Use of Policy Risk Assessment Results in Political Decision Making

  • Liliana Cori
  • Gabriel Guliš
  • Joanna Kobza
  • Ágnes Molnár
  • Jana Kollárová
Chapter

Abstract

The RAPID project established, during the first period, a thematic network of risk assessment experts, including relevant partners in the ten countries involved, the “Risk assessor database”. The project devoted a specific activity, a single work package, to the dissemination and discussion of the methodology developed during" first two years of the project. National workshops were planned in each country to facilitate integrated knowledge translation activity, using a participatory approach to increase potential knowledge-users awareness on the RAPID project, and to engage them in using the RAPID guidance.

Workshops were conceived to present case studies and the RAPID guidance to a targeted audience, to discuss and collect further insights, and integrate different perspectives in the final version of the policy evaluation methodology. However, national workshops also actively contributed to develop evidence based methodological guidance and increase its quality and relevance for potential users by bridging know-do gap between researchers and stakeholders; by involving decision makers and potential users in the knowledge creation process; by facilitating diverse stakeholder participation from governmental, academic and private sectors, carefully identified by national RAPID surveys as having direct expertise in the field of risk assessment. The cultural and administrative differences existing in the countries involved in RAPID guarantee the inclusion of a wide range of perspectives. Results of the national workshops helped to identify barriers and solutions for using the guidance, for adapting necessary changes to it and for communicating results to other potential users.

Keywords

Europe Coherence Clarification 

References

  1. Bianchi, F., & Cori, L. (2013). HIA in Italy. In J. Kemm (Ed.), HIA – Past achievements, current understanding and future progress. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Costa, G., Paci, E., & Ricciardi, W. (Eds.). (2011). United Italy, 150 years later: has Equity in Health and Health Care improved?. Epidemiol Prev, 35(5–6) suppl. 2, 1–136.Google Scholar
  3. CSDH (WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health). (2008). Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Final report of the commission on Social Determinants of Health. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  4. Figueras, J., & McKee, M. (Eds.). (2012). Health systems, health, wealth and societal well-being. Maidenhead: Open University Press, MacGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
  5. Kemm, J. (2013). HIA – Past achievements, current understanding and future progress. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Kobusch, A.-B., Fehr, R., & Serwe, H.-J. (Eds.). (1997). Gesundheitsverträglichkeitsprüfung. Baden-Baden: Grundlagen - Konzepte - Praxiserfahrungen. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  7. L’Astorina, A. (2011). Pisa meeting metaplan report. Pisa: CNR Report.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Liliana Cori
    • 1
  • Gabriel Guliš
    • 2
  • Joanna Kobza
    • 3
  • Ágnes Molnár
    • 4
  • Jana Kollárová
    • 5
  1. 1.Institute of Clinical Physiology, National Research Council, Istituto Fisiologia Clinica Consiglio Nazionale delle RicercheRomaItaly
  2. 2.University of Southern DenmarkEsbjergDenmark
  3. 3.Medical University of SilesiaKatowicePoland
  4. 4.Centre for Research on Inner City Health, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michaels’s HospitalTorontoCanada
  5. 5.Regional Public Health AuthorityKosiceSlovakia

Personalised recommendations