Evaluation of the performance and achievements of the WHO Evidence-informed Policy Network (EVIPNet) Europe

Louise Lester,Evelina Chapman,Michelle M Haby,Tanja Kuchenmüller

doi:10.1186/s12961-020-00612-x

Abstract

BackgroundThe Evidence-informed Policy Network (EVIPNet) is one of the key mechanisms introduced by WHO to reduce the research-to-policy gap. EVIPNet Europe was launched in 2012. We evaluated the performance and achievements of EVIPNet Europe with the overall aims (1) to inform future developments and strategic planning of EVIPNet Europe and (2) to contribute to the evidence base for organisational knowledge translation activities by sharing the lessons learnt.MethodsThe evaluation covered the WHO Secretariat of EVIPNet Europe and its 21 member countries, from its inception to mid-2018. A mixed methods design was used to assess changes in three domains, including triangulation of quantitative and qualitative methods, based on the EVIPNet Europe Monitoring & Evaluation framework and theory of change. Data were collected between August and October 2018. Data collection comprised documentary review, social media analysis, online country evaluation, key informant interviews and validated tools. Two case studies were also developed.ResultsThe evaluation showed promising results as well as lessons to guide the future development of EVIPNet in the WHO European Region and other regions of the world. EVIPNet Europe appears to be filling a niche in promoting the capacity of Network member countries for evidence-informed policy-making. There is evidence that EVIPNet Europe’s capacity-building programme of work is improving knowledge and skills at the individual level. There has been an increase in activity and outputs since its establishment and evidence has been used to inform new policies in some member countries. However, the speed at which member countries are developing or publishing products varies greatly and no formalised knowledge translation platforms have yet been created. Financial and human resources are limited and staff turnover is a cause for concern, both at the WHO Secretariat and country team levels.ConclusionsSix years since the launch of EVIPNet Europe, the Network has grown quickly, is clearly valued and has had some successes. However, more work and support are needed if it is to achieve its vision of a Europe in which high-quality, context-sensitive evidence routinely informs health decision-making processes that ultimately serve to strengthen health outcomes across the Region.

Highlights

The Evidence-informed Policy Network (EVIPNet) is one of the key mechanisms introduced by WHO to reduce the research-to-policy gap
13 countries joined in 2013, 6 in 2016 and 2 in 2018. Their progress as at the time of evaluation is represented in Table 3 by the type of evidenceinformed policy-making (EIP) documents that they had produced since joining the network
Key messages EVIPNet Europe appears to be filling a niche in promoting the capacity of Network member countries for EIP, with the recent growth of EVIP Net Europe demonstrating the demand for such an initiative in the Region

Summary

Introduction

The Evidence-informed Policy Network (EVIPNet) is one of the key mechanisms introduced by WHO to reduce the research-to-policy gap. It is known that translating research evidence into both policy and practice is a slow and often inefficient process [1, 2]. While more evidence exists on how to translate the findings from research into healthcare practice, less evidence is available for the policy arena [1,2,3,4]. Reviews suggest that some of the barriers are the lack of relevance and availability of research, including research that is locally applicable, no time or opportunity to use evidence, lack of funding, limited resources or high costs, lack of skilled policy-makers, insufficient institutional research capacity, frequent turnover of staff, inadequate dissemination of evidence, and a lack of priority on the policy agenda [10,11,12,13]. Other facilitators include the quality of collaborations and relationships between research users and producers, the fostering of research co-production as well as research led by people embedded in the contexts in which the results can be used (e.g. policy-makers) [14,15,16]

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion