K2SP 3475 - Evidence-based policy-making in health: science, trust, and governance in a polarized world

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed the fragility of collaboration between policymakers, scientists, healthcare providers,

and the public, particularly in contexts, where political agendas conflict with scientific consensus. The subsequent

years have shown that these tensions persist, as public health institutions across several countries face budgetary

constraints, weakening of research infrastructure, and growing scepticism toward scientific expertise. Recent

developments, including the defunding of research and health programs in both the U.S. and parts of Europe,

restrictions on data sharing, and politically motivated reshaping of advisory bodies, highlight the enduring vulnerability

of evidence-based decision-making to political and ideological pressures. As new technologies such as artificial

intelligence and real-world data analytics reshape how evidence is produced and used, questions of trust, data

integrity, and governance have become central. From the European Health Data Space to global debates on the use

of generative AI in health research, policymakers now face the dual task of integrating innovative data sources while

safeguarding scientific independence and transparency. These trends underscore the urgency of understanding how

research and data can inform health policy amid increasing politicization of public health.

This course examines foundational concepts of public health research and evidence-based/ informed policymaking

while addressing these evolving challenges. Through case studies, the curriculum investigates the translation of

research into policy under polarized conditions. The course may explore diverse evidence types, including real-world

and patient-generated data, and analyses how political interference, such as censorship of scientific terminology,

termination of advisory committees, and deletion of public health datasets-impacts priority-setting, funding allocation,

and policy outcomes.

Throughout the course, students will learn to critically assess scientific evidence and apply it to build robust and

evidence-based/ informed policy recommendations. They will explore strategies to foster collaboration among

policymakers, researchers, healthcare professionals, and citizens, promoting knowledge translation, clearer roles for

all stakeholders, and more responsive feedback loops between policy and practice. The course ultimately seeks to

equip students both with theoretical knowledge and practical tools to contribute to more transparent, inclusive, and

impactful health policy development in a rapidly changing digital and political landscape.

This course combines lectures, seminars, and practical assignments to develop students’ ability to translate scientific

evidence into public health policy. The format consists of interactive teaching of 12 two-hour sessions.

Thematic organisation:

• In the first half of the course (Sessions 1-5), will be dedicated to key theoretical concepts and definitions on

the topic of evidence-based approaches in public health and policy .Individual assignments include critical appraisal and policy brief writing. There will be dedicated time for short practical in-class exercises to

consolidate theoretical learnings.

• In the second half of the course (Session 6-12), external speakers (policymakers, innovators, researchers,

patient advocates), will provide their hands-on experience on the production of evidence, synthesis and use

in policy and practice. .Students will also present in groups selected evidence-informed public health

proposals.

General format of sessions :

● Students are expected to arrive on time and attend sessions in-person. Any absence or lateness exceeding

10mns must be justified in advance to professors and the SciencesPo administration; unexcused lateness

may affect participation grade.

● The course takes place in-person on Fridays from 12:30-14:30 around lunch time. Students are kindly asked

to avoid eating in class.

● Students will have access to a dedicated student google drive from which they can access relevant course

material and presentations in PDF after each session.

● Students can bring their PC/laptop to class for note taking.

● Active student participation and constructive peer feedback is expected in all class sessions.

● Completion of assigned readings before class is required to contribute meaningfully in all sessions.

● All assignments must be submitted on time, properly referenced (e.g. Vancouver), and adhere to academic

integrity standards. Written assignments (ie. critical appraisal and policy brief) will be checked for plagiarism

and must be sent to louisa.stuwe.scpo@analyse.urkund.com.

Sessions may be offered hybrid depending on guest speakers’ availability

Students should attend all sessions, except for justified absences with prior notification. They are invited to actively

participate in all class discussions.

Evaluation and Grading:

Assignment Weight

• Individual written assignments “From Science to policy” – Students will 20% CAT

complete an individual assignment consisting of (1) a critical appraisal of a

scientific article and (2) a policy brief on the same public health issue,

drawing on a broader body of evidence. The policy brief should translate

research findings into clear, actionable policy recommendations within an

appropriate public health context.

30% policy brief

• Group presentation: ‘Developing an evidence-informed health policy proposal

. for the next pluriannual public health agenda”. Students will choose a public

health issue and propose a concrete policy recommendation and related

intervention(s) to include the next pluriannual public health agenda of a

selected country (to be defined). Students will work in groups of 4.)

40%

• Active class participation, based on the quality of students’ contribution in

class and ability to demonstrate familiarity with assigned readings.

10%

In preparation of the sessions, students will read articles related to evidence-based policy-making throughout the

course, some of which will be discussed during the sessions. They are also invited to pre-read scientific articles

recommended by lecturers.

Students will be evaluated as follows:

• Individual written assignments “from Science to Policy”): Students will be expected to choose a

scientific article and conduct a (1) critical appraisal of their scientific article (CAT). They will be provided with

CAT templates to guide them in their appraisal; these will match their specific study design (i.e. RCT,

systematic review, observational/descriptive studies). Based on the prefilled worksheet, they will assess the

reliability, importance and applicability of the research evidence while highlighting potential limitations and/or

conflicts of interests.

• Grading criteria for the critical appraisal (20%): Students must clearly summarize the study’s

research question, design, main findings, and relevance to the public health issue. They should

critically evaluate the methodology, including strengths, limitations, and potential biases. Students

must interpret the results thoughtfully, considering robustness and generalizability,. Format:The

appraisal should be well-organized, clearly written, and properly referenced (max 4 pages; double

spaced - excluding CAT worksheet in Annex). The critical appraisal will be checked for plagiarism -

use louisa.stuwe.scpo@analyse.urkund.com when sending in your paper. Expected work load: 8-

10 hours, depending on the complexity of the scientific article and familiarity with searching the

scientific literature and interpreting statistical results. Due date: Session 5

Thereafter, the students will (2) write a policy brief building on the implications of their CAT findings for policy

makers and health planners at the local, regional or national level, ideally targeting a specific government.

• Grading criteria for the policy brief (30%):. Students must clearly define the public health issue

and synthesize evidence from the CAT and additional sources. They should translate the research into practical, evidence-informed policy recommendations, considering feasibility and impact.

Format: The brief must be well-structured, concise, clearly written, and properly referenced,

showing a strong connection between evidence and proposed policy action (max 4 pages; double

spaced - excluding bibliography). The brief will be checked for plagiarism - use

louisa.stuwe.scpo@analyse.urkund.com when sending in your paper. Expected work load: 10-15

hours, including reviewing of additional literature Due date: Session 7

Learning outcomes: Students will learn how to search the scientific literature, critically appraise evidence

and translate research findings into relevant public health policy and practice recommendations.

• Group presentations: Developing an evidence-informed health policy recommendation for the next

pluriannual public health agenda (40%): In groups of four, students will make the case for a policy

recommendation and related intervention(s) addressing an important public health issue of their choice g.

They will be expected to argue their proposal using various sources of evidence . Presentations will be

assessed based on the quality of the evidence used, feasibility of the proposed intervention(s), and clarity of

the policy rationale and expected impacts across relevant stakeholder groups (i.e. patients, healthcare

providers, general population ….)

Format: Students will send in their slides the evening before the presentation session. 12-15min max for

each group presentation + 5min Q&A per group. Group work will mainly take place outside of the classroom.

All participants will work on a dedicated Sciences Po google drive. Expected work load: ~20 hours to allow

for iterative research, collaborative discussion, alignment, finalisation of slides and and group rehearsal. Due

date: Session 9/10

Learning Outcomes: Students will learn by “doing”. They will learn the process of developing public health

intervention(s) and policy recommendations based on relevant scientific evidence, contextual factors, as well

as the needs and expectations of different types of stakeholders.

• Class participation (10%): Active participation in small working groups and discussion in the class is

encouraged. It is recommended to prepare guest speaker presentations by browsing institutional websites

and preparing the material provided by instructors as well as personal questions before the class. While

following attentively content provided both by the instructors, external experts and the students themselves

throughout the whole course, students will be able to progressively identify attitudes, positions and

behaviours of different actors in the field. Students should be prepared to contribute to the suggested class

discussion topics as outlined in the syllabus.