The use of evidence to guide decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic: divergent perspectives from a qualitative case study in British Columbia, Canada

Background: The challenges of evidence-informed decision-making in a public health emergency have never been so notable as during the COVID-19 pandemic. Questions about the decision-making process, including what forms of evidence were used, and how evidence informed-or did not inform-policy have been debated.

Methods: We examined decision-makers' observations on evidence-use in early COVID-19 policy-making in British Columbia (BC), Canada through a qualitative case study. From July 2021- January 2022, we conducted 18 semi-structured key informant interviews with BC elected officials, provincial and regional-level health officials, and civil society actors involved in the public health response. The questions focused on: (1) the use of evidence in policy-making; (2) the interface between researchers and policy-makers; and (3) key challenges perceived by respondents as barriers to applying evidence to COVID-19 policy decisions. Data were analyzed thematically, using a constant comparative method. Framework analysis was also employed to generate analytic insights across stakeholder perspectives.

Results: Overall, while many actors' impressions were that BC's early COVID-19 policy response was evidence-informed, an overarching theme was a lack of clarity and uncertainty as to what evidence was used and how it flowed into decision-making processes. Perspectives diverged on the relationship between 'government' and public health expertise, and whether or not public health actors had an independent voice in articulating evidence to inform pandemic governance. Respondents perceived a lack of coordination and continuity across data sources, and a lack of explicit guidelines on evidence-use in the decision-making process, which resulted in a sense of fragmentation. The tension between the processes involved in research and the need for rapid decision-making was perceived as a barrier to using evidence to inform policy.

Conclusions: Areas to be considered in planning for future emergencies include: information flow between policy-makers and researchers, coordination of data collection and use, and transparency as to how decisions are made-all of which reflect a need to improve communication. Based on our findings, clear mechanisms and processes for channeling varied forms of evidence into decision-making need to be identified, and doing so will strengthen preparedness for future public health crises.