AMCHP is excited to announce that we will be launching the Evidence-Informed Policy Track of the MCH Innovations Database during our MCH Innovations Fall 2020 Review.  This track will feature examples of both “Big P” and “little p” policies from the field that are having a meaningful impact on MCH populations and their communities.

The goal of the Policy Track is to identify model examples of evidence-informed MCH policies that policymakers and MCH professionals can use as blueprints to inform the development, implementation, and evaluation of future policies that benefit MCH populations.

AMCHP’s Evidence-informed policy definition

AMCHP defines evidence-informed MCH policy according to the following statement:  

Evidence-informed MCH policy should be equitable, relevant, unbiased, and should lead to significant outcomes that improve the health of women, children, families, and communities. Successful MCH policy is informed in its development, implementation, and evaluation by the best available evidence, including input from affected populations, data, scientific research, and rigorous on-going evaluation. MCH policymaking occurs at all levels and settings, from community-based organizations, to state governments to federal agencies.

Check out the videos below to learn more:

Overview of “Big P” and “little p” Policy

Evidence-Informed Policy Track Overview

New Mexico Evidence-Informed Policy Example

how Are policy submissions reviewed?

All submissions to the policy track are reviewed by a team of reviewers with MCH policy knowledge who assess each policy along four dimensions: Evidence, Equity, Relevance, and Impact. Check out the “Evidence-Informed Policy Track Overview” video above to learn more about these dimensions.

Using these dimensions, the track assesses policy submissions to the database to determine if they are an example of Evidence-Informed Policy Development, Policy Implementation, and/or Policy Evaluation. In reviewing policy submissions, AMCHP’s goal is to be as inclusive as possible. All examples that meet the review criteria are accepted to the database. See the designation descriptions below for more information:

To receive the policy development designation, a big or little p policy must have meaningfully involved the people most impacted by the policy in its development, addressed a documented need, be able to clearly articulate intended goals and outcomes for target populations, and describe health equity considerations related to the policy.

To receive the policy implementation designation, a big or little p policy must be implemented using the best available evidence to guide implementation efforts, make changes to implementation based on unintended consequences or feasibility considerations, and seek input from key community stakeholders during planning and implementation.

To receive the policy evaluation designation, a big or little p policy must have a strong evaluation plan and methods, demonstrate the impact of the policy on MCH population using various forms of evaluation data, assess both intended and unintended consequences of the policy and subsequently make necessary modifications based on these changes, and demonstrate how the policy advanced health equity and addressed disparities.

Interested in submitting?

Have work that you think is a good example of evidence-informed MCH policy? Reach out to us using our short referral form and we will be in touch when submission forms are posted in the fall. You can also reach out to and we are happy to answer any questions you may have.