Barriers of evidence based policy making in iran's health system

The establishment of knowledge based societies, the advancements of communication technologies and the better exchange of information at global level allows better utilization of produced knowledge in the health system’s decision makings. Some studies have been conducted on the barriers to development of evidence-based decision-making (EBDM) in developed countries, but similar studies in developing are very rare.  Iran is a country that has had the greatest growth in its scientific publications in recent years, but the question was what barriers are there to the utilization of this knowledge and also of global evidence. This study consists of three consecutive papers. The purpose of the first paper study was to find a model for assessing the status of knowledge utilization in Iran’s circumstances through an extensive systematic review followed by a qualitative study of grounded theory nature. Then, in the second and third papers the barriers to evidence based decision making in Iran asked through the qualitative study on the health sector’s directors and policy makers and also the researchers working to produce scientific evidence for EBDM.  Upon reviewing the available existing models and conducting a qualitative study the first paper came out entitled 'Design of a Knowledge Translation Model' as the framework of two other papers that assess the push and pull side barriers of EBDM in Iran.  As a developing country, in Iran the problems lie in all the stages of the process of producing, sharing and using evidence in health system decision making. There are various barriers to evidence-based decision making at different levels, and multi-dimensional solutions are required to strengthen the impact of scientific evidence on decision makings. These solutions should result in changes in culture and the decision making environment’s value system for the purpose of valuing evidence-based decision making. Unsuitable selection and appointment criteria of managers, their rapid replacements and payment differences in public and private sectors can weaken EBDM through two channels, one is through affecting decision makers' incentives and the other is by destroying program continuity. In the similar situation, while selection and replacement of researchers is not same as the managers, there is no criterion for encouraging them to support decision making in the health sector and subsequent changes. The selection and promotion of policy makers should be based on their performance regarding EBDM and the efforts of academicians for strengthening EBDM should be accounted in their personal promotion and institutional ranks.  The attitudes and capabilities of both decision makers and researchers should be promoted through their empowerment regarding different components of the decision making cycle. The study revealed that the managers do not have enough access to both domestic and international evidence.  Shortening the gap between researchers and decision makers is a crucial milestone which should be dealt through providing communications between the two sides. This issue is very crucial since the utilization of knowledge can be strengthened only with the close cooperation of policy makers and the research sector, and long-term programs need to be designed with this objective. Establishing networks for researchers and decision makers in choosing the research topic, priority setting, and building trust among researchers and policy makers seem effective.

Keyphrases: Evidence-Based Medicine, Decision Making, Theoretical models, Iran, Organization and administration, Education