背景:循证决策(EIPM)需要一套个人和组织知识,技能和态度,应与背景因素和需求进行阐述。在这方面,EIPM能力档案的开发对于支持诊断很重要,EIPM的规划和实施。
目的:介绍专家委员会制定EIPM能力概况的过程和结果,适用于巴西卫生系统的不同背景。
方法:EIPM的专家委员会分享了不同的观点,为巴西制定EIPM能力简介的经验和意见。在主持人调解的六个共识研讨会上,该委员会从宏观问题到关键行动和表现,对能力概况至关重要。发展步骤包括:(1)委员会的组成,包括研究人员,具有实践经验的专业人士,经理,和教育工作者;(2)对EIPM能力概况进行快速审查;(3)就进程中的承诺和责任达成一致;(4)查明和界定与能力概况范围有关的宏观问题;(5)概述一般能力和具体能力,要纳入能力简介,按关键行动分类。
结果:以下宏观问题指导了EIPM能力概况的发展:(1)卫生政策管理中缺乏系统和透明的决策过程;(2)知识管理和翻译的机构能力不足;(3)在制定和实施卫生政策时初期使用科学证据。制定了巴西EIPM能力概况的关键行动和绩效的总体框架,包括42项按活动领域分布的具体和一般关键行动(健康管理,科学研究,公民社会,知识翻译,和横截面积)。
结论:本文提供的能力概况可在不同的背景下用作EIPM制度化的关键工具。
BACKGROUND: Evidence-informed policymaking (EIPM) requires a set of individual and organizational knowledge, skills and attitudes that should be articulated with background factors and needs. In this regard, the development of an EIPM competency profile is important to support the diagnosis, planning and implementation of EIPM.
OBJECTIVE: To present the process and outcomes of the development of an EIPM competency profile by an expert committee, to be applied in different contexts of the Brazilian Health System.
METHODS: A committee of experts in EIPM shared different views, experiences and opinions to develop an EIPM competency profile for Brazil. In six
consensus workshops mediated by facilitators, the committee defined from macro problems to key actions and performances essential for the competency profile. The development steps consisted of: (1) Constitution of the committee, including researchers, professionals with practical experience, managers, and educators; (2) Development of a rapid review on EIPM competency profiles; (3) Agreement on commitments and responsibilities in the processes; (4) Identification and definition of macro problems relating to the scope of the competency profile; and (5) Outlining of general and specific capacities, to be incorporated into the competency profile, categorized by key actions.
RESULTS: The development of the EIPM competency profile was guided by the following macro problems: (1) lack of systematic and transparent decision-making processes in health policy management; (2) underdeveloped institutional capacity for knowledge management and translation; and (3) incipient use of scientific evidence in the formulation and implementation of health policies. A general framework of key actions and performances of the EIPM Competency Profile for Brazil was developed, including 42 specific and general key actions distributed by area of activity (Health Management, Scientific Research, Civil Society, Knowledge Translation, and Cross-sectional areas).
CONCLUSIONS: The competency profile presented in this article can be used in different contexts as a key tool for the institutionalization of EIPM.