New Grant Awarded: Strengthening Contextualised Evidence Use in Public Health

We are thrilled to announce that the Centre for Philosophy of Epidemiology, Medicine and Public Health (CPEMPH) has been awarded a prestigious British Academy grant under the Evidence-Informed Policymaking Programme, funded by the UK’s International Science Partnerships Fund.

The project, “Integrating Evidence for Contextualised Public Health Policy: Lessons from South Africa”, will run from April 2025 to March 2026. Led by Professor Alex Broadbent, Nancy Cartwright, Herkulaas Combrink, Benjamin Smart, and Sarah Wieten, the project is a partnership between CPEMPH at Durham and UJ, Durham University’s CHESS, and the University of the Free State. The project aims to improve the integration of two increasingly important types of evidence in public health policymaking:

  • Model-based projections, which forecast intervention outcomes.
  • Social listening reports, which track public sentiment and identify misinformation.

Using the South African COVID-19 response as a focal case, the project will test and refine the Evidence Mapping Framework (developed by Cartwright, Munro and Kelters) to assess how these evidence types can be better contextualised and used to support effective policy design, implementation, and evaluation.

The research responds to key challenges identified during the pandemic—particularly the difficulties in combining technical modelling outputs with real-time information about community attitudes, needs, and values. By developing practical tools and refining existing methodologies, the project aims to offer transferable lessons for other countries and contexts grappling with similar challenges.

What This Means for CPEMPH

This award supports our mission to advance philosophical engagement with real-world challenges in public health, evidence use, and justice. It reinforces our role as a key international player in the field of evidence-based policy and showcases our ongoing commitment to equitable collaboration—especially through our strong partnerships with South African institutions.

What Comes Next?

Over the coming year, the project will deliver:

  • Case study analyses of modelling and social listening in South Africa
  • An extended Evidence Mapping Framework adapted to diverse evidence types
  • Policy briefs and practical guidance for public health stakeholders
  • A hybrid workshop in late 2025 bringing together researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to test and refine the tools developed

Stay tuned for updates, workshop invitations, and outputs. We’re excited to contribute to better public health policymaking—not only in South Africa, but globally.

For more information please get in touch

I think Sweden handled this pandemic better than any other country. Here’s Anders Tegnell explaining the Swedish stance, again: https://unherd.com/2020/07/swedens-anders-tegnell-judge-me-in-a-year/

If I guess the time, and get it right, do I know the time? No, says common sense, and nearly all theoretical and formal epistemology. If I guess that it will rain tomorrow, am I any better off? Presumably not. Yet we assess predictions almost entirely by whether they are right.

I do think Swedish predictive work was broadly accurate, compared to, for example, the models produced by Imperial College London. But more importantly, I think their stance was rational. They did what was right given the evidence. That isn’t the same as being right in the sense of landing on the truth. But there’s nothing either epistemically or morally significant about the latter. The former, however, is both. Sweden behaved more reasonably than any other country, or perhaps at least as reasonably as the most reasonable, given that there was room for reasonable disagreement.

The stance on Sweden is another version of the intellectual intolerance of the age. And it ignores the evidence. Sweden has done well: not perfectly, but no country has, that I can think of. Whether it comes out tops long-term is up in the air. But there is good reason to think it will – at least as good as the reasons to think it won’t.

Interview with Newzroom Africa: lack of evidence base for lockdown, need for rational framework for decision-making as outlined in our recent report @Newzroom405 https://vimeo.com/417969046

The report referred to is the A Framework for Decisions in a Post-COVID World – South Africa – Report 1.2, a report we published a few days ago from the Institute for the Future of Knowledge at UJ

 

Call for Registration: Evidence in Healthcare Reform

Symposium at the Brocher Foundation, Geneva, 4-5 July 2013

Speakers: Alex Broadbent, Nancy Cartwright, Michael Marmot, Alfredo Morabia, Justin Parkhurst, Anya Plutinski, Jacob Stegenga, and Sridhar Venkatapuram.

Organised by Alex Broadbent (abbroadbent@uj.ac.za)and Sridhar Venkatapuram (svenkatapuram@gmail.com)

Register here: http://www.brocher.ch/en/events/evidence-in-healthcare-reform/

ABOUT THE SYMPOSIUM

Health care financing and provision is undergoing a crisis around the world. In Europe, the cost of medical care are increasing, along with levels of national spending on healthcare. Moreover the rate of increase exceeds the rate of regional economic growth. Something must be done, but it is far from clear what is the right political or social response. In much of the developing world, on the other hand, the situation is the reverse: increases in prosperity, particularly in the BRICS countries, have not been accompanied by significant healthcare investment; or else significant healthcare investment has benefited only a small portion of society. South Africa, for example, has some of the best medical care in the world, but it is not available to the majority of the population, and preventable morbidity and mortality remains shockingly high. And in North America, there are both high medical costs and highly unequal access, something which the present government has spent considerable political capital attempting to remedy. In short, there is very little apparent agreement on how a healthcare system should be organized in order to be effective, efficient, and equitable, despite a near-universal acceptance that health is both morally and economically important to individual and national wellbeing.

Against this backdrop, this symposium is convened to examine the philosophical underpinnings of effectiveness, efficiency and equity. Public and political debate about healthcare reform inevitably focuses on who should pay and who should provide. This workshop, however, seeks to address the prior question of what works: what healthcare measures are effective for improving population health, how we know they have been effective, and what evidence we need before confidently deploying them in a given sociopolitical setting.  Indeed, much of the tumult surrounding health care reform can only be understood when health policy is seen to share important common elements with other public policies. It is not determined only by scientific evidence, nor must it answer only to that evidence. It is also variously influenced by legal rights, bureaucratic norms, political negotiations, and market mechanism, and it must balance these forces against the scientific evidence for effectiveness. In this workshop we focus on the way scientific evidence fits into this complex sociopolitical setting: how it can, how in fact it does, and how it ought to influence healthcare reform.

In particular, the symposium has the following goals:

  1. To understand the notions of effectiveness, efficiency and equity as they are and ought to be employed in healthcare reform. Especially, to identify the normative implications of the first two, and to clarify the third.
  2. To assess the use of systematic reviews to drive healthcare reform. Especially, to bring together the various criticisms of their use, to identify evidence (if any) for their effectiveness, and to arrive at a clear “best practice” recommendation for the use of evidence in healthcare reform.
  3. To highlight the challenges facing developing countries attempting healthcare reform. Especially, to identify novel ways in which social determinants of health and disease might be managed as part of healthcare reform, and to specify the evidence necessary for such measures.

To register, visit http://www.brocher.ch/en/events/evidence-in-healthcare-reform/