Enhancing the contribution of research to health care policy-making: A case study of the Dutch health care performance report
Journal of Health Services Research & Policy , Volume 21 - Issue 1 p. 29- 35
Objectives: The Dutch Health Care Performance Report, issued by the National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, aims to monitor health care performance in The Netherlands. Both the National Institute and the Ministry of Health wish to increase the contribution of the Report to health care policy-making. Our aim was to identify ways to achieve that. Method: We used contribution mapping as a theoretical framework that recognizes alignment of research as crucial to managing contributions to policy-making. To investigate which areas need alignment efforts by researchers and/or policymakers, we interviewed National Institute researchers and policy-makers from the Ministry of Health and assessed the process for developing the 2010 Report. Results: We identified six areas where alignment is specifically relevant for enhancing the contributions of future versions of the Dutch Health Care Performance Report: well-balanced information for different ministerial directorates; backstage work; double role actors; reports of other knowledge institutes; data collection/generation and presentation forms. Conclusion: The contribution of health care performance reporting to policy-making is complex and requires continuous alignment efforts between researchers and policy-makers. These efforts should form an inseparable part of health care performance reporting and although this demands considerable resources, it is worth considering since it may pay back in better contributions to policy-making.
|, , , ,|
|Journal of Health Services Research & Policy|
|Organisation||Erasmus University Rotterdam|
Hegger, I, Marks, L.K, Janssen, S.W.J, Schuit, A.J, & Oers, H.A.M. (2016). Enhancing the contribution of research to health care policy-making: A case study of the Dutch health care performance report. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 21(1), 29–35. doi:10.1177/1355819615599565