Role Of Evidence In Decision-making Research Articles

Understanding and avoiding misplaced efforts in conservation

Conservation relies on cooperation among different interest groups and appropriate use of evidence to make decisions that benefit people and biodiversity. However, misplaced conservation occurs when cooperation and evidence are impeded by polarization and misinformation. This impedance influences actions that directly harm biodiversity, alienate partners and disrupt partnerships, waste resources, misinform the public, and (or) delegitimize evidence. As a result of these actions, misplaced conservation outcomes emerge, making it more difficult to have positive outcomes for biodiversity. Here we describe cases where a failed appreciation for cooperation, evidence, or both have eroded efforts to conserve biodiversity. Generally, these case studies illustrate that averting misplaced conservation requires greater adherence to processes that elevate the role of evidence in decision-making and that place collective, long-term benefits for biodiversity over the short-term gains of individuals or groups. Efforts to integrate human dimensions, cooperation, and evidence into conservation will increase the efficacy and success of efforts to conserve global biodiversity while benefiting humanity.

Getting evidence into policy and practice

A key part of Howard White’s work has been getting policymakers and other development decision-makers to use high-quality evidence to make better decisions. This paper reviews the role of evidence in decision-making and some of the key mechanisms by which this can be achieved. It recognises the many factors other than evidence that influence the decision-making process, and some of the barriers that have to be overcome for high-quality evidence to have a contributory role. The importance of identifying and using appropriate intermediaries is recognised, as is the necessity for clear and accessible communication.

Effectiveness of public deliberation methods for gathering input on issues in healthcare: Results from a randomized trial

Public deliberation elicits informed perspectives on complex issues that are values-laden and lack technical solutions. This Deliberative Methods Demonstration examined the effectiveness of public deliberation for obtaining informed public input regarding the role of medical evidence in U.S. healthcare.We conducted a 5-arm randomized controlled trial, assigning participants to one of four deliberative methods or to a reading materials only (RMO) control group. The four deliberative methods reflected important differences in implementation, including length of the deliberative process and mode of interaction. The project convened 76 groups between August and November 2012 in four U.S. locations: Chicago, IL; Sacramento, CA; Silver Spring, MD; and Durham, NC, capturing a sociodemographically diverse sample with specific attention to ensuring inclusion of Hispanic, African–American, and elderly participants. Of 1774 people recruited, 75% participated: 961 took part in a deliberative method and 377 participants comprised the RMO control group. To assess effectiveness of the deliberative methods overall and of individual methods, we evaluated whether mean pre-post changes on a knowledge and attitude survey were statistically different from the RMO control using ANCOVA. In addition, we calculated mean scores capturing participant views of the impact and value of deliberation.Participating in deliberation increased participants' knowledge of evidence and comparative effectiveness research and shifted participants' attitudes regarding the role of evidence in decision-making. When comparing each deliberative method to the RMO control group, all four deliberative methods resulted in statistically significant change on at least one knowledge or attitude measure. These findings were underscored by self-reports that the experience affected participants' opinions.Public deliberation offers unique potential for those seeking informed input on complex, values-laden topics affecting broad public constituencies.

Planning According to the ‘Scientific Conception of the World’: The Work of Otto Neurath

Neurath, a prominent member of the Vienna Circle, was involved in much practical reform work. He was also a member of CIAM, and participated in the famous Athens meeting where its basic principles were formulated. But his plans for intensive cooperation with CIAM did not come to fruition, because of fundamental differences regarding the role of scientific evidence in decisionmaking and planning. CIAM members were looking for a solid bedrock on which to base design norms and principles. Neurath was a sceptic and emphasised the pluralistic nature of knowledge. He also held that decisions were to be taken on pragmatic grounds, reflecting one's chosen “path of life”. Experts had no superior skill in this. Neurath developed the Vienna Method of pictorial statistics to allow people to make their own inferences from such evidence as there was. Neurath's views of decisionmaking in planning are very modern, and suggest that the critique of positivism in planning needs to be reconsidered.