Advanced Analytics to Inform Policy Decision-Making in Public Health Emergencies: A Case Study of COVID-19 in Europe
Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, vast amounts of scientific evidence were produced with advanced analytics and received unprecedented attention outside of academic communities. This evidence varied in geographic scope, methodology, analytical timeframe, assumptions, and outcome measures.Wit...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2025-03-01
|
| Series: | International Journal of Infectious Diseases |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971224005599 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, vast amounts of scientific evidence were produced with advanced analytics and received unprecedented attention outside of academic communities. This evidence varied in geographic scope, methodology, analytical timeframe, assumptions, and outcome measures.With a focus on the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe, this research aims to (1) define what “policy relevant” evidence that was produced with advanced analytics was, (2) who the stakeholders were that considered this evidence to inform policy options, i.e., evidence consumers, and (3) how the evidence is used by evidence consumers. Methods: The study employs a mixed-methods approach, beginning with a systematic literature review of 13,000 peer-reviewed publications, published between March 2020 and May 2022, to identify papers in which health/health systems-related outcomes are quantified using advanced analytics in Europe.Metadata on citations, and information on organizations (type, location) that cite publications, i.e., evidence consumers, is extracted using Overton, a global repository of policy documents. Focused data extraction of the 5% most and least cited of these publications is conducted by collection data on research scope, objectives, and outcomes. This data is analysed deductively to identify emerging themes across research questions addressed with “policy relevant” evidence as well as outcome metrics quantified.Semi-structured interviews with individuals identified as evidence consumers are conducted to learn about their perspectives on how the cited evidence was useful in informing policy options during the pandemic. The analysis of interview data is complemented with a desk review of documents in which the evidence is cited. Results: Preliminary results suggest what is considered “policy relevant” evidence changed over time, in terms of questions posed, outcome measures estimated and geographic scope. Frequent international knowledge transfer (e.g., evidence produced by research groups in the UK and cited in policy documents in other European countries) highlight a geographic imbalance in advanced analytics capacities, but also similarity in questions posed by evidence consumers across Europe. In this realm, evidence was often considered “policy relevant” despite not being specific to local contexts.Interviews and the desk review will provide insight into why and for what purpose this evidence was useful nonetheless. Further, by the time of the congress, this research will have advanced to a list of (1) key questions posed by policymakers, (2) “policy relevant” outcome measures and how they change over the course of a pandemic, and (3) an overview of the most prominent evidence consumers. Discussion: This research can support decision-making bodies in identifying areas where advanced analytics capacities could be strengthened domestically and guide advanced analytics experts in producing “policy relevant” evidence for public health emergencies. Conclusion: In preparation for the next pandemic, countries should seek to institutionalize processes to facilitate timely exchanges between advanced analytics experts and policymakers. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1201-9712 |