Evidence attack in public health: Diverse actors’ experiences with translating controversial or misrepresented evidence in health policy and systems research
type: Article
item type: journalArticle
is part of: Global Public Health
publisher: Taylor & Francis
authors: Person
  surname: Jessani
  given name: Nasreen S.
authors: Person
  surname: Williamson
  given name: R. Taylor
authors: Person
  surname: Choonara
  given name: Shakira
authors: Person
  surname: Gautier
  given name: Lara
authors: Person
  surname: Hoe
  given name: Connie
authors: Person
  surname: Jafar
  given name: Sakeena K.
authors: Person
  surname: Khalid
  given name: Ahmad Firas
authors: Person
  surname: Rodríguez Salas
  given name: Irene
authors: Person
  surname: Turcotte-Tremblay
  given name: Anne-Marie
authors: Person
  surname: Rodríguez
  given name: Daniela C.
subject: Evidence-informed decision-making
subject: censorship
subject: controversy
subject: health policy and systems research
subject: infodemic
subject: knowledge translation
subject: misinformation
abstract: Bringing evidence into policy and practice discussions is political; more so when evidence from health studies or programme data are deemed controversial or unexpected, or when results are manipulated and misrepresented. Furthermore, opinion and misinformation in recent years has challenged our notions about how to achieve evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM). Health policy and systems (HPS) researchers and practitioners are battling misrepresentation that only serves to detract from important health issues or, worse, benefit powerful interests. This paper describes cases of politically and socially controversial evidence presented by researchers, practitioners and journalists during the Health Systems Research Symposium 2020. These cases cut across global contexts and range from public debates on vaccination, comprehensive sexual education, and tobacco to more inward debates around performance-based financing and EIDM in refugee policy. The consequences of engaging in controversial research include threats to commercial profit, perceived assaults on moral beliefs, censorship, fear of reprisal, and infodemics. Consequences for public health include research(er) hesitancy, contribution to corruption and leakage, researcher reflexivity, and ethical concerns within the HPS research and EIDM fields. Recommendations for supporting researchers, practitioners and advocates include better training and support structures for responding to controversy, safe spaces for sharing experiences, and modifying incentive structures.
date: 2022-01-07
pages: 1-17
citation key: jessaniEvidenceAttackPublic2022
date submitted: 2022-01-10 21:01:13
PMID: 34996335
short title: Evidence attack in public health
library catalog: Taylor and Francis+NEJM
description: _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2021.2020319

Global Public Health
type: Journal
volume: 0
number: 0
identifier: DOI 10.1080/17441692.2021.2020319
identifier: ISSN 1744-1692