ArticlePloS one2012
Identifying trustworthy experts: how do policymakers find and assess public health researchers worth consulting or collaborating with?
Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 2 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
35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 94 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evidence map of knowledge translation strategies, outcomes, facilitators and barriers in African health systems.Health research policy and systems · 2019Pooled it
- Policy context and narrative leading to the commissioning of the Australian Indigenous Burden of Disease study.Health research policy and systems · 2015Pooled it
- Maximizing researcher-policymaker engagement in global public health.Nature medicine · 2025Review
- Insights into research trends on recurrent laryngeal nerve damage in thyroid surgery (1974-2024): a bibliometric review.Gland surgery · 2025Article
- Development and implementation of a new model for research support for municipal healthcare-a qualitative study.Frontiers in health services · 2025Article
- Bridging Public Health Research and State-Level Policy: The Texas Research-to-Policy Collaboration Project.Preventing chronic disease · 2024Article
- Perspectives of old-age and dementia researchers on communication with policymakers and public research funding decision-makers: an international cross-sectional survey.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Teaching scientific evidence and critical thinking for policy making.Biology methods & protocols · 2024Article
- Output-orientated policy engagement: a model for advancing the use of epidemiological evidence in health policy.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Article
- Characterising trusted spokespeople in noncommunicable disease prevention: A systematic scoping review.Preventive medicine reports · 2022Article
- Health Policy and Systems Research Capacities in Ethiopia and Ghana: Findings From a Self-Assessment.Global health, science and practice · 2022Article
- Open science at the science-policy interface: bringing in the evidence?Health research policy and systems · 2022Review
- Knowledge, Expertise and Science Advice During COVID-19: In Search of Epistemic Justice for the 'Wicked' Problems of Post-Normal Times.Social epistemology · 2022Article
- Opinion: Academic-humanitarian technology partnerships: an unhappy marriage?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021Article
- Determinants of using children's mental health research in policymaking: variation by type of research use and phase of policy process.Implementation science : IS · 2021Article
- A 24-step guide on how to design, conduct, and successfully publish a systematic review and meta-analysis in medical research.European journal of epidemiology · 2020Article
- The Role of Experts in the Covid-19 Pandemic and the Limits of Their Epistemic Authority in Democracy.Frontiers in public health · 2020Article
- A literature review of knowledge translation and partnership research training programs for health researchers.Health research policy and systems · 2019Review
- Evidence, Emotion and Eminence: A Qualitative and Evaluative Analysis of Doctors' Skills in Macroallocation.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper reports data from semi-structured interviews on how 26 Australian civil servants, ministers and ministerial advisors find and evaluate researchers with whom they wish to consult or collaborate. Policymakers valued researchers who had credibility across the three attributes seen as contributing to trustworthiness: competence (an exemplary academic reputation complemented by pragmatism, understanding of government processes, and effective collaboration and communication skills); integrity (independence, "authenticity", and faithful reporting of research); and benevolence (commitment to the policy reform agenda). The emphases given to these assessment criteria appeared to be shaped in part by policymakers' roles and the type and phase of policy development in which they were engaged. Policymakers are encouraged to reassess their methods for engaging researchers and to maximise information flow and support in these relationships. Researchers who wish to influence policy are advised to develop relationships across the policy community, but also to engage in other complementary strategies for promoting research-informed policy, including the strategic use of mass media.
Indexed as
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.