11. Who is in charge? Introducing criteria to evaluate health human resource (HHR) policy documents

D. Rosenfield, C. Abrahams, S. Verma

Abstract


The maldistribution of and lack of access to health professionals continues to be a major issue for policymakers at all levels of government. Additionally, the basis by which Health Human Resource (HHR) policy is determined is unclear. Publications found in independent reports, peer-reviewed journals and most importantly, grey literature, can significantly influence or inform major policy decisions for “hot button” HHR issues (1) . We propose a framework that can be used to classify, rank and evaluate HHR policy/planning documents.
Our framework creates six major criteria that are used to evaluate policy documents. These criteria are: 1) literature review, 2) source of primary information, 3) nature of recommendations, 4) implementation strategies, 5) credibility of authors and 6) credibility of publisher. Within each category, a score from zero to three (for criteria 1-4) or zero to two (criteria 5-6) is assigned, depending on the caliber of the document. Summing the scores from each section yields a document’s overall score.
The intent of this measure is two-fold. Firstly, we want to create a tool that can be widely utilized by policymakers to help inform their decisions. Secondly, it can be used as a springboard to stimulate discussion and debate around HHR planning and policy formulation.
National Information Center on Health Services Research and Health Care Technology. (NICHSR) Health Services Research and Health Policy Grey Literature Project: Summary Report. 2006. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/ nichsr/greylitreport_06.html. Accessed February 20, 2007.



DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.25011/cim.v30i4.2771

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.

Comments on this article

View all comments


© 2007-2017 Canadian Society for Clinical Investigation.
C.I.M. provides open access to all of its content 6 months after the date of publication