Relation To Health Care-Related Policy Formulation, Implementation And Modification Article Reviews Example

(S1 AA) Overview of Medicare

Lavis et al. (2005) emphasized on the importance of using systematic reviews for the improvement of health care management and policy-making. Targeting health care managers and policymakers, systematic reviews provide evaluative insides on what needs to be improved in healthcare management and policy-making – quite like a feedback mechanism that aids the general interest of maintaining and developing healthcare. Generally deemed as authoritative figures in the realm of health care, health care managers and policymakers are thus understood as people whose inputs in health care-related policy formulation, implementation and modification are highly substantial. Thus, the perusal of systematic reviews by health care managers and policymakers are well understood to bear strong significance to the formulation, implementation and modification of policies related to health care (Lavis et al., 2005).
Verily, a research-centered approach is what Lavis et al. (2005) argues with regard to the formulation, implementation and modification of policies related to health care. Health care managers and policy-makers must use systematic reviews related to health care in evaluating the current state of health care vis-à-vis their specific roles. Lavis et al. (2005) indicated that the local applicability of, and the cost-benefit tradeoff of interventions recommended by systematic reviews stand the most significant benefits health care managers and policy-makers derive from systematic reviews. Moreover, health care managers and policy-makers regard with great importance the prompt presentation of systematic reviews for scanning on relevant portions and graded entry, with the following format provided as an example: one-page take-home messages, three-page executive summary and 25-page report (Dixon-Woods et al., 2005; Lavis et al., 2005).
Nonetheless, despite the connection of increasing usage of systematic reviews for research among health care managers and policy-makers to factors such as greater interactivity between them and timeliness, they do not place high regard on the usefulness of recommendations included therein. Furthermore, in analyzing the websites of research funders essential to the production of systematic reviews, Lavis et al. (2005) found that little significance was given to contextual factors and graded entry forms were seldom featured, although there is an abundance of recommendations provided. Such provides inference that while health care managers and policy-makers treat systematic reviews with strong significance to their research efforts on formulating, implementing and modifying policies related to health care, it is nonetheless evident that they prefer to abide by their own findings based on their research, without strict reference to recommendations provided for them (Lavis et al., 2005).

Impact on Health Care Stakeholders

Essentially, research is an essential undertaking to improvement. Health care managers and policymakers, as noted by Lavis et al. (2005), have underlined the importance of research to formulating, implementing and modifying policies related to health care. Consequently, various health care stakeholders – organizations, interest groups, health care professionals and the general public, can thus benefit from the perusal of systematic reviews for research by health care managers and policymakers. As a vital reference for health care managers and policymakers, systematic reviews must be produced continuously for their benefit in fulfilling the greater interest of keeping health care maintenance and delivery in check. Health care stakeholders, in turn, can both benefit from favorable health care provisions and strong relationships with health care managers and policymakers, as all sides work holistically and constructively for the sake of ensuring the proper formulation, implementation and modification of policies related to health care (Mays et al., 2005). Additionally, research funders – holding the crucial role of ensuring the continuous production of systematic reviews, must strengthen their role on positively impacting health care stakeholders – in this case, improving their websites through more frequent features on contextual factors and graded entry forms (Dixon-Woods, et al., 2005; Lavis et al., 2005).

Interaction of Social, Political and Economic Forces

Lavis et al. (2005) extensively featured the contributions of health care stakeholders with regard to the use of systematic reviews by health care managers and policy-makers. Socially, systematic reviews have references to health care managers and policy-makers for research, with their consequent developments ultimately contributing to the well-being of the people poised to benefit from the formulation, implementation and modification of policies related to health care health care. Politically, greater empowerment on the part of health care managers and policy-makers is set to arise with the use of systematic reviews as part of their references. Economically, research funders find due focus with their crucial role in enabling the continuous production of systematic reviews, mainly through enabling health care managers and policy-makers to apply those in their local settings and ensuring the availability and user-friendliness of information online (Lavis et al., 2005; Mays et al., 2005).

Critical Thinking Questions

Given the instrumentality of research funders in the production of systematic reviews, should health managers and policy-makers, alongside other health care stakeholders, have their say with regard to possible innovations to research funding, or should they recognize it as an autonomous factor beyond their influence?
Would a universally-recognized format for systematic reviews ensure a more streamlined process with regard to providing better information to health care managers and policy-makers, as they formulate, implement and modify policies related to health care?

References

Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Jones, D., Young, B., and Sutton, A. (2005). Synthesizing qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods. Journal of Health Service Research and Policy, 10, 45-53.
Lavis, J., Davies, H., Oxman, A., Denis, J., Golden-Biddle, K., and Ferlie, E. (2005). Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making. Journal of Health Service Research and Policy, 10 (Supplement 1), 35-48.
Mays, N., Popay, J., and Pope, C. (2005). Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. Journal of Health Service Research and Policy, 10 (Supplement 1), 6-20.