Behavioural science policy advice-making during Covid-19
Lessons from the Netherlands, Ireland, the United Kingdom and Finland
Datos Bibliográficos
| ID | 19480201 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Daniel H De Vries (0000-0001-7455-0628, Twitter (United States)), F Marijn Stok (0000-0002-0395-5801, Twitter (United States)), Susan Michie (0000-0003-0063-6378, Twitter (United States)), Peter D Lunn (0000-0002-7174-5320, Twitter (United States)), Jonas Sivelä (Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare), Marijn De Bruin (0000-0003-3100-6803, Twitter (United States)) |
| Año | 2026 |
| Páginas | 1-20 |
| Fecha de publicación | 2026-06-11 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sí |
| Open Access | Sí |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Revista | Evidence & Policy (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores de la revista | ISSN: 1744-2648 • E-ISSN: 1744-2656 |
| Editorial | Bristol University Press (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1332/17442648y2026d000000092 |
| PMID | 42285771 |
| OpenAlex | W7164313440 |
| Idioma | EN |
Introduction: Effective pandemic response requires large-scale behavioural change. Despite efforts to integrate behavioural science advice in public health policy making, there is a shortage of empirical evidence on the challenges faced by countries that want to professionalise their behavioural science advisory capacity. As senior behavioural science advisers during the COVID-19 pandemic, we explored and compared how behavioural science organised itself across Northwestern Europe in order to draw lessons for integrating behavioural insights into policy during future crises. Methods/data: Using the evidence-based public health framework, we conducted interviews with 21 senior stakeholders from the Netherlands, Ireland, the UK and Finland, followed by a facilitated look-back meeting with a subset of participants. All participants were actively involved in their countries’ pandemic responses. Analytical plan: Data were analysed using qualitative analysis software (NVivo 15) and validated during the facilitated look-back meeting. Results: Producing actionable and relevant behavioural science advice during crises benefits from: (1) drawing on a wide mix of research methodologies; (2) sustaining continuous dialogue with, and access to, policy and decision-makers; (3) ensuring clear packaging and delivery of advice, including additional efforts to support comprehension; (4) creating functional structures for interdisciplinarity; and (5) maintaining institutional memory of the competencies and relationships developed during crisis response. Conclusion/implications: An improved science for policy practice in the health field involves the difficult tasks of motivating direct dialogue, interdisciplinarity and co-creation, and a functioning governance of behavioural science advice systems. The findings further illustrate the conceptual utility of the evidence-based public health framework
Behavioural economics · Behavioural sciences · Corporate governance · Economic shortage · Nudge theory · Pandemic · Public health · Public policy · Science policy · COVID-19 and Mental Health · Health Policy Implementation Science · Policy Transfer and Learning · Health Policy
| Velocidad de citación | historical |
|---|---|
| Altamente citado | No |