Piloting a classification framework for the types of evidence used in alcohol policymaking
Introduction: Most studies of alcohol policy have focussed on the role of industry. However, little is known about the evidence base used in alcohol policymaking or policymakers' actions in the field. Here, we mapped the different evidence types used in a case study to construct a classificatio...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
WILEY
2023
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1140292 http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/96305 |
| _version_ | 1848766133164834816 |
|---|---|
| author | Kowalski, M. Wilkinson, C. Livingston, Michael Ritter, A. |
| author_facet | Kowalski, M. Wilkinson, C. Livingston, Michael Ritter, A. |
| author_sort | Kowalski, M. |
| building | Curtin Institutional Repository |
| collection | Online Access |
| description | Introduction: Most studies of alcohol policy have focussed on the role of industry. However, little is known about the evidence base used in alcohol policymaking or policymakers' actions in the field. Here, we mapped the different evidence types used in a case study to construct a classification framework of the evidence types used in alcohol policymaking. Methods: Using a case study from the state-level in Australia, we used content analysis to delineate the evidence types cited across six phases of a policymaking process. We then grouped these types into a higher-level classification framework. We used descriptive statistics to study how the different evidence types were used in the policymaking process. Results: Thirty-one evidence types were identified in the case study, across four classes of knowledge: person knowledge, shared knowledge, studied knowledge and practice knowledge. The participating public preferenced studied knowledge. Policymakers preferenced practice knowledge over all other types of knowledge. Discussion and Conclusion: The classification framework expands on models of evidence and knowledge used across public health, by mapping new evidence types and proposing an inductive method of classification. The policymakers' preferences found here are in line with theories regarding the alcohol industry's influence on policymaking. The classification framework piloted here can provide a useful tool to examine the evidence base used in decision-making. Further study of evidence types used in policymaking processes can help inform research translation and advocacy efforts to produce healthier alcohol policies. |
| first_indexed | 2025-11-14T11:46:18Z |
| format | Journal Article |
| id | curtin-20.500.11937-96305 |
| institution | Curtin University Malaysia |
| institution_category | Local University |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-14T11:46:18Z |
| publishDate | 2023 |
| publisher | WILEY |
| recordtype | eprints |
| repository_type | Digital Repository |
| spelling | curtin-20.500.11937-963052025-01-07T03:07:47Z Piloting a classification framework for the types of evidence used in alcohol policymaking Kowalski, M. Wilkinson, C. Livingston, Michael Ritter, A. Science & Technology Life Sciences & Biomedicine Substance Abuse Australia content analysis evidence utilisation influence practice knowledge HEALTH-POLICY KNOWLEDGE SUBMISSIONS POLITICS SYDNEY Australia content analysis evidence utilisation influence practice knowledge Humans Evidence-Based Practice Policy Making Public Policy Australia Public Health Health Policy Humans Public Health Public Policy Health Policy Policy Making Australia Evidence-Based Practice Introduction: Most studies of alcohol policy have focussed on the role of industry. However, little is known about the evidence base used in alcohol policymaking or policymakers' actions in the field. Here, we mapped the different evidence types used in a case study to construct a classification framework of the evidence types used in alcohol policymaking. Methods: Using a case study from the state-level in Australia, we used content analysis to delineate the evidence types cited across six phases of a policymaking process. We then grouped these types into a higher-level classification framework. We used descriptive statistics to study how the different evidence types were used in the policymaking process. Results: Thirty-one evidence types were identified in the case study, across four classes of knowledge: person knowledge, shared knowledge, studied knowledge and practice knowledge. The participating public preferenced studied knowledge. Policymakers preferenced practice knowledge over all other types of knowledge. Discussion and Conclusion: The classification framework expands on models of evidence and knowledge used across public health, by mapping new evidence types and proposing an inductive method of classification. The policymakers' preferences found here are in line with theories regarding the alcohol industry's influence on policymaking. The classification framework piloted here can provide a useful tool to examine the evidence base used in decision-making. Further study of evidence types used in policymaking processes can help inform research translation and advocacy efforts to produce healthier alcohol policies. 2023 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/96305 10.1111/dar.13599 English http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1140292 http://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/FT210100656 http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1136944 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ WILEY fulltext |
| spellingShingle | Science & Technology Life Sciences & Biomedicine Substance Abuse Australia content analysis evidence utilisation influence practice knowledge HEALTH-POLICY KNOWLEDGE SUBMISSIONS POLITICS SYDNEY Australia content analysis evidence utilisation influence practice knowledge Humans Evidence-Based Practice Policy Making Public Policy Australia Public Health Health Policy Humans Public Health Public Policy Health Policy Policy Making Australia Evidence-Based Practice Kowalski, M. Wilkinson, C. Livingston, Michael Ritter, A. Piloting a classification framework for the types of evidence used in alcohol policymaking |
| title | Piloting a classification framework for the types of evidence used in alcohol policymaking |
| title_full | Piloting a classification framework for the types of evidence used in alcohol policymaking |
| title_fullStr | Piloting a classification framework for the types of evidence used in alcohol policymaking |
| title_full_unstemmed | Piloting a classification framework for the types of evidence used in alcohol policymaking |
| title_short | Piloting a classification framework for the types of evidence used in alcohol policymaking |
| title_sort | piloting a classification framework for the types of evidence used in alcohol policymaking |
| topic | Science & Technology Life Sciences & Biomedicine Substance Abuse Australia content analysis evidence utilisation influence practice knowledge HEALTH-POLICY KNOWLEDGE SUBMISSIONS POLITICS SYDNEY Australia content analysis evidence utilisation influence practice knowledge Humans Evidence-Based Practice Policy Making Public Policy Australia Public Health Health Policy Humans Public Health Public Policy Health Policy Policy Making Australia Evidence-Based Practice |
| url | http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1140292 http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1140292 http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1140292 http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/96305 |