Challenges in Shaping Policy with Data

  • Claire D. BrindisEmail author
  • Sarah B. Macfarlane


Brindis and Macfarlane examine the potential for data to enhance decision-making at all stages of policymaking from problem recognition through policy formulation, adoption, implementation and evaluation. Drawing on examples from around the world, the authors examine challenges in translating data into policy and suggest a data broker mediate by working with data specialists to ensure all relevant data are available to answer each policy question, and synthesising and presenting evidence clearly and succinctly to policymakers. Brindis and Macfarlane propose six criteria by which the broker can assess success or failure of knowledge translation by assessing the effectiveness of communication, responsiveness of data systems, formulation of policy questions, timeliness of data collection and analysis, limitations of findings, and usefulness of presentations and dissemination of evidence.


  1. 1.
    World Health Organization. WHO calls on countries to reduce sugars intake among adults and children. 2015 [cited 2017 12th December]. Available from:
  2. 2.
    World Cancer Research. Curbing global sugar consumption. [cited 2017 12th December]. Available from:
  3. 3.
    Majozi PM. Sugar tax: It’s about personal freedom. [cited 2017 12th December]. Available from:
  4. 4.
    Davies P. Is evidence-based government possible? 2004 [cited 2017 12th December]. Available from:
  5. 5.
    United Kingdom Government. Modernising government. 1999 [cited 2017 12th December]. Available from:
  6. 6.
    Wells P. New Labour and evidence based policy making: Political Economy Research Centre. 2004 [cited 2017 12th December]. Available from:
  7. 7.
    Davies P. What is evidence-based education? British Journal of Educational Studies. 1999 Jun;47(2):108–21. Available from:
  8. 8.
    Australian Productivity Commission. Strengthening evidence-based policy in the Australian Federation, Volume 2 Background Paper, p 3: Australian Government Productivity Commission. 2010 [cited 2017 12th December]. Available from:
  9. 9.
    Theodoulou SZ, Kofinis C. The art of the game: Understanding American public policy making. Belmont, USA: Wadsworth Publishing; 2003.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dye TR. Understanding public policy. Fifteenth ed. London, UK: Pearson; 2016.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gardner AL, Brindis CD. Advocacy and policy change evaluation theory and practice. Stanford, USA: Stanford University Press; 2017.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research. Reach Initiative. [cited 2018 2nd November]. Available from:
  13. 13.
    Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation. Global burden of disease. [cited 2017 12th December]. Available from:
  14. 14.
    Rudd RA, Aleshire N, Zibbell JE, Matthew Gladden R. Increases in drug and opioid overdose deaths—United States, 2000–2014. American Journal of Transplantation. 2016 Mar 22;16(4):1323–7. Available from:
  15. 15.
    Cochrane Training. GRADE approach to evaluating the quality of evidence: a pathway. [cited 2017 12th December]. Available from:
  16. 16.
    Disease Control Priorities DCP3. 2017 [cited 2017 12th December] Available from:
  17. 17.
    World Health Organization. Selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use. Third ed. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2016. [cited 2018 5th November]. Available from:
  18. 18.
    Grossman D, Grindlay K, Li R, Potter JE, Trussell J, Blanchard K. Interest in over-the-counter access to oral contraceptives among women in the United States. Contraception. 2013 Oct;88(4):544–52. Available from:
  19. 19.
    California Legislative Information. [cited 2017 12th December]. Available from:
  20. 20.
    Wikipedia. Oportunidades. [cited 2017 12th December]. Available from:
  21. 21.
    Valle AM. The Mexican experience in monitoring and evaluation of public policies addressing social determinants of health. Global Health Action. 2016 Feb 23;9(1):29030. Available from:
  22. 22.
    AbouZahr C. Use of statistical data for policy analysis and advocacy: Some lessons learnt and suggestions for action. In: Making data count. A collection of good practices in using statistics for policymaking. United Nations. Editors. New York, USA: United Nations; 2013 [cited 2018 5th November]. Available from:
  23. 23.
    Kahn J. Are NEPs cost-effective in preventing HIV infection? In: Lurie P, Reingold AL, editors. The public health impact of needle exchange programs in the United States and abroad, Berkeley, USA: School of Public Health, University of California—Berkeley [and] Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California—San Francisco; 1993. p. 475–509.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kaiser Family Foundation. Sterile syringe exchange programs. [cited 2017 12th December]. Available from:,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D
  25. 25.
    Green TC, Martin EG, Bowman SE, Mann MR, Beletsky L. Life After the ban: An assessment of US Syringe Exchange Programs’ attitudes about and early experiences with Federal funding. American Journal of Public Health. 2012 May;102(5):e9–e16. Available from:
  26. 26.
    Weinmeyer R. Needle exchange programs’ status in US politics. American Medical Journal of Ethics. 2016;18(3):252. Available from:
  27. 27.
    Wikipedia. Alternative facts. [cited 2017 12th December]. Available from:
  28. 28.
    The Guardian. Official advice on low-fat diet and cholesterol is wrong, says health charity. 2016 [cited 2017 12th December]. Available from:
  29. 29.
    Yamey G, Horváth H, Schmidt L, Myers J, Brindis CD. Reducing the global burden of preterm birth through knowledge transfer and exchange: a research agenda for engaging effectively with policymakers. Reproductive Health. 2016 Mar 18;13(1). Available from:
  30. 30.
    Barnes A, Parkhurst J. Can global health policy be depoliticized? A critique of global calls for evidence-based policy. In: Wamala S YG, Brown GW, editor. The Handbook of Global Health Policy. Hoboken, USA: Wiley-Blackwell; 2014. p. 157–73.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    McKinlay JB. A case for refocusing upstream: the political economy of illness. In: Conrad P KR, editor. The sociology of health and illness: critical perspectives. Second ed. New York, USA: St. Martin’s Press; 1986. p. 502–17.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BioMed Central Health Services Research. 2014 Jan 3;14(1). Available from:
  33. 33.
    Nutley S, Davies H, Walter I. Evidence based policy and practice: cross sector lessons from the UK: ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice. 2002 [cited 2017 12th December]. Available from:
  34. 34.
    Whittaker M and Buttswort M, A framework to guide HIS investments: What needs to be synthesised for senior health decision makers. University of Queensland, Australia. 2012 [cited 2018 5th November]. Available at:
  35. 35.
    Otten JJ, Cheng K, Drewnowski A. Infographics and public policy: using data visualization to convey complex information. Health Affairs. 2015 Nov;34(11):1901–7. Available from:
  36. 36.
    United Nations. Sustainable Development Goals. [cited 2017 12th December]. Available from:
  37. 37.
    Data Development Group. A world that counts: Mobilising the data revolution for sustainable development: Independent Expert Advisory Group Secretariat 2014; 2014. Available from:

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy StudiesUniversity of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Medicine, and Institute for Global Health SciencesUniversity of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations