Informed decisions about public health and social measures

Evidence, communication, critical thinking and participation are the cornerstones of informed decisions. In this article we discuss each of these in relation to decisions about public health and social measures (PHSM) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and implications for future research. Reliable research evidence of the effects of interventions is particularly important for decisions about what to do because it provides the best basis for estimating the wanted and unwanted effects of doing something. There was little reliable research of the effects of PHSM during the pandemic. For research evidence to be useful to decision-makers, it must be effectively communicated, including how sure we can be about effects or other research findings. Research evidence is essential for making informed decisions, but it is not sufficient. Decision-makers and those affected by the decision must be able to think critically about what to believe and what to do. Many people lack competences and dispositions for thinking critically about PHSM or other interventions. Judgements about PHSM require democratic input, not just expert input. However, there was little public participation in deliberative or decision-making processes about PHSM during the pandemic. There are important uncertainties about the effects of PHSM, how to effectively communicate decisions and evidence about PHSM, how to foster critical thinking about PHSM and how to effectively engage the public in deliberative and decision-making processes about PHSM. Pandemic research and preparedness planning should address those uncertainties.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Health Research Policy and Systems
Published
2025-11-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-025-01424-7
Primary Topic
Public Health Policies and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Informed decisions about public health and social measures

Tone Bruun, Heather Menzies Munthe‐Kaas, Annlaug Selstø, Unni Gopinathan et al.
Health Research Policy and Systems
Public Health Policies and Education
article

Informed decisions about public health and social measures

Tone Bruun, Heather Menzies Munthe‐Kaas, Annlaug Selstø, Unni Gopinathan, Mona Bjørbæk, Christopher James Rose, Runar Barstad Solberg, Christine Holst, Ingeborg Hess Elgersma, Sarah Rosenbaum, Signe Flottorp, Arnfinn Helleve, Atle Fretheim, Cathinka Halle, Petter Elstrøm, Andrew David Oxman, Jenny Moberg
article en

Abstract

Evidence, communication, critical thinking and participation are the cornerstones of informed decisions. In this article we discuss each of these in relation to decisions about public health and social measures (PHSM) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and implications for future research. Reliable research evidence of the effects of interventions is particularly important for decisions about what to do because it provides the best basis for estimating the wanted and unwanted effects of doing something. There was little reliable research of the effects of PHSM during the pandemic. For research evidence to be useful to decision-makers, it must be effectively communicated, including how sure we can be about effects or other research findings. Research evidence is essential for making informed decisions, but it is not sufficient. Decision-makers and those affected by the decision must be able to think critically about what to believe and what to do. Many people lack competences and dispositions for thinking critically about PHSM or other interventions. Judgements about PHSM require democratic input, not just expert input. However, there was little public participation in deliberative or decision-making processes about PHSM during the pandemic. There are important uncertainties about the effects of PHSM, how to effectively communicate decisions and evidence about PHSM, how to foster critical thinking about PHSM and how to effectively engage the public in deliberative and decision-making processes about PHSM. Pandemic research and preparedness planning should address those uncertainties.

Health Research Policy and SystemsVol. 23(1)
Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NO)
Norwegian Institute of Public Health
Openalex Percentile: Top 48%
Public Health Policies and Education
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.