A pioneer in addressing societal challenges with evidence-informed decision-making: Global Commission on Evidence_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

SONG Xuping ^1,2,3 , John N. Lavis ² , CHEN Yaolong ^1,3 ,  YANG Kehu ^1,3

1. Evidence-based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
2. McMaster Health Forum, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton L8S 4L6, Canada;
3. Innovation Laboratory for Evidence-based Social Science, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;

Corresponding?author：

YANG Kehu, Email: yangkh-ebm@lzu.edu.cn

Keywords：

Evidence-informed decision-making; Societal challenges; Global Commission on Evidence; Report

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.202305076

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Decision-making is often a complex and hard-to-routinize process. Based on the decision-making experience of fighting COVID-19, policymakers have gradually realized that climate action, quality education, and other societal challenges, as well as the sustainable development goals (SDGs) need to be addressed with the best available evidence using an evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) approach. The Global Commission on Evidence was established in 2021. In addition, the Evidence Commission issued reports in 2022 and 2023. A systematic methodology to address societal challenges with EIDM has been constructed in the report. Five types of domestic evidence (data analytics, evaluation, modeling, qualitative insights, and behavioural/implementation research) and four steps in decision-making process (understanding a problem and its causes, selecting an option for addressing the problem, identifying implementation considerations, and monitoring implementation and evaluating impacts) were used to support four types of decision-makers (government policymakers, organizational leaders, professionals and citizens) in EIDM, as demonstrated by the reports. To further disseminate the concept and methodology of EIDM globally, the secretariat works with 25 Evidence Commissioners to write the report, and continues to cooperate with Country Leads Group from 12 countries to conduct rapid evidence-support system assessments (RESSAs), and collaborates with Evidence Commission Implementation Council to accelerate the implementation of 24 recommendations. The main history, core methodology, and latest developments of the Global Committee on Evidence were systematically reviewed in this paper. We aimed to show decision-makers a new version of how to scientifically address the societal challenges of EIDM.

Citation： SONG Xuping, John N. Lavis, CHEN Yaolong, YANG Kehu. A pioneer in addressing societal challenges with evidence-informed decision-making: Global Commission on Evidence. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2023, 23(10): 1222-1228. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.202305076 Copy

1.	Grimshaw JM, Tovey DI, Lavis JN. COVID-END: an international network to better co-ordinate and maximize the impact of the global evidence synthesis and guidance response to COVID-19. 2020.
2.	Lorenc T, Tyner EF, Petticrew M, et al. Cultures of evidence across policy sectors: systematic review of qualitative evidence. Eur J Public Health, 2014, 24(6): 1041-1047.
3.	Global Commission on the Economy and Climate. Unlocking the inclusive growth story of the 21st century: accelerating climate action in urgent times. Washington: The New Climate Economy, 2018.
4.	Semakula D, Nsangi A, Oxman AD, et al. Effects of the informed health choices podcast on the ability of parents of primary school children in Uganda to assess the trustworthiness of claims about treatment effects: one-year follow up of a randomised trial. Lancet 2017, 390(10092): 389-398.
5.	Oppenheim J, Boyd O, Campbell G, et al. Better business, better world. London: Business and Sustainable Development Commission, 2017.
6.	Halstead SB, Tugwell P, Bennett K. The International Clinical Epidemiology Network (INCLEN): a progress report. J Clin Epidemiol, 1991, 44(6): 579-589.
7.	Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Evidence-based medicine. a new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA, 1992, 268(17): 2420-2425.
8.	Banta D. The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy, 2003, 63(2): 121-132.
9.	Carey G, Landvogt K, Barraket J, et al. Creating and implementing public policy: cross-sectoral debates. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2015: 98-112.
10.	World Health Organization. Evidence, policy, impact: WHO guide for evidence-informed decision-making. 2021.
11.	Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Lewin S, et al. 知證衛生決策工具之一—什么是知證決策. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(3): 240-246.
12.	World Health Organization. Supporting the routine use of evidence during the policy-making process: a WHO checklist. 2023.
13.	應對社會挑戰的全球證據委員會. 證據委員會報告: 為決策者、證據中介和以影響力為導向的證據生產者敲響警鐘并指明前進道路. 漢密爾頓: 麥克馬斯特衛生論壇, 2022.
14.	應對社會挑戰的全球證據委員會. 全球證據委員會報告(2023更新版): 加強國家證據支持系統, 改善全球證據架構, 讓證據成為日常生活的中心. 漢密爾頓: 麥克馬斯特衛生論壇, 2023.
15.	Lancet T. Mexico, 2004: global health needs a new research agenda. Lancet, 2004, 364(9445): 1555-1556.
16.	World Health Organization. World report on knowledge for better health: strengthening health systems. 2004.
17.	Hamid M, Bustamante-Manaog T, Truong VD, et al. EVIPNet: translating the spirit of Mexico. Lancet, 2005, 366(9499): 1758-1760.
18.	Lavis JN, Lomas J, Hamid M, et al. Assessing country-level efforts to link research to action. Bull World Health Organ, 2006, 84(8): 620-628.
19.	Corkum S, Cuervo LG, Porrás A, et al. EVIPNet Americas: informing policies with evidence. Lancet, 2008, 372(9644): 1130-1131.
20.	Oxman AD, Vandvik PO, Lavis JN, et al. 知證衛生決策工具之二—如何改進機構知證決策的方法. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(3): 247-254.
21.	Lavis JN, Oxman AD, Lewin S, et al. 知證衛生決策工具之三—設定優先順序支持知證決策. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(3): 255-261.
22.	Lavis JN, Wilson MG, Oxman AD, et al. 知證衛生決策工具之四—使用證據明確問題. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(3): 262-268.
23.	Lavis JN, Wilson MG, Oxman AD, et al. 知證衛生決策工具之五—使用證據擬訂解決問題的方案. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(3): 269-275.
24.	Fretheim A, Munabi-Babigumira S, Oxman AD, et al. 知證衛生決策工具之六—使用證據制訂實施計劃. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(3): 276-283.
25.	Lavis JN, Oxman AD, Grimshaw J, et al. 知證衛生決策工具之七—查找系統評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(4): 381-387.
26.	Lewin S, Oxman AD, Lavis JN, et al. 知證衛生決策工具之八—確定系統評價的可信度. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(4): 388-397.
27.	Lavis JN, Oxman AD, Souza NM, et al. 知證衛生決策工具之九—系統評價結果的適用性評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(4): 398-404.
28.	Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Lewin S, et al. 知證衛生決策工具之十—評價系統評價結果時應考慮公平性. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(4): 405-411.
29.	Lewin S, Oxman AD, Lavis JN, et al. 知證衛生決策工具之十一—查找和使用當地證據. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(4): 412-421.
30.	Oxman AD, Fretheim A, Lavis JN, et al. 知證衛生決策工具之十二—查找和使用關于資源利用及成本的研究證據. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(4): 422-428.
31.	Lavis JN, Permanand G, Oxman AD, et al. 知證衛生決策工具之十三—準備和使用政策簡報支持知證決策. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(5): 507-513.
32.	Lavis JN, Boyko J, Oxman AD, et al. 知證衛生決策工具之十四—組織和開展政策對話支持知證決策. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(5): 514-519.
33.	Oxman AD, Lewin S, Lavis JN, et al. 知證衛生決策工具之十五—使公眾參與知證決策. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(5): 520-526.
34.	Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Fretheim A, et al. 知證衛生決策工具之十六—使用研究證據權衡政策的利弊. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(5): 527-533.
35.	Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Fretheim A, et al. 知證衛生政策工具之十七—研究證據不足時的知證決策. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(5): 534-538.
36.	Fretheim A, Oxman AD, Lavis JN, et al. 知證衛生決策工具之十八—制定政策監測和評估計劃. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(5): 539-544.
37.	Lavis JN, R?ttingen JA, Bosch-Capblanch X, et al. Guidance for evidence-informed policies about health systems: linking guidance development to policy development. PLoS Med, 2012, 9(3): e1001186.
38.	Bosch-Capblanch X, Lavis JN, Lewin S, et al. Guidance for evidence-informed policies about health systems: rationale for and challenges of guidance development. PLoS Med, 2012, 9(3): e1001185.
39.	Lewin S, Bosch-Capblanch X, Oliver S, et al. Guidance for evidence-informed policies about health systems: assessing how much confidence to place in the research evidence. PLoS Med, 2012, 9(3): e1001187.
40.	楊克虎. 循證社會科學的產生、發展與未來. 圖書與情報, 2018, (3): 1-10.
41.	魏志鵬, 楊克虎. 循證社會科學視角下的新文科建設路徑研究. 蘭州大學學報(社會科學版), 2021, 49(1): 142-150.
42.	張梓堯, 魏志鵬, 楊克虎. 循證社會科學與新文科建設的共同邏輯及發展框架研究. 圖書與情報, 2021, (5): 60-65.

1. Grimshaw JM, Tovey DI, Lavis JN. COVID-END: an international network to better co-ordinate and maximize the impact of the global evidence synthesis and guidance response to COVID-19. 2020.
2. Lorenc T, Tyner EF, Petticrew M, et al. Cultures of evidence across policy sectors: systematic review of qualitative evidence. Eur J Public Health, 2014, 24(6): 1041-1047.
3. Global Commission on the Economy and Climate. Unlocking the inclusive growth story of the 21st century: accelerating climate action in urgent times. Washington: The New Climate Economy, 2018.
4. Semakula D, Nsangi A, Oxman AD, et al. Effects of the informed health choices podcast on the ability of parents of primary school children in Uganda to assess the trustworthiness of claims about treatment effects: one-year follow up of a randomised trial. Lancet 2017, 390(10092): 389-398.
5. Oppenheim J, Boyd O, Campbell G, et al. Better business, better world. London: Business and Sustainable Development Commission, 2017.
6. Halstead SB, Tugwell P, Bennett K. The International Clinical Epidemiology Network (INCLEN): a progress report. J Clin Epidemiol, 1991, 44(6): 579-589.
7. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Evidence-based medicine. a new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA, 1992, 268(17): 2420-2425.
8. Banta D. The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy, 2003, 63(2): 121-132.
9. Carey G, Landvogt K, Barraket J, et al. Creating and implementing public policy: cross-sectoral debates. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2015: 98-112.
10. World Health Organization. Evidence, policy, impact: WHO guide for evidence-informed decision-making. 2021.
11. Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Lewin S, et al. 知證衛生決策工具之一—什么是知證決策. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(3): 240-246.
12. World Health Organization. Supporting the routine use of evidence during the policy-making process: a WHO checklist. 2023.
13. 應對社會挑戰的全球證據委員會. 證據委員會報告: 為決策者、證據中介和以影響力為導向的證據生產者敲響警鐘并指明前進道路. 漢密爾頓: 麥克馬斯特衛生論壇, 2022.
14. 應對社會挑戰的全球證據委員會. 全球證據委員會報告(2023更新版): 加強國家證據支持系統, 改善全球證據架構, 讓證據成為日常生活的中心. 漢密爾頓: 麥克馬斯特衛生論壇, 2023.
15. Lancet T. Mexico, 2004: global health needs a new research agenda. Lancet, 2004, 364(9445): 1555-1556.
16. World Health Organization. World report on knowledge for better health: strengthening health systems. 2004.
17. Hamid M, Bustamante-Manaog T, Truong VD, et al. EVIPNet: translating the spirit of Mexico. Lancet, 2005, 366(9499): 1758-1760.
18. Lavis JN, Lomas J, Hamid M, et al. Assessing country-level efforts to link research to action. Bull World Health Organ, 2006, 84(8): 620-628.
19. Corkum S, Cuervo LG, Porrás A, et al. EVIPNet Americas: informing policies with evidence. Lancet, 2008, 372(9644): 1130-1131.
20. Oxman AD, Vandvik PO, Lavis JN, et al. 知證衛生決策工具之二—如何改進機構知證決策的方法. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(3): 247-254.
21. Lavis JN, Oxman AD, Lewin S, et al. 知證衛生決策工具之三—設定優先順序支持知證決策. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(3): 255-261.
22. Lavis JN, Wilson MG, Oxman AD, et al. 知證衛生決策工具之四—使用證據明確問題. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(3): 262-268.
23. Lavis JN, Wilson MG, Oxman AD, et al. 知證衛生決策工具之五—使用證據擬訂解決問題的方案. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(3): 269-275.
24. Fretheim A, Munabi-Babigumira S, Oxman AD, et al. 知證衛生決策工具之六—使用證據制訂實施計劃. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(3): 276-283.
25. Lavis JN, Oxman AD, Grimshaw J, et al. 知證衛生決策工具之七—查找系統評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(4): 381-387.
26. Lewin S, Oxman AD, Lavis JN, et al. 知證衛生決策工具之八—確定系統評價的可信度. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(4): 388-397.
27. Lavis JN, Oxman AD, Souza NM, et al. 知證衛生決策工具之九—系統評價結果的適用性評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(4): 398-404.
28. Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Lewin S, et al. 知證衛生決策工具之十—評價系統評價結果時應考慮公平性. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(4): 405-411.
29. Lewin S, Oxman AD, Lavis JN, et al. 知證衛生決策工具之十一—查找和使用當地證據. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(4): 412-421.
30. Oxman AD, Fretheim A, Lavis JN, et al. 知證衛生決策工具之十二—查找和使用關于資源利用及成本的研究證據. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(4): 422-428.
31. Lavis JN, Permanand G, Oxman AD, et al. 知證衛生決策工具之十三—準備和使用政策簡報支持知證決策. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(5): 507-513.
32. Lavis JN, Boyko J, Oxman AD, et al. 知證衛生決策工具之十四—組織和開展政策對話支持知證決策. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(5): 514-519.
33. Oxman AD, Lewin S, Lavis JN, et al. 知證衛生決策工具之十五—使公眾參與知證決策. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(5): 520-526.
34. Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Fretheim A, et al. 知證衛生決策工具之十六—使用研究證據權衡政策的利弊. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(5): 527-533.
35. Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Fretheim A, et al. 知證衛生政策工具之十七—研究證據不足時的知證決策. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(5): 534-538.
36. Fretheim A, Oxman AD, Lavis JN, et al. 知證衛生決策工具之十八—制定政策監測和評估計劃. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(5): 539-544.
37. Lavis JN, R?ttingen JA, Bosch-Capblanch X, et al. Guidance for evidence-informed policies about health systems: linking guidance development to policy development. PLoS Med, 2012, 9(3): e1001186.
38. Bosch-Capblanch X, Lavis JN, Lewin S, et al. Guidance for evidence-informed policies about health systems: rationale for and challenges of guidance development. PLoS Med, 2012, 9(3): e1001185.
39. Lewin S, Bosch-Capblanch X, Oliver S, et al. Guidance for evidence-informed policies about health systems: assessing how much confidence to place in the research evidence. PLoS Med, 2012, 9(3): e1001187.
40. 楊克虎. 循證社會科學的產生、發展與未來. 圖書與情報, 2018, (3): 1-10.
41. 魏志鵬, 楊克虎. 循證社會科學視角下的新文科建設路徑研究. 蘭州大學學報(社會科學版), 2021, 49(1): 142-150.
42. 張梓堯, 魏志鵬, 楊克虎. 循證社會科學與新文科建設的共同邏輯及發展框架研究. 圖書與情報, 2021, (5): 60-65.

Previous Article
Construction of a post setting scheme in large comprehensive public hospitals
Next Article
From evidence to decision in evidence-based social science: insights from the Evidence Commission Report

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

A pioneer in addressing societal challenges with evidence-informed decision-making: Global Commission on Evidence

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content