Behavioural science policy advice-making during COVID-19: lessons from the Netherlands, Ireland, the United Kingdom and Finland

Introduction: Effective pandemic response requires large-scale behavioural change. Despite efforts to integrate behavioural science advice in public health policy making, there is a shortage of empirical evidence on the challenges faced by countries that want to professionalise their behavioural science advisory capacity. As senior behavioural science advisers during the COVID-19 pandemic, we explored and compared how behavioural science organised itself across Northwestern Europe in order to draw lessons for integrating behavioural insights into policy during future crises. Methods/data: Using the evidence-based public health framework, we conducted interviews with 21 senior stakeholders from the Netherlands, Ireland, the UK and Finland, followed by a facilitated look-back meeting with a subset of participants. All participants were actively involved in their countries' pandemic responses. Analytical plan: Data were analysed using qualitative analysis software (NVivo 15) and validated during the facilitated look-back meeting. Results: Producing actionable and relevant behavioural science advice during crises benefits from: (1) drawing on a wide mix of research methodologies; (2) sustaining continuous dialogue with, and access to, policy and decision-makers; (3) ensuring clear packaging and delivery of advice, including additional efforts to support comprehension; (4) creating functional structures for interdisciplinarity; and (5) maintaining institutional memory of the competencies and relationships developed during crisis response. Conclusion/implications: An improved science for policy practice in the health field involves the difficult tasks of motivating direct dialogue, interdisciplinarity and co-creation, and a functioning governance of behavioural science advice systems. The findings further illustrate the conceptual utility of the evidence-based public health framework.