Abstract:There is extensive health and public health literature on the ‘evidence-policy gap’, exploring the frustrating experiences of scientists trying to secure a response to the problems and solutions they raise and identifying the need for better evidence to reduce policymaker uncertainty. We offer a new perspective by using policy theory to propose research with greater impact, identifying the need to use persuasion to reduce ambiguity, and to adapt to multi-level policymaking systems.We identify insights from secondary data, namely systematic reviews, critical analysis and policy theories relevant to evidence-based policymaking. The studies are drawn primarily from countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We combine empirical and normative elements to identify the ways in which scientists can, do and could influence policy.We identify two important dilemmas, for scientists and researchers, that arise from our initial advice. First, effective actors combine evidence with manipulative emotional appeals to influence the policy agenda – should scientists do the same, or would the reputational costs outweigh the policy benefits? Second, when adapting to multi-level policymaking, should scientists prioritise ‘evidence-based’ policymaking above other factors? The latter includes governance principles such the ‘co-production’ of policy between local public bodies, interest groups and service users. This process may be based primarily on values and involve actors with no commitment to a hierarchy of evidence.We conclude that successful engagement in ‘evidence-based policymaking’ requires pragmatism, combining scientific evidence with governance principles, and persuasion to translate complex evidence into simple stories. To maximise the use of scientific evidence in health and public health policy, researchers should recognise the tendency of policymakers to base judgements on their beliefs, and shortcuts based on their emotions and familiarity with information; learn ‘where the action is’, and be prepared to engage in long-term strategies to be able to influence policy; and, in both cases, decide how far you are willing to go to persuade policymakers to act and secure a hierarchy of evidence underpinning policy. These are value-driven and political, not just ‘evidence-based’, choices.

Evaluating unintended consequences: New insights into solving practical, ethical and political challenges of evaluation

Understanding the unintended consequences of public health policies: the views of policymakers and evaluators

A comprehensive framework for considering additional unintended consequences in economic evaluation

Why so many "rigorous" evaluations fail to identify unintended consequences of development programs: How mixed methods can contribute

Monitoring and evaluation for thinking and working politically

"That's important, but...": How Computer Science Researchers Anticipate Unintended Consequences of Their Research Innovations

Combining Theories of Change and Realist Evaluation in practice: Lessons from a research on evaluation study

Whose intentions? What consequences? Interrogating “Intended Consequences” for conservation with environmental biotechnology

Evaluating the Health Impact of Large-Scale Public Policy Changes: Classical and Novel Approaches

Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy?

When rules turn into tools: An activity theory-based perspective on implementation processes and unintended consequences

Exploration of understanding of impactibility analysis and application through workshops to inform model design for population health management policy: a qualitative assessment

Methods and measures to evaluate the impact of participatory model building on public policymakers: a scoping review protocol

Tensions of evaluating innovation in a living lab: Moving beyond actionable knowledge production

From intervention to interventional system: towards greater theorization in population health intervention research

Use of research evidence in U.S. federal policymaking: A reflexive report on intra-stage mixed methods

Policy implementation and outcome evaluation: establishing a framework and expanding capacity for advocacy organizations to assess the impact of their work in public policy

Quantitative analysis at local and national level: getting it right and why it matters

Simulating Policy Impacts: Developing a Generative Scenario Writing Method to Evaluate the Perceived Effects of Regulation

Lost in translation: questioning the role of European evaluations in environmental policy change

Looking for impact in all the wrong places: Setting realistic expectations and measurable outcomes for small-scale community building initiatives