#OvertonGrant: Barriers and enablers for using evidence in policy in the Latin American and Caribbean region

In 2023 Overton launched the Policy Impact Micro Grant - a scheme to fund research projects that explore the policy landscape and its relationship with evidence and the academic sphere. 

Some of the funding was allocated to the Latin American and Caribbean Evidence Hub (Hub LAC), an organisation that “works to promote transnational and interdisciplinary collaboration for the institutionalisation of evidence-informed decision-making in the Latin American and Caribbean region”. Detailed here, their project “Resonating Voices” set out to explore the obstacles and enablers for the use of evidence in policy in the Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) region. 

Scientific evidence is crucial in shaping public policies. It serves various purposes in the policymaking process. It can be used to provide a general understanding or give clarification on a topic. It can be used with a specific intention - to solve a particular problem or answer a question. Or it can be used symbolically - to validate and support a predetermined position. 

Our project explored the various ways in which evidence is used, the topics decision makers are most interested in getting support with, as well as the common barriers, facilitators and opportunities in evidence based policymaking. Our goal was to identify how to improve collaboration to ensure better translation of research insights into policy so better decisions can be made. 

Methods

We interviewed five national-level decision makers in Colombia, Peru, Chile, Brazil and Guyana and also held two online workshops to discuss policy making in the region. We summarised our findings in a series of reports highlighting common barriers, facilitators, and opportunities in evidence-informed policymaking. 

Priority topics

Our subjects identified the key areas that they were interested in where they would appreciate evidence to supplement their decision making. Of the interviewees, three came from the Health sector, one came from the Social Development and Inclusion sector, and one came from the Human Rights sector - as such these results specifically reflect these areas and the insights and priorities may not apply across the board in the area.

These topics included primary primary health care (PHC), mental health, food security, childhood anaemia, HPV prevention, and integrated care networks within the health sector and poverty reduction and combating hate speech towards the LGBTQIA+ community within the social development/human rights sector.

Types of evidence

While our interviewees used all types of evidence, we found that the most common evidence need was for ‘instrumental’ use - i.e. to solve a problem - evidence was used to build proposals for care models, to transform programmes or to enable the construction of a governmental agenda on a topic. 

The evidence used for decision-making mainly included systematic literature reviews (with and without meta-analyses) as well as surveys, interviews, evaluation studies and Evidence and Gap Maps (EGM). They utilised both local and global evidence - we found that global evidence is consulted to understand implementation strategies, models, classifications, and experiences from other countries on a given topic. Local evidence, when available, is complemented with global evidence to support decision-making.

Barriers for institutionalising evidence use in policy

When we say ‘institutionalising the use of evidence’ we mean creating a process or system whereby this becomes formalised and integral to policy making. Our goal is to establish how this type of collaboration can be streamlined and made easier, in order to improve how decisions are made.

Time 

This is the most frequent barrier mentioned. Research and policy work at different speeds - decision-makers often assume that evidence should always be available within their required timeframes. However, this is not always the case, as evidence is not always readily accessible or in the right format.

Limited budget

We found that there were limited or nonexistent funds explicitly put towards finding evidence to inform decision making. This makes it difficult to commission any research, undertake their own work or even pay fees to read studies behind a paywall, so they must rely on what they can find for free.

Other, less mentioned, barriers include political will (i.e. that support for evidence-based decision making often depends on whoever is in power at the time) as well as a limited access to quality sources and information.

Facilitators 

The most commonly mentioned facilitator for getting evidence into policy is the establishment of agreements or strategic alliances between evidence users and evidence producers. Partnerships were highlighted with universities, research centers, and social organisations and movements, both nationally and internationally.

Interviewees also spoke about the creation and promotion of spacing for disseminating evidence, for example, experience and knowledge exchange events (conferences, seminars) with guests from various fields and geographical areas. Other examples suggested were for decision makers to ‘create a minimal evidence culture’ through a snowball effect - acting as individuals by incorporating evidence use and setting an example for colleagues in the hope that this institutionalises the process.

Recommendations for Decision Makers

Broadly, the recommendations revolve around building alliances - between evidence users, producers and the communities they serve. The most important thing is to find mechanisms with which to communicate and translate research findings into policy decisions, in order for the scientific community to best serve society.

• Remember that scientific evidence is there to help you make decisions:

• Using the best available evidence reduces uncertainty and leads to more accurate, reality-aligned public policies, resulting in better outcomes and potential political support.
• Evidence serves as a defense mechanism in environments with various oversight entities.

• It helps to make decisions in context

• It’s important to integrate the perspectives of those affected by decisions - partnerships with academia, other experts or stakeholders can help policymakers be objective and make decisions based on the needs of the people in their constituencies, to ensure equity, impact, and rights.
• It would be helpful to communicate their evidence needs externally, to guide relevant research areas.

Recommendations for Researchers

1. Align with Political Reality:
   • Stay connected with the political system's reality and understand that political needs differ from academic interests.
   • Research must address the priorities of political spaces and accommodate the necessity for quick decisions - what is important in theory isn’t always relevant in the political context.
2. Effective Dialogue:
   • Engage with affected communities, integrating their experiences and knowledge, and adapt to societal changes.
3. Prioritise and Disseminate:
   • Focus on relevant research topics to guide decision-making.
   • Disseminate research results in appropriate spaces and to the relevant audiences.