to previous studies of the development and use of knowledge-based guidelines and knowledge syntheses in policy-research collaborations. It is concluded that guidelines are inevitably characterised by informed ignorance, and that this informed ignorance is both an obstacle and a necessity for the successful employment of guidelines in policy processes.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Without deliberate and resourced translation, research evidence is unlikely to inform policy and practice. This paper describes the processes and practical solutions used to translate evaluation research findings to improve the readability of print materials in a large scale worksite health program. It is argued that a knowledge brokering and translation role, clear planning, effective communications, strong senior leadership support and strategic alignment, and mechanisms to engage practitioners and research users are key factors required to help achieve policy and practice change directly based on research evidence.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Policy scoping reviews are an effective method for generating evidence-informed policies. However, when applying guiding methodological frameworks to complex policy evidence, numerous, unexpected challenges can emerge. This paper details five challenges experienced and addressed by a policy trainee-led, multi-disciplinary research team, while conducting a scoping review of youth Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Hepatitis C primary and secondary prevention policies, which occurred across and within sectors and jurisdictions in Atlantic Canada. How these challenges were addressed is described, as are suggestions for how the lessons learned may provide guidance to other policy scoping reviews. Implications for future directions are also discussed.
- [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.
- [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.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.