Science is both a collection of ideological beliefs and an agency for liberation, it
substitutes democracy for political and religious authority. Demanding evidence
for statements of fact and providing criteria to test the evidence, it gives us a
way to distinguish between what is true and what powerful people might wish
to convince us is true [1].
The above quote provides a justification for concern about improving the
link between research and decision making—good information is a tool in
the maintenance of democracy and a bulwark against domination of the
diffuse broad interests of the many by the concentrated narrow interests
of the powerful few. Current concern with evidence-based decision making
(EBDM) is about improving the quantity, quality, and breadth of evidence
used by all participants in the health care system: legislators, administrators,
practitioners, industry, and, increasingly, the public. Better dissemination
and uptake of health research is integral to EBDM. Current failings in this
area have more to do with unrealistic expectations between the various
decision-maker audiences and researchers than they are with unavailability
of research or an absent need for it in decision making. Understanding
the roots of unrealistic expectations on both sides helps to point the way to
improved dissemination and uptake of health research.