IQWiG Autumn Symposium

Current and controversial aspects in medicine and health politics are regular topics at the annual Autumn Symposium organised by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. The spectrum of speakers is usually as broad as the range of topics and includes epidemiologists and oncologists, as well as health economists and lawyers.

“How can science reach politics?” was the central question of the 20th IQWiG Autumn Symposium. Around 200 guests from Germany and abroad met at the smartvillage, Cologne-Mülheim to discuss possible strategies – from a variety of perspectives.

“How can we use evidence to make a difference?” asked IQWiG Director Thomas Kaiser in his welcoming address at the start of the symposium. “How can we ensure that our information is heard and recognized, so that our scientific work has an even greater impact for people?” Speakers and audience members approached these big questions from different angles: the symposium welcomed guests from the fields of research and health policy, as well as the media and representatives for patient perspectives.

In a first keynote speech, Helena Ludwig-Walz from the Federal Institute for Population Research (BiB) pointed out that although there is more evidence “than perhaps ever before”, a gap remains between scientific findings and the political decisions that result from them. After all, good evidence is worthless if it does not find any further connection; evidence must therefore be communicated well – and it is not just a question of the right format and channels, but also of communicating the content clearly and in a way that is appropriate for the target group. Facts alone are often not enough; “trust is also crucial”. Martin Bujard, also from the BiB, emphasized the importance of ongoing communication between science and politics. This is the only way to develop a mutual understanding of each other’s opportunities and limitations.

Impressions from everyday political life: "How do I escape the background noise?"

Concrete impressions from everyday political life were provided by former CDU member of the German Bundestag Michael Hennrich (now Pharma Deutschland e. V.), former North Rhein-Westphalia health minister Barbara Steffens (the Greens, now at TK, a health insurance fund) and Boris Velter (Social Democratic Party (SPD), former head of the management team at the Federal Ministry of Health). In view of everyday political life, which is characterized by time pressure and information overload, the central question here is: “How do I escape the background noise?” The recommendation was that science should continually offer discourse, even if it is not always easy to be heard.

However, it also became clear that political decisions can be based on many different reasons, and that weighing up the interests of voters also plays an important role here. One conclusion of the symposium was therefore that even the best target group-specific communication does not render the weighing up of different interests obsolete. Consequently, even the best evidence will not lead directly to a decision if other values are held.

“Herculean task” for science

Tanja Kuchenmüller from the World Health Organization ( WHO) in Geneva, participating virtually, reported on tips and tricks that can be used to prevent good evidence from coming to nothing. Messages from researchers to politicians should be crisp and concise, and precisely tailored to the respective recipient – the right timing also being important for successfully conveying information.

The second source of inspiration from abroad was Paul Cairney, a political scientist at the University of Stirling in Scotland. Cairney even referred to the scientific community’s desire to be heard by politicians as a “Herculean task” and advocated realistic strategies: understanding political logic, sharpening messages, and tying in with existing narratives in order to increase the chance that evidence will actually influence decisions.

A stable foundation of trust is crucial

Dimitra Panteli from the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies made it clear that knowledge transfer can only be successful if a stable and long-term foundation of trust between research and politics has been established. Political consultant Johannes Hillje focussed primarily on media logic. For example, issues must not only be relevant, but also salient – i.e. striking – in order to make it onto the political agenda.

Eva Rehfuess, professor of public health and health services research at Ludwig Maximilian University (LMU) in Munich, called for involving politicians in the research process at an early stage and not – as is often the case – at the end, in order to promote knowledge translation: “Decision-makers greatly appreciate it when they are given the opportunity to help shape research questions that are relevant to them, for example.” Her conclusion: scientific findings are often used, but not necessarily in the way researchers expect or would like.

These are major challenges for science, but there is no reason to bury our heads in the sand, emphasized Michaela Eikermann, Deputy Director of IQWiG, at the conclusion of the Autumn Symposium: “We can leave here feeling optimistic; there are many opportunities to make a contribution.” She also pointed out the importance of questioning one’s own expectations – and adjusting them if necessary. Crucial for Eikermann: “Science should focus more on finding solutions rather than being overly problem-oriented.”