PolicyEvaluation, Analysis, and Revision
PolicyEvaluation, Analysis, and Revision
Evaluationstage is carried out after policy implementation to assess whetherthe organization attains policy objectives (Saunders, Evans &Joshi, 2005 Brownson,Fielding, & Maylahn, 2009).The policy`s primary objective is the protection of participant`srights in medical research to improve the quality of study andadvance relationships between participants and the researchcommunity. Some steps will be followed in the formulation of thepolicy to To assess the progress of the policy in terms ofachievement of objectives. Eugene (2011) has emphasized that thefirst step in evaluating a policy is to identify the proposedimplementation and operation of the policy.In this regards, it is essential to formulate a policy that adheresto systematized and coherent processes.
TheHealthResearch Authority (HRA) was charged with the responsibility ofimplementing the signed policy before six months elapses. Therefore,at this stage of evaluation, it is important to consider the datethat the policy commenced operations. Data should be collected fromall involved parties such as doctors, nurses and physicians to assesshow they are protecting participants` rights in medical research. Tomeasure the achievement of the primary objective, participants can beinterviewed or issued with questionnaires. According to Eugene (2011)and Parag (2006), in evaluating policy, it is important to collectreliable data to assess the practicability and achievement of theproposed objective. Therefore, the interviews and questionnaires willreveal first-hand data to measure whether the policy’s primaryobjective is attainable or impractical.
Thevarious challenges hindering the achievement of the policy`s goalsare identified during the evaluation stage. According to Hill(2014), determining the factors hindering the smooth operations of apolicy is a challenging task. It involves collecting data from allthe stakeholders and searching for any significant factors that mighthave been overlooked during the formulation and implementation stage.It is important to involve all the interested parties in finding outall the possible hindrances to the achievement of the policy’sobjective(Bouffard, Taxman, & Silverman, 2003 Parag, 2006).It is important to get participants’ opinions about the efficiencyof the policy and brainstorm to possible strategies to make it moreefficient.
Thelast step in policy evaluation is developing recommendations andcommunicating them to all the stakeholders. The primary focus ofevaluating a policy is to identify strategies for enhancing itsviability and efficiency (Lavis, 2009 Panissetet al., 2012).In this regards, it is important to recommend viable solutions tomake the policy more efficient after the identification of thepossible hindrances. Policy makers should recommend to all thestakeholders the proposed recommendations through inclusiveparticipation and clear communication. It is important to fro HRA,the authority in charge of the policy implementation to oversee theapplications of the proposed changes. The impact of the changesimplemented can then be evaluated through measurement of the outputs,which, in this case, is the enhancement of human right and dignity inmedical research.
Theanalysis stage is the phase during which the policy’s goalachievement is measured to determine the viability or failure of theimplemented policy (Panissetet al., 2012). During this stage, the issues affecting theeffectiveness of the policy are identified and addressed. It isimperative to emphasize that medical and ethical research has becomeso much commercialized resulting in abuse of participants` rights anddegradation of human dignity. One of the factors that might hinderthe achievement of the policy`s objective is the lack of proper rulesand regulations to ensure participants rights are not violated bymischievous researchers. According to Brownson et al. (2009), theneed for evidence-based research in healthcare has been on the risebut there are no adequate legislative measures in place to protectparticipants’ rights and dignity. Some researchers do not fullydisclose information to participants. In many cases, a researcher maydisclose all the information but instead of getting volunteerparticipants, he buys them in the form of compensations and rewards.All these loopholes are leading to the violation of participants`rights are because of inadequate legislative measures to protecthuman rights and dignity in medical studies.
HRAshould develop rules and regulations regarding participant’s rightsand communicate them to all the stakeholders. If necessary, it isimportant to involve the doctors,nurses and pharmacist board ensureset rules and regulation governing participants’ rights in medicalresearch are adhered. To overcome the challenge on uninformedconsent, there should be a constant ethical assessment of medicalresearch not only during the enrollment stage but also throughout thestudy. Through this way, there will be appropriate disclosure toenhance participants’ understanding of their role in the study andhence make the right choices. Respecting participants` rights anddignity is one way through which researchers such as doctors andphysicians can establish a meaningful relationship, not only with theparticipants but also with their patients. Doctors, nurses, andphysicians should be educated on how to convey information abouttheir various studies to their participants. Through this way, theresearchers will meet all the requirements for full disclosure.Besides, an impact analysis should be carried across varying researchsettings to clarify when informed consent is necessary or not in amedical research.
Therevision stage is the phase during which changes are implemented inthe original policy to enhance its efficiency(Eugene, 2011).HRA or the body responsible for policy implementation willcommunicate the proposed amendments to all the stakeholders andassign roles accordingly. From the analysis stage, it is clear thatthe policy`s primary challenge is inadequate legislative measures toprotect participants` rights and human dignity in medical research.There is the need to revise the formulation stage of the policy andadd a significant factor that was overlooked. For the policy toachieve its goal there is the need to create an environment that willencourage all the stakeholders respect participants’ rights anddignity. Before presenting the policy proposal to the relevantauthority, it is important to include legislative changes that arenecessary for the achievement of the policy’s objective. Beforeimplementing the policy, it is important to hold public rallies andeducation forums to educate all the stakeholders including theparticipants on the importance of the proposed policy.
Itis important to do evaluation and analysis to implement the necessaryrevisions thus, allow policy makers to enhance a policy’sefficiency. One factor that might obstruct the achievement of thepolicy`s objective is the lack of practical legislative measures toprotect participants’ rights and dignity in medical research.Therefore, Panissetet al. (2012) assert thatbefore presenting the proposed policy to HRA, it is important toinclude necessary legislative changes to craft an atmospherefavorable to the operations of the policy. It is also important tocreate awareness on the importance of the policy’s objectives toall the parties affected. Such revisions to the original policy willnot only enhance adherence by the medical researchers to the setethical standards but will also ensure the protection ofparticipants` rights and dignity.
Bouffard,J. A., Taxman, F. S., & Silverman, R. (2003). Improving processevaluations of correctional programs by using a comprehensiveevaluation methodology. Evaluationand Program Planning,26(2), 149-161.
Brownson,R. C., Fielding, J. E., & Maylahn, C. M. (2009). Evidence-basedpublic health: a fundamental concept for public healthpractice. Annualreview of public health, 30,175-201.
EugeneB. (2011). APractical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to MoreEffective Problem Solving,CQ Press College
Hill,M. (2014). PolicyProcess: A Reader.Routledge.
Lavis,J. N. (2009). How can we support the use of systematic reviews inpolicymaking?. PLoSmedicine, 6(11),1256.
Panisset,U., Koehlmoos, T. P., Alkhatib, A. H., Pantoja, T., Singh, P.,Kengey-Kayondo, J., & Miguel, G. B. (2012). Implementationresearch evidence uptake and use for policy-making. HealthRes Policy Syst, 10,20.
Parag,Y. (2006). A system perspective for policy analysis andunderstanding: the policy process networks. TheSystemist, 28(2),212-224.
Saunders,R. P., Evans, M. H., & Joshi, P. (2005). Developing aprocess-evaluation plan for assessing health promotion programimplementation: a how-to guide. HealthPromotionPractice,6(2), 134-147.