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. 知证卫生决策工具之一—什么是知证决策. 中国循证医学杂志, 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.	应对社会挑战的全球证据委员会. 证据委员会报告: 为决策者、证据中介和以影响力为导向的证据生产者敲响警钟并指明前进道路. 汉密尔顿: 麦克马斯特卫生论坛, 2022.
14.	应对社会挑战的全球证据委员会. 全球证据委员会报告(2023更新版): 加强国家证据支持系统, 改善全球证据架构, 让证据成为日常生活的中心. 汉密尔顿: 麦克马斯特卫生论坛, 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. 知证卫生决策工具之二—如何改进机构知证决策的方法. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(3): 247-254.
21.	Lavis JN, Oxman AD, Lewin S, et al. 知证卫生决策工具之三—设定优先顺序支持知证决策. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(3): 255-261.
22.	Lavis JN, Wilson MG, Oxman AD, et al. 知证卫生决策工具之四—使用证据明确问题. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(3): 262-268.
23.	Lavis JN, Wilson MG, Oxman AD, et al. 知证卫生决策工具之五—使用证据拟订解决问题的方案. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(3): 269-275.
24.	Fretheim A, Munabi-Babigumira S, Oxman AD, et al. 知证卫生决策工具之六—使用证据制订实施计划. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(3): 276-283.
25.	Lavis JN, Oxman AD, Grimshaw J, et al. 知证卫生决策工具之七—查找系统评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(4): 381-387.
26.	Lewin S, Oxman AD, Lavis JN, et al. 知证卫生决策工具之八—确定系统评价的可信度. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(4): 388-397.
27.	Lavis JN, Oxman AD, Souza NM, et al. 知证卫生决策工具之九—系统评价结果的适用性评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(4): 398-404.
28.	Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Lewin S, et al. 知证卫生决策工具之十—评价系统评价结果时应考虑公平性. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(4): 405-411.
29.	Lewin S, Oxman AD, Lavis JN, et al. 知证卫生决策工具之十一—查找和使用当地证据. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(4): 412-421.
30.	Oxman AD, Fretheim A, Lavis JN, et al. 知证卫生决策工具之十二—查找和使用关于资源利用及成本的研究证据. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(4): 422-428.
31.	Lavis JN, Permanand G, Oxman AD, et al. 知证卫生决策工具之十三—准备和使用政策简报支持知证决策. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(5): 507-513.
32.	Lavis JN, Boyko J, Oxman AD, et al. 知证卫生决策工具之十四—组织和开展政策对话支持知证决策. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(5): 514-519.
33.	Oxman AD, Lewin S, Lavis JN, et al. 知证卫生决策工具之十五—使公众参与知证决策. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(5): 520-526.
34.	Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Fretheim A, et al. 知证卫生决策工具之十六—使用研究证据权衡政策的利弊. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(5): 527-533.
35.	Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Fretheim A, et al. 知证卫生政策工具之十七—研究证据不足时的知证决策. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(5): 534-538.
36.	Fretheim A, Oxman AD, Lavis JN, et al. 知证卫生决策工具之十八—制定政策监测和评估计划. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(5): 539-544.
37.	Lavis JN, Røttingen 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.	杨克虎. 循证社会科学的产生、发展与未来. 图书与情报, 2018, (3): 1-10.
41.	魏志鹏, 杨克虎. 循证社会科学视角下的新文科建设路径研究. 兰州大学学报(社会科学版), 2021, 49(1): 142-150.
42.	张梓尧, 魏志鹏, 杨克虎. 循证社会科学与新文科建设的共同逻辑及发展框架研究. 图书与情报, 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. 知证卫生决策工具之一—什么是知证决策. 中国循证医学杂志, 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. 应对社会挑战的全球证据委员会. 证据委员会报告: 为决策者、证据中介和以影响力为导向的证据生产者敲响警钟并指明前进道路. 汉密尔顿: 麦克马斯特卫生论坛, 2022.
14. 应对社会挑战的全球证据委员会. 全球证据委员会报告(2023更新版): 加强国家证据支持系统, 改善全球证据架构, 让证据成为日常生活的中心. 汉密尔顿: 麦克马斯特卫生论坛, 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. 知证卫生决策工具之二—如何改进机构知证决策的方法. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(3): 247-254.
21. Lavis JN, Oxman AD, Lewin S, et al. 知证卫生决策工具之三—设定优先顺序支持知证决策. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(3): 255-261.
22. Lavis JN, Wilson MG, Oxman AD, et al. 知证卫生决策工具之四—使用证据明确问题. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(3): 262-268.
23. Lavis JN, Wilson MG, Oxman AD, et al. 知证卫生决策工具之五—使用证据拟订解决问题的方案. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(3): 269-275.
24. Fretheim A, Munabi-Babigumira S, Oxman AD, et al. 知证卫生决策工具之六—使用证据制订实施计划. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(3): 276-283.
25. Lavis JN, Oxman AD, Grimshaw J, et al. 知证卫生决策工具之七—查找系统评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(4): 381-387.
26. Lewin S, Oxman AD, Lavis JN, et al. 知证卫生决策工具之八—确定系统评价的可信度. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(4): 388-397.
27. Lavis JN, Oxman AD, Souza NM, et al. 知证卫生决策工具之九—系统评价结果的适用性评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(4): 398-404.
28. Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Lewin S, et al. 知证卫生决策工具之十—评价系统评价结果时应考虑公平性. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(4): 405-411.
29. Lewin S, Oxman AD, Lavis JN, et al. 知证卫生决策工具之十一—查找和使用当地证据. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(4): 412-421.
30. Oxman AD, Fretheim A, Lavis JN, et al. 知证卫生决策工具之十二—查找和使用关于资源利用及成本的研究证据. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(4): 422-428.
31. Lavis JN, Permanand G, Oxman AD, et al. 知证卫生决策工具之十三—准备和使用政策简报支持知证决策. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(5): 507-513.
32. Lavis JN, Boyko J, Oxman AD, et al. 知证卫生决策工具之十四—组织和开展政策对话支持知证决策. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(5): 514-519.
33. Oxman AD, Lewin S, Lavis JN, et al. 知证卫生决策工具之十五—使公众参与知证决策. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(5): 520-526.
34. Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Fretheim A, et al. 知证卫生决策工具之十六—使用研究证据权衡政策的利弊. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(5): 527-533.
35. Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Fretheim A, et al. 知证卫生政策工具之十七—研究证据不足时的知证决策. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(5): 534-538.
36. Fretheim A, Oxman AD, Lavis JN, et al. 知证卫生决策工具之十八—制定政策监测和评估计划. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(5): 539-544.
37. Lavis JN, Røttingen 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. 杨克虎. 循证社会科学的产生、发展与未来. 图书与情报, 2018, (3): 1-10.
41. 魏志鹏, 杨克虎. 循证社会科学视角下的新文科建设路径研究. 兰州大学学报(社会科学版), 2021, 49(1): 142-150.
42. 张梓尧, 魏志鹏, 杨克虎. 循证社会科学与新文科建设的共同逻辑及发展框架研究. 图书与情报, 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