Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-07T19:55:01.842Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The dilemma of knowledge use in political decision-making: National Guidelines in a Swedish priority-setting context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2018

Johanna Sandberg ,
Bo Persson  and
Peter Garpenby Open the ORCID record for Peter Garpenby [Opens in a new window]
Johanna Sandberg
Affiliation:
Division of Health Care Analysis, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
Bo Persson
Affiliation:
Division of Political Science, Department of Management and Engineering, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
Peter Garpenby*
Affiliation:
Division of Health Care Analysis, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
*
*Correspondence to: Peter Garpenby, Linköping University, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden. Phone: +46(70)2097241. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is a growing recognition of the importance of evidence to support allocative policy decisions in health care. This study is based on interviews with politicians in four regional health authorities in Sweden. Drawing on theories of strategic use of knowledge, the article analyses how politicians perceive and make use of expert knowledge represented by the National Guidelines, embracing both a scientific and a political rationale. As health care is an organisation with a dual basis for legitimacy – at the same time a political and an action organisation – it affects knowledge use. We investigate how the context of health care priority setting influences the conditions for knowledge use among regional politicians. Our findings illustrate the dilemma of political decision-makers and how they prefer to use expert knowledge. The politicians use this policy instrument in a legitimising fashion, as it will fit into the current political debate on more equal care. As an instrument for resource allocation the politicians noted that ‘facts’ per se could not provide them with a sufficient basis for legitimising their governing of health care. The dualistic organisational context makes knowledge important as a political weapon in negotiations with the medical profession.

Type
Articles
Information
Health Economics, Policy and Law , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , October 2019 , pp. 425 - 442
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amara, N., Ouimet, M. and Landry, R. (2004), ‘New evidence on instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic utilization of university research in government agencies’, Science Communication, 26(1): 75–106.Google Scholar
Boswell, C. (2008), ‘The political functions of expert knowledge: knowledge and legitimation in European Union immigration policy’, Journal of European Public Policy, 15(4): 471–488.Google Scholar
Boswell, C. (2009), The Political Uses of Expert Knowledge: Immigration Policy and Social Research, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998), Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Boyko, J. A., Lavis, J. N., Abelson, J., Dobbins, M. and Carter, N. (2012), ‘Deliberative dialogues as a mechanism for knowledge translation and exchange in health systems decision-making’, Social Science & Medicine, 75(11): 1938–1945.Google Scholar
Culyer, A. J. and Lomas, J. (2006), ‘Deliberative processes and evidence-informed decision making in health care: do they work and how might we know?’, Evidence & Policy, 2(3): 357–371.Google Scholar
Daniels, T., Williams, I., Robinson, S. and Spence, K. (2013), ‘Tackling disinvestment in health care services: the view of resource allocators in the English NHS’, Journal of Health Organization and Management, 26(6): 762–780.Google Scholar
Eckard, N., Nedlund, A. C., Janzon, M. and Levin, L. Å. (2017), ‘Reaching agreement in uncertain circumstances: the practice of evidence-based policy in the case of the Swedish National Guidelines for heart diseases’, Evidence & Policy, 13(4): 687–707.Google Scholar
Fredriksson, M., Blomqvist, P. and Winblad, U. (2014), ‘Recentralizing health care through evidence-based guidelines – striving for national equity in Sweden’, BMC Health Services Research, 14: 509.Google Scholar
Freidson, E. (2001), Professionalism: The Third Logic, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Garpenby, P. and A. C. Nedlund (2016), ‘Political strategies in difficult times – The “backstage” experience of Swedish politicians on formal priority setting in health care’, Social Science and Medicine, 163: 63–70. Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. M., Eccles, M. P., Lavis, J. N., Hill, S. J. and Squires, J. E. (2012), ‘Knowledge translation of research findings’, Implementation Science, 7: 50.Google Scholar
Grip, L., Lindahl, B., Levin, L. Å., Kärvinge, C., Eklund, K. and Wallentin, L. (2011), ‘From European to National guidelines on heart disease’, Scandinavian Cardiovascular Journal, 45(1): 3–13.Google Scholar
Grol, R. and Grimshaw, J. (2003), ‘From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients’ care’, Lancet, 362(9391): 1225–1230.Google Scholar
Hagen, T. P. and Vrangbæk, K. (2009), ‘The changing political governance structures of Nordic health care systems’, in J. Magnusson, K. Vrangbæk and R. B. Saltman (eds), Nordic Health Care Systems: Recent Reforms and Current Policy Challenges, Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Ham, C. and Coulter, A. (2000), ‘Introduction: International experience of rationing (or priority setting)’, in C. Ham and A. Coulter (eds), The Global Challenges of Health Care Rationing, Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Harrison, A. and C. Mitton (2004), ‘Physician involvement in setting priorities for health regions’, Healthcare Management Forum, 17(4): 21–27. Google Scholar
Head, B. (2010), ‘Reconsidering evidence-based policy: key issues and challenges’, Policy and Society, 29(2): 77–94.Google Scholar
Hood, C. (2011), The Blame Game: Spin, Bureaucracy, and Self-Preservation in Government, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hunter, D. J. (1997), ‘Role of politics in understanding complex, messy health systems’, BMJ: British Medical Journal, 350: h1214.Google Scholar
Kalkan, A., J. Sandberg and P. Garpenby (2015), ‘Management by knowledge in practice – implementation of National Healthcare Guidelines in Sweden’, Social Policy and Administration, 49(7): 911–927. Google Scholar
Kay, A. (2011), ‘Evidence-based policy-making: the elusive search for rational public administration’, The Australian Journal of Public Administration, 70(3): 236–245.Google Scholar
Klein, R. (1993), ‘Dimensions of rationing: who should do what?’, BMJ: British Medical Journal, 307(6899): 309–311.Google Scholar
Kuhlmann, E. and Burau, V. (2008), ‘The healthcare state in transition, national and international contexts of changing professional governance’, European Societies, 10(4): 619–633.Google Scholar
Kvale, S. (2009), Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun, Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Lavis, J. N., Oxman, A. D., Lewin, S. and Fretheim, A. (2009), ‘SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health policymaking (STP)’, Health Research Policy and Systems, 7(Suppl 1): I1.Google Scholar
Learmonth, M. and Harding, N. (2006), ‘Evidence-based management: the very idea’, Public Administration, 84(2): 245–266.Google Scholar
Lin, V. (2003), ‘Competing rationalities: evidence-based health policy?’, In V. Lin and B. Gibson (eds), Evidence-Based Health Policy: Problems and Possibilities, Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lomas, J. and Brown, A. D. (2009), ‘Research and advice giving: a functional view of evidence-informed policy advice in a Canadian Ministry of Health’, The Milbank Quarterly, 87(4): 903–926.Google Scholar
Lundin, M. and Öberg, P. (2014), ‘Expert knowledge use and deliberation in local policy making’, Policy Science, 47(1): 25–49.Google Scholar
Numerato, D., Salvatore, D. and Fattore, G. (2012), ‘The impact of management on medical professionalism: a review’, Sociology of Health & Illness, 34(4): 626–644.Google Scholar
Patton, M. (1990), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Plsek, P. and Greenhalgh, T. (2001), ‘The challenge of complexity in health care’, British Medical Journal, 323: 625–628.Google Scholar
Radaelli, C. M. (1995), ‘The role of knowledge in the policy process’, Journal of European Public Policy, 2(2): 159–183.Google Scholar
Raine, R. (1998), ‘Evidence-based policy: rhetoric and reality’, Journal of Health Service Research Policy, 3(4): 251–253.Google Scholar
Robinson, S., I. Williams, H. Dickinson, T. Freeman and B. Rumbold (2012), ‘Priority-setting and rationing in health care: evidence from the English experience’, Social Science & Medicine, 75: 2386–2393. Google Scholar
Rooshenas, L., A. Owen-Smith, W. Hollingworth, P. Badrinath, C. Beynon and J. L. Donovan (2015), ‘“I won't call it rationing…”: An ethnographic study of health care disinvestment in theory and practice’, Social Science and Medicine, 128: 273–281. Google Scholar
Saarni, S. I. and Gylling, H. A. (2004), ‘Evidence based medicine guidelines: a solution to rationing or politics disguised as science?’, Journal of Medical Ethics, 30(2): 171–175.Google Scholar
Schrefler, L. (2010), ‘The usage of scientific knowledge by independent regulatory agencies’, Governance, 23(2): 309–330.Google Scholar
Syrett, K. (2003), ‘A technocratic fix to the “legitimacy problem”? The Blair government and health care rationing in the United Kingdom’, Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 28(4): 715–746.Google Scholar
Tistad, M., Palmcrantz, S., Wallin, L., Anna, E. A., Olsson, C. B., Tomson, G., Widén Holmqvist, L., Gifford, W. and Eldh, A. C. (2016), ‘Developing leadership in managers to facilitate the implementation of National Guideline recommendations: a process evaluation of feasibility and usefulness’, International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 5(8): 477–486.Google Scholar
Walshe, K. and Rundall, T. G. (2001), ‘Evidence-based management: from theory to practice in health care’, The Milbank Quarterly, 79(3): 429–457.Google Scholar
Weiss, C. H. (1979), ‘The many meanings of research utilization’, Public Administration Review, 39(5): 426–431.Google Scholar
Williams, I., Robinson, S. and Dickinson, H. (2012), Rationing in Health Care: The Theory and Practice of Priority Setting, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar