INTRODUCTION

Policy Analysis is the process of identifying potential policy options that could address your
problem and then comparing those options to choose the most effective, efficient, and feasible
one. Policy analysis, evaluation and study of the formulation, adoption, and implementation of a
principle or course of action intended to ameliorate economic, social, or other public issues.
Policy analysis is concerned primarily with policy alternatives that are expected to produce novel
solutions. Policy analysis requires careful systematic and empirical study. The complexities of
policy analysis have contributed to the development and growth of policy science, which applies
a variety of theories and tools from the hard sciences (e.g., biology and chemistry), social
sciences (e.g., sociology, psychology, and anthropology), and humanities (e.g., history and
philosophy) in an effort to better understand aspects of human society, its problems, and the
solutions to those problems. Policy analysis is important in modern complex societies, which
typically have vast numbers of public policies and sophisticated and often interconnected
challenges, such that public policies have tremendous social, economic, and
political implications. Moreover, public policy is a dynamic process, operating under changing
social, political, and economic conditions. Policy analysis helps public officials understand how
social, economic, and political conditions change and how public policies must evolve in order to
meet the changing needs of a changing society.

Policy analysis plays an important role in helping to define and outline the goals of a proposed
policy and in identifying similarities and differences in expected outcomes and estimated costs
with competing alternative policies. Many public policies are designed to solve both current and
future problems, and thus policy analysis attempts to forecast future needs based on past and
present conditions. Policy outcomes can be found in a variety of different forms—tangible
outputs and less-tangible outputs for which the impacts are more difficult to measure. In many
cases, it is difficult to determine if the policy itself resulted in desired change or if other
exogenous or external factors were the most direct cause. Nevertheless, it is important to
determine if policy is responsible for the desired change; otherwise, there would be no need for
the policy. Policy analysts often use theoretically grounded statistical models to determine if the
policy will have the desired impact. In a final stage of policy analysis, analysts collate the
information gathered to determine which policy alternative will best meet present and future
needs.

Methods Of Analysis

There are two types of empirical analysis: qualitative studies and quantitative studies. Qualitative
studies involve a variety of different tools. For example, some qualitative studies involve
archival analysis, studying policy history and determining what has been done in the past to
solve certain policy problems. Qualitative studies might also involve personal interviews, asking
individuals to describe in words a variety of issues surrounding the policy process—from policy
agendas to formulation, implementation, and evaluation. Interviews with policy makers and with
the clientele being served by a particular policy may provide valuable information about policy
goals, processes, and outcomes. Archival analysis is particularly important in public policy
analysis. Through studies of policy history, policy analysts can learn important lessons from
earlier times and apply those lessons to current or future problems and goals. A new policy goal
may sound highly innovative and cost-effective and promise to meet worthy goals, but archival
research may illustrate the hidden costs and pitfalls that might result in policy failure. Personal
interviews are also an important method of improving public policy. Public policy is formulated
and implemented by professionals working in government, oftentimes for an entire career.
Through their individual experiences in particular policy areas, the experiences of elected and
appointed officials become key policy artifacts. When these individuals leave government
service, their experience and wisdom are often lost. One way to prevent this is to document the
informal lessons or experiences of senior elected and appointed officials. Personal interviews are
perhaps the most effective method of accomplishing this goal, largely because a personal
interview technique will allow for a high degree of flexibility in information collection.

Quantitative studies are of tremendous value to policy analysts in their continual efforts to
address important policy issues. Cost-benefit analysis is one of the most common forms of
quantitative policy analysis. It is primarily concerned with comparing the amount of expected or
known benefits produced from a particular policy choice with the expected or known costs
associated with that choice. Of the two elements of the equation, the determination of costs is
often more easily computed. Costs are most often measured in monetary terms; labour and
supplies are easily converted to dollar costs. While there are always hidden costs associated with
any policy decision, those costs can be estimated given previous experiences in prior public
policy endeavours. Opportunity costs—the costs associated with choosing a particular policy
over an alternative policy—can also be estimated.

The agencies that supply policy analysis for social welfare issues need to improve their databases
and modeling tools. Although the climate of support for a well-targeted investment program is
more positive on the part of both branches of government than at any time in recent years,
agencies still face difficult choices in deciding where best to direct limited investment dollars.
Microsimulation models, in our view, offer important capabilities to the policy analysis process
—in particular, the ability to evaluate fine-grained as well as broader policy changes from the
perspective of their impact on subgroups of the population that are of interest to the user.
However, microsimulation models do not serve all policy analysis needs, and the capabilities
they provide typically require highly complex model structures and databases that can be
resource-intensive for development and use. Other tools that are available for policy analysis,
which may, in particular circumstances, offer appropriate and cost-effective capabilities, include:
large-scale macroeconomic models based on systems of simultaneous equations estimated with
historical times series, which can project the effects of aggregate factors, such as rising inflation
or changes in the federal budget deficit, on aggregate outcomes, such as gross national product or
unemployment; single-equation time-series models, which can use historical experience to
project aggregate costs and caseloads for specific programs, such as AFDC or food stamps,
under varying assumptions about changing family composition, inflation, employment, or other
factors; cell-based models, which can develop estimates of the effects of proposed policy
changes, such as raising the social security retirement age or payroll tax, for the specified
population subgroups (such as people categorized by age and sex) that comprise the "cells" in the
model; econometric models of individual behavior, which can estimate the probabilities that
decision units (e.g., families and individuals) will make different program participation choices
or otherwise alter their behavior in response to a policy change; and second-round effects
models, which can develop estimates of the longer-run effects of policy changes, such as the
effects of changes in tax laws on long-run changes in the character of economic markets.

Many policy applications require more than one modeling technique, and, indeed, many models
themselves incorporate multiple approaches. Some models are explicitly "hybrids"—for
example, models that link a microsimulation-based model of the household sector and a
macroeconomic-based model of the economy. Other models reflect primarily one approach but
make use of the outputs of other kinds of techniques. Hence, agencies will benefit from adopting
a broad perspective as they consider how best to improve the tools and associated data they need
for policy analysis.

Policy analysis can help understand the process of design development and thereby
identify opportunities to strengthen design and improve health outcomes through the store .
Policy development models have evolved to consider trade-offs between multiple and often
conflicting objectives; they may have utility in understanding efforts in the remote retail context
where governing bodies deal with the dual and potentially conflicting objectives of consumer
health outcomes alongside commercial viability of stores. Decision-making which incorporates
evidence will hopefully lead to consideration of a greater range of policy options and result in
more effective outcomes.

Analytic tools to support the design of effective evidence-informed policy responses:

(I) Analytic limitations for exploring the impact of policy options

Evidence of measurable impacts of suicide prevention policy responses on population-level

suicide rates is limited. Uncertainties remain around the type, scope, and intensity of
interventions to implement, and the right place and right period to implement them. Designing an
effective and efficient policy response for suicide prevention requires a comprehensive
perspective on causation, consideration of the influence of factors such as access to healthcare
and preventive services, and analytic methods for testing the range of policy options and their
consequences to better target actions for the Australian context. Numerous conceptual models of
suicide have been developed for specific populations and stages of the life course, with varying
emphasis on proximal causal factors, ecological influences, and multilevel determinants. While
conceptual models can convey complexity, and map the interrelationships of multilevel factors,
they cannot capture the magnitude of their influence (or temporal changes in influence over the
life course) nor quantify the potential impacts of preventive interventions implemented
individually or in combination, at various levels, using targeted and/or universal approaches.

(II) Constraints of traditional approaches to data analysis

Dominant analytic methods attempt to identify the ‘determinants’ of an outcome and estimate the
effect size of a given exposure/s on an outcome by controlling for common causes
(confounders). Basic assumptions of this approach are that exposure variables (or ‘risk factors’)
are independent, and relationships between exposures and outcome are unidirectional, linear, and
constant through time. This approach does not necessarily capture health behaviours as being a
result of interacting and interdependent ‘risk factors’ acting at multiple levels (e.g. individual
characteristics, social networks, economic, and political environments). Nor does it reflect how
these multilevel ‘risk factors’ shape one another, and in turn are shaped by health and health
behaviours (i.e. relationships between variables can be characterised by interdependence,
nonlinearity and feedback loops). These characteristics violate the conditions for use of
traditional analytic methods. While traditional methods provide valuable data-driven
explanations of simple causal relationships between a finite range of variables for well-defined
problems, and rigorously take account of variables that can confound these relationships [53],
public health problems that arise from complex human behaviours makes reliance on traditional
methods problematic and undermines confidence in the ability of research evidence to inform
effective policy.

Simulation modelling commences with the collation of existing conceptual models of suicide,
reviews of research evidence, and expert knowledge. Dialogues informed by the collated
information proceed to conceptual mapping, quantification, and simulation. Models are able to
incorporate the impact of contextual influences on policy making (e.g. political and economic
environments, community sentiment). If desired, the process can permit the broader involvement
of key stakeholders in model development which may act to foster trust and transparency in the
policy-making process and accelerate policy adoption, implementation, and health sector change.
Models are considered to be a theoretical representation of the complex problem and hence
undergo a validation process that includes measuring how accurately the model can reproduce
‘real world’ historical data patterns. This important validation step helps build confidence in the
structure and predictions of a model. The final product is a policy analysis tool that can
systematically explore the impact on suicide of

Individual interventions;

Combinations of interventions applied simultaneously or sequentially;

Interventions applied universally or targeted at particular groups;

Changes to arrangements of the system relating to workforce, infrastructure, governance and

financing;

The different scenarios can be modelled over time, costed, and trade-offs explored.

Systems science methods are not without criticism. Instances where their use have relied heavily
on experiential knowledge of stakeholders to map causal relationships between variables without
recourse to evidence from the literature, has resulted in the perception of systems science as ‘soft
science’, and the misconception that it rejects traditional scientific views [57]. In reality,
empirical analyses of causation of system components, and simulation modelling that brings
these components together positing their interaction, are complementary. Integrating the use of
sound epidemiological approaches to specify the most likely causal pathways between putative
exposures and outcomes, with simulation modelling to explore whole system dynamics, may
contribute to the credibility of systems science methods. Of particular relevance in this regard is
the use of directed acyclic graphs [61], which explicitly define the hypothesised causal
relationships between exposures, confounders, intermediaries, and effect measure modifiers.
These then guide the analytic strategy to obtain less biased estimates of an association between
an exposure and outcome. These approaches have most commonly been used in the context of
defining aetiological assumptions and analytic adjustments. However, directed acyclic graphs
and causal relationships which incorporate levels of scale inherent in eco-social approaches to
understanding health could be adapted to inform the content of multiscale models and lead to
more empirically defensible simulations of hypothetical impacts of interventions or public health
policies.

CONCLUSION

Policy analysis tool and based on a detailed understanding of aetiology and evidence-
based estimates of the impact of preventive interventions on absolute and relative risk provides a
rigorous mechanism for virtual testing of policy alternatives in order to determine which policy
responses would achieve the greatest impact. It is an approach that offers promise in being able
to better operationalize research evidence to support decision making for complex problems,
improves targeting of public health action, and provides a platform for strengthening
relationships between policy makers, stakeholders, and researchers. Next steps for realising the
benefits of this policy analysis tool to support evidence-informed policy responses in public
health include leveraging existing structures and expertise; developing the necessary capacity
and processes to support implementation of this approach in Australia; and evaluating their use.
The recently established Australian Prevention Partnership Centre is aiming to achieve this in the
prevention of lifestyle-related chronic conditions through the use of systems tools and
approaches. Among other outcomes, the Partnership Centre is working towards developing
stronger national networks of researchers, policy, and program practitioners. This provides a
valuable opportunity for co-production of simulation models to better inform policy responses
for complex public health problems.

REFERENCE

Brownson RC, Fielding JE, Maylahn CM. Evidence-based public health: a fundamental concept
for public health practice. Annu Rev Public Health. 2009;30:175–201.

Hunter D. Public health policy. In: Cambridge: Polity Press; 2003. http://www.mcgraw-
hill.co.uk/openup/chapters/0335211941.pdf.

Moore G, Redman S, Haines M, Todd A. What works to increase the use of research in
population health policy and programmes: a review. Evid Policy. 2011;7(3):277–305.

McMichael AJ. Prisoners of the proximate: loosening the constraints on epidemiology in an age
of change. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;149(10):887–97.
Bosch-Capblanch X, Lavis JN, Lewin S, Atun R, Rottingen JA, Droschel D, et al. Guidance for
evidence-informed policies about health systems: rationale for and challenges of guidance
development. PLoS Med. 2012;9(3):e1001185.

Australian Bureau of Statistics: Suicide in Australia. 2012. Accessed 19/12/13:

[http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/8D157E15E9D912E7CA257A440014CE53?
opendocument]

Sorian R, Baugh T. Power of information: closing the gap between research and policy. Health
Aff. 2002;21(2):264–73.

Innvaer S, Vist G, Trommald M, Oxman A. Health policy-makers’ perceptions of their use of

evidence: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002;7(4):239–44.

Brownson RC, Chriqui JF, Stamatakis KA. Understanding evidence-based public health policy.
Am J Public Health. 2009;99(9):1576–83..

Brownson RC, Royer C, Ewing R, McBride TD. Researchers and policy-makers: travelers in
parallel universes. Am J Prev Med. 2006;30:164–72.

Tawileh A, Almagwashi H, McIntosh S. A system dynamics approach to assessing policies to

tackle alcohol misuse. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference of the System
Dynamics Society: 2008;

Compare: Geva-May, Iris; Pal, Leslie A. (1999). "Policy Evaluation and Policy Analysis:
Exploring the Differences". In Nagel, Stuart S. (ed.). Policy Analysis Methods. Nova Science
Publishers. p. 6. ISBN 9781560726579. Retrieved 2016-04-13.