ArticleHealth research policy and systems2009
SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 13: Preparing and using policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 102 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
102 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review.Health research policy and systems · 2016Pooled it
- How contexts and issues influence the use of policy-relevant research syntheses: a critical interpretive synthesis.The Milbank quarterly · 2013Pooled it
- Interventions to improve the use of systematic reviews in decision-making by health system managers, policy makers and clinicians.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- The effectiveness of knowledge translation strategies used in public health: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2012Pooled it
- When the messenger is more important than the message: an experimental study of evidence use in francophone Africa.Health research policy and systems · 2022Trial
- Effects of an evidence service on health-system policy makers' use of research evidence: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial.Implementation science : IS · 2011Trial
- Advancing Impact: A National Approach to Knowledge Translation in Saudi Arabia-The Saudi National Institute of Health Experience.Saudi medical journal · 2026Article
- Using evidence briefs to support future implementation planning: the case of early fibrinolysis for myocardial infarction and rehabilitation for the amputee patient in Colombia.Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
- Adapting and implementing health systems guidelines: learning lessons from countries.Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
- Reclaiming Indigenous birth: research framework to assess the economic costs and outcomes of obstetric evacuation and experiences of Indigenous midwifery in Canada.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Components and methodology of evidence briefs for policy: the need for evaluation tools.Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
- Guidelines and recommendations for preparing policy briefs from research into policy-making in health sciences: a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- From evidence to action: expert perspectives on stakeholder dialogues in Swiss health policy.International journal of public health · 2026Article
- Developing an evidence brief for policy on implementing deprescribing practices across different levels of healthcare: a protocol.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Mixed-methods study on professionals' attitudes toward harm reduction in cannabis use and the development of a knowledge translation plan.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Brief geriatric assessments for older adults in the community in Singapore: a policy brief.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Exploring the diverse definitions of 'evidence': a scoping review.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2024Article
- Assessing unConventional Evidence (ACE) tool: development and content of a tool to assess the strengths and limitations of 'unconventional' source materials.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- Developing and testing a community based, online vs. face-to-face peer led intervention to improve mental well-being in Cambodian adults with physical disabilities.Frontiers in digital health · 2024Article
- Evidence synthesis to policy: development and implementation of an impact-oriented approach from the Eastern Mediterranean Region.Health research policy and systems · 2023Review
42 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. Policy briefs are a relatively new approach to packaging research evidence for policymakers. The first step in a policy brief is to prioritise a policy issue. Once an issue is prioritised, the focus then turns to mobilising the full range of research evidence relevant to the various features of the issue. Drawing on available systematic reviews makes the process of mobilising evidence feasible in a way that would not otherwise be possible if individual relevant studies had to be identified and synthesised for every feature of the issue under consideration. In this article, we suggest questions that can be used to guide those preparing and using policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking. These are: 1. Does the policy brief address a high-priority issue and describe the relevant context of the issue being addressed? 2. Does the policy brief describe the problem, costs and consequences of options to address the problem, and the key implementation considerations? 3. Does the policy brief employ systematic and transparent methods to identify, select, and assess synthesised research evidence? 4. Does the policy brief take quality, local applicability, and equity considerations into account when discussing the synthesised research evidence? 5. Does the policy brief employ a graded-entry format? 6. Was the policy brief reviewed for both scientific quality and system relevance?
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.