“There Is No One Truth”: A Qualitative Analysis of Advisory Committees in COVID-19 Policy-Making in Germany

Braun, Elisa; Sell, Kerstin; De Hoop, Evelien; Geffert, Karin

doi:10.34172/ijhpm.9424

“There Is No One Truth”: A Qualitative Analysis of Advisory Committees in COVID-19 Policy-Making in Germany

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Elisa Braun ¹^{, 2}^{, 3} ^¶

Kerstin Sell ¹^{, 2} ^¶

Evelien de Hoop ³

Karin Geffert ¹^{, 2}

¹ Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany

² Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany

³ Athena Institute, Science Faculty, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands

10.34172/ijhpm.9424

Abstract

Background
The COVID-19 pandemic posed an unprecedented public health challenge, causing over one hundred thousand deaths in Germany alone. As elsewhere, policy-makers in Germany sought expert advice to navigate uncertainty and urgency, including through ad hoc advisory committees. We aimed to identify committees operating between 2021-2023, assess their composition, and analyse their work processes with a particular focus on structures, expert deliberations and evidence use.

Methods
We conducted a systematic document analysis of government documents and semi-structured interviews with committee members in April/May 2024. We identified documents (parliamentary inquiries and freedom of information requests) through systematic searches in digital government archives; and purposively sampled experts from identified committee member lists. Documents were analysed using abridged content analysis, and interview transcripts were analysed using codebook thematic analysis.

Results
We screened 984 documents, analysed 43 documents, and conducted 12 interviews. Ultimately, we identified six ad hoc advisory committees which met our inclusion criteria. These committees advised the German national government and the state governments of Bavaria, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Schleswig-Holstein, and Thuringia. These were dominated by academic experts, especially from bio-medical disciplines. Structure of the advisory process: Consultations were direct (in person/online meeting) or indirect (written reports). Direct consultations typically included short presentations/input, followed by discussions to reach a consensus opinion. Expert deliberations drew on expert opinion, reports, pre-prints, and peer-reviewed studies. Multi-disciplinary exchange was valued but faced time constraints; opinions differed on whether a successful multi-disciplinary exchange was achieved. Reflections: Committee members were aware of the limits of their advisory role but occasionally struggled with the political nature of the work.

Conclusion
German policy-makers continued to involve ad hoc advisory committees after the first year of the pandemic. Where it was achieved and meaningful, multidisciplinary work was perceived as valuable. Political decisions deviating from expert advice required justification under certain circumstances.

Keywords

Public Health

Evidence-Based Policy

COVID-19

Germany

Advisory Committees

Evidence Use

1. Corona in Zahlen. Corona-Zahlen weltweit. https://www.corona-in-zahlen.de/weltweit/. Published June 25, 2025. Accessed June 1, 2025.

2. Pizzato M, Gerli AG, La Vecchia C, Alicandro G. Impact of COVID-19 on total excess mortality and geographic disparities in Europe, 2020-2023: a spatio-temporal analysis. Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2024;44:100996. doi:10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.100996

3. Boin A, Brock K, Craft J, et al. Beyond COVID‐19: Five commentaries on expert knowledge, executive action, and accountability in governance and public administration. Can Public Adm. 2020;63(3):339-368. doi:10.1111/capa.12386

4. Moon MJ. Fighting COVID‐19 with agility, transparency, and participation: wicked policy problems and new governance challenges. Public Adm Rev. 2020;80(4):651-656. doi:10.1111/puar.13214

5. Williams GA, Diez SMU, Figueras J, Lessof S. Translating evidence into policy during the COVID-19 pandemic: bridging science and policy (and politics). (Special Issue: COVID-19 health system response). 2020. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:229626084.

6. Orton L, Lloyd-Williams F, Taylor-Robinson D, O’Flaherty M, Capewell S. the use of research evidence in public health decision making processes: systematic review. PLoS One. 2011;6(7):e21704. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0021704

7. Hadorn S, Sager F, Mavrot C, Malandrino A, Ege J. Evidence-based policymaking in times of acute crisis: comparing the use of scientific knowledge in Germany, Switzerland, and Italy. Polit Vierteljahresschr. 2022;63(2):359-382. doi:10.1007/s11615-022-00382-x

8. van Daalen KR, Bajnoczki C, Chowdhury M, et al. Symptoms of a broken system: the gender gaps in COVID-19 decision-making. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5(10):e003549-e003549. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003549

9. Lavazza A, Farina M. The role of experts in the COVID-19 pandemic and the limits of their epistemic authority in democracy. Front Public Health. 2020;8:356. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2020.00356

10. Rajan D, Koch K, Rohrer K, et al. Governance of the COVID-19 response: a call for more inclusive and transparent decision-making. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5(5):e002655. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2020-002655

11. Sell K, Saringer-Hamiti L, Geffert K, Strahwald B, Stratil JM, Pfadenhauer LM. Politikberatung durch Expert*innenräte in der SARS-CoV-2-Pandemie in Deutschland: Eine Dokumentenanalyse aus Public-Health-Perspektive [Expert committees in German public health policymaking during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: a document analysis]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2021;165:1-12. doi:10.1016/j.zefq.2021.06.002

12. Bschir K, Lohse S. Pandemics, policy, and pluralism: A Feyerabend-inspired perspective on COVID-19. Synthese. 2022;200(6):441. doi:10.1007/s11229-022-03923-4

13. OECD. COVID-19 and Policy for Science. Vol 152. 2023. doi:10.1787/8f86e60b-en

14. Baekkeskov E. Explaining science-led policy-making: pandemic deaths, epistemic deliberation and ideational trajectories. Policy Sci. 2016;49(4):395-419. doi:10.1007/s11077-016-9264-y

15. ECDC. The Use of Evidence in Decision-Making during Public Health Emergencies. Stockholm: ECDC; 2019. doi:10.2900/63594

16. Morales M. Scientific advisory systems: experiences from across the world. https://onthinktanks.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/2022-02-17-OTT_Scientific_advisory_systems.pdf. Published August 2021. Accessed December 12, 2025.

17. Djulbegovic B, Guyatt GH. Progress in evidence-based medicine: a quarter century on. Lancet. 2017;390(10092):415-423. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31592-6

18. Gerhardus A, ed. Evidence-Based Public Health. 1. Aufl. Bern: Huber; 2010.

19. Newman J. Debating the politics of evidence‐based policy. Public Adm. 2017;95(4):1107-1112. doi:10.1111/padm.12373

20. Parkhurst J. The politics of evidence from evidence-based policy to the good governance of evidence. Abingdon, Oxon New York, NY: Routledge; 2017.

21. von Philipsborn P, Rehfuess E. Evidenzbasierte Public Health. In: Schmidt-Semisch H, Schorb F, eds. Public Health: Disziplin – Praxis – Politik. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden; 2021:303-329. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-30377-8_17

22. Crowley K, Head BW. Expert advisory bodies in the policy system. In: Routledge Handbook of Comparative Policy Analysis. Routledge; 2017.

23. Lentsch J, Weingart P, eds. The Politics of Scientific Advice: Institutional Design for Quality Assurance. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press; 2011.

24. Cash D, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Jäger J. Salience, Credibility, Legitimacy and Boundaries: Linking Research, Assessment and Decision Making. 2002. doi:10.2139/ssrn.372280

25. Groux GMN, Hoffman SJ, Ottersen T. A typology of scientific advisory committees. Glob Chall. 2018;2(9). doi:10.1002/gch2.201800004

26. Nair S, Garg A. How do governments learn from ad hoc groups during crises? From SARS to COVID-19. Policy Polit. 2024;52(4):625-647. doi:10.1332/03055736Y2023D000000011

27. Veit S, Hustedt T, Bach T. Dynamics of change in internal policy advisory systems: the hybridization of advisory capacities in Germany. Policy Sci. 2017;50(1):85-103. doi:10.1007/s11077-016-9266-9

28. Capano G, Casula M, Malandrino A, Terlizzi A, Toth F. A new typology for comparing scientific advisory committees. Evidence from the Italian response to the COVID‐19 pandemic. Rev Policy Res. 2024;41:740–769. doi:10.1111/ropr.12568

29. Cassola A, Fafard P, Palkovits M, Hoffman SJ. Mechanisms to bridge the gap between science and politics in evidence-informed policymaking: mapping the landscape. In: Integrating Science and Politics for Public Health. Springer International Publishing; 2022:293-328. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-98985-9_13

30. Craft J, Howlett M. Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy influence: location and content in policy advisory systems. J Public Policy. 2012;32(2):79-98. doi:10.1017/S0143814X12000049

31. Craft J, Wilder M. Catching a second wave: context and compatibility in advisory system dynamics. Policy Stud J. 2017;45(1):215-239. doi:10.1111/psj.12133

32. Bennis W, Slater P. The Temporary Society. San Francisco: Joanna Cotler Books; 1968.

33. Deutschmann C. The “adhocracy” as viewed by modernization theory. Int J Polit Econ. 1995;25(3):37-49. doi:10.1080/08911916.1995.11643905

34. OECD. Scientific Advice for Policy Making: The role and responsibility of expert bodies and individual scientists. OECD Sci Technol Ind Policy Pap. 2015. doi:10.1787/5js33l1jcpwb-en

35. Wiesing U, Becker D, Hahn P, Tümmers H, Blum CD. Wissenschaftliche (Politik-)Beratung in Zeiten von Corona: Die Stellungnahmen der Leopoldina zur Covid-19-Pandemie. Ethik Ges. 2021. doi:10.18156/EUG-1-2021-858

36. Moore A, MacKenzie MK. Policy making during crises: how diversity and disagreement can help manage the politics of expert advice. BMJ. 2020;371:m4039. doi:10.1136/bmj.m4039

37. Salajan A, Tsolova S, Ciotti M, Suk JE. To what extent does evidence support decision making during infectious disease outbreaks? A scoping literature review. Evid Policy. 2020;16(3):453-475. doi:10.1332/174426420X15808913064302

38. Baekkeskov E, Öberg P. Freezing deliberation through public expert advice. J Eur Public Policy. 2017;24(7):1006-1026. doi:10.1080/13501763.2016.1170192

39. Dooren WV, Noordegraaf M. Staging science: authoritativeness and fragility of models and measurement in the COVID‐19 crisis. Public Adm Rev. 2020;80(4):610-615. doi:10.1111/puar.13219

40. Oliver K, Lorenc T, Innvær S. New directions in evidence-based policy research: a critical analysis of the literature. Health Res Policy Syst. 2014;12(1):34. doi:10.1186/1478-4505-12-34

41. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349-357. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzm042

42. Bundesministerium des Innern, für Bau und Heimat. Stärkung Des Bevölkerungsschutzes Durch Neuausrichtung Des Bundesamtes Für Bevölkerungsschutz Und Katastrophenhilfe. Berlin, Germany; 2021. https://www.bbk.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/neuausrichtung.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2. Accessed November 30, 2025.

43. Robert Koch Institut. Expert Advisory Board on pandemic Acute Respiratory Infections. https://www.rki.de/EN/Topics/Infectious-diseases/Preparedness-and-response/Expert-Advisory-Board/expert-advisory-board-on-pandemic-acute-respiratory-infections-node.html. Published 2021. Accessed November 30, 2025.

44. Deutscher Bundestag - Kleine Anfrage. Deutscher Bundestag. https://www.bundestag.de/services/glossar/glossar/K/kleine_anfrage-245476. Accessed June 25, 2025.

45. Bundesministerium des Innern. Informationsfreiheitsgesetz. Bundesministerium des Innern. https://www.bmi.bund.de/DE/themen/moderne-verwaltung/open-government/informationsfreiheitsgesetz/informationsfreiheitsgesetz-artikel.html?nn=9390816. Published 2025. Accessed June 25, 2025.

46. Bundesregierung. Corona-Schutzmaßnahmen sind ausgelaufen. https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/themen/coronavirus/ende-corona-massnahmen-2068856#. Published 2023.

47. O’Leary Z. The Essential Guide to Doing Your Research Project. 2nd ed. Los Angeles, Ca: SAGE; 2014.

48. DeJonckheere M, Vaughn LM. Semistructured interviewing in primary care research: a balance of relationship and rigour. Fam Med Community Health. 2019;7(2):e000057. doi:10.1136/fmch-2018-000057

49. Dröge K. noScribe. Lucerne Univ Appl Sci. 2024. https://github.com/kaixxx/noScribe?tab=readme-ov-file#noscribe.

50. VERBI Software. MAXQDA 2022. 2021. https://www.maxqda.com/.

51. Potter J, Wetherell M. Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. Los Angeles: Sage; 2010.

52. Widdicombe S, Wooffitt R. The Language of Youth Subcultures: Social Identity in Action. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf; 1995.

53. Roberts K, Dowell A, Nie J-B. Attempting rigour and replicability in thematic analysis of qualitative research data; a case study of codebook development. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):66. doi:10.1186/s12874-019-0707-y

54. Fafard P, Leeuw E de, Cassola A, eds. Integrating Science and Politics for Public Health. Springer International Publishing; 2022. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-98985-9

55. Busetto L, Wick W, Gumbinger C. How to use and assess qualitative research methods. Neurol Res Pract. 2020;2(1):14. doi:10.1186/s42466-020-00059-z

56. Veröffentlichungen des Beirats zum SARS-2/CoVID-19-Pandemie- und Pandemiefolgenmanagement der Thüringer Landesregierung; 2024. https://thueringen.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Landesregierung/Landesregierung/Veroeffentlichungen_des_Beirats_Covid_bf.pdf. Accessed December 8, 2025.

57. Stratil JM, Biallas RL, Movsisyan A, Oliver K, Rehfuess EA. Development of an overarching framework for anticipating and assessing adverse and other unintended consequences of public health interventions (CONSEQUENT): a best-fit framework synthesis. BMJ Public Health. 2024;2(1):e000209. doi:10.1136/bmjph-2023-000209

58. Stratil JM, Voss M, Arnold L. WICID framework version 1.0: criteria and considerations to guide evidence-informed decision-making on non-pharmacological interventions targeting COVID-19. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5(11):e003699. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003699

59. Koppl R, Pronin K, Cowen N, Podemska-Mikluch M, Paniagua P. Bespoke science: the use of ad hoc scientific advisory committees in the Covid-19 pandemic. Public Choice. 2025;205(3-4):513-536. doi:10.1007/s11127-025-01299-w

60. Pielke A. The Honest Broker. Cambridge University Press; 2007. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511818110

61. Andresen S, Baral P, Hoffman SJ, Fafard P. What can be learned from experience with scientific advisory committees in the field of international environmental politics? Glob Chall. 2018;2(9):1800055. doi:10.1002/gch2.201800055

62. Gopinathan U, Hoffman SJ, Ottersen T. Scientific advisory committees at the World Health Organization: a qualitative study of how their design affects quality, relevance, and legitimacy. Glob Chall. 2018;2(9):1700074. doi:10.1002/gch2.201700074

63. Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):2. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-2

64. Sell K, Hommes F, Fischer F, Arnold L. Multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinarity within the public health workforce: a scoping review to assess definitions and applications of concepts. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(17):10902. doi:10.3390/ijerph191710902

65. Schulz M, Bressers D, van der Steen M, van Twist. Internal Advisory Systems in Different Political-Administrative Regimes: Exploring the Fit of Configuration, Administration and Composition of Internal Advisory Systems in France, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Milan: International Conference on Public Policy; 2015. https://www.ippapublicpolicy.org/file/paper/1434620261.pdf. Accessed November 29, 2025.

66. Cairney P. Evidence-based best practice is more political than it looks: a case study of the ‘Scottish Approach.’ Evid Policy. 2017;13(3):499-515. doi:10.1332/174426416X14609261565901

67. Rutter H, Savona N, Glonti K, et al. The need for a complex systems model of evidence for public health. Lancet. 2017;390(10112):2602-2604. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31267-9

68. Ben-Haim Y, Dacso CC, Zetola NM. Info-gap management of public health Policy for TB with HIV-prevalence and epidemiological uncertainty. BMC Public Health. 2012;12(1):1091. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-1091

69. Durotoye I, Odunola R, Adeyemi O, et al. Pertinent roles of African higher institutions in the COVID‐19 pandemic response: The University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria; an African model. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2020;35(5):1257-1259. doi:10.1002/hpm.2984

70. de Campos-Rudinsky TC, Undurraga E. Public health decisions in the COVID-19 pandemic require more than 'follow the science'. J Med Ethics. 2021:medethics-2020-107134. doi:10.1136/medethics-2020-107134

71. Cairney P. The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making. Palgrave Macmillan UK; 2016. doi:10.1057/978-1-137-51781-4

72. von Philipsborn P, Rehfuess E. Evidenzbasierte Public Health. In: Schmidt-Semisch H, Schorb F, eds. Public Health. Sozialwissenschaftliche Gesundheitsforschung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS; 2021:303-329. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-30377-8_17

73. Piel J, Prugger J, Meuche A, Köppen M von, Rosendorfer T, Apfelbacher C. “Well, what we can do is […] to organize data, to evaluate studies”—Self-images of public health academics in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health. 2024;24(1):1678. doi:10.1186/s12889-024-19167-5

74. Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How Many Interviews Are Enough? Field Methods. 2006;18(1):59-82. doi:10.1177/1525822X05279903

75. Robert Koch Institut. Interne COVID-19-Krisenstabsprotokolle des Robert Koch-Instituts. https://www.rki.de/DE/Themen/Infektionskrankheiten/Infektionskrankheiten-A-Z/C/COVID-19-Pandemie/Protokolle/COVID-19-Krisenstabsprotokolle.html. Published December 18, 2024. Accessed June 25, 2025.