ArticleHealth research policy and systems2014
New directions in evidence-based policy research: a critical analysis of the literature.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 148 papers, 8 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
148 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Scientific Evidence in Public Health Decision-Making: A Systematic Literature Review of the Past 50 Years.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Pooled it
- The effectiveness of knowledge-sharing techniques and approaches in research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR): a systematic review.Health research policy and systems · 2024Pooled it
- Research evidence use in local government-led public health interventions: a systematic review.Health research policy and systems · 2023Pooled it
- Mapping the Qualitative Evidence Base on the Use of Research Evidence in Health Policy-Making: A Systematic Review.International journal of health policy and management · 2022Pooled it
- Knowledge Gaps and Research Priorities on the Health Effects of Heatwaves: A Systematic Review of Reviews.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Using natural experiments to improve public health evidence: a review of context and utility for obesity prevention.Health research policy and systems · 2020Pooled it
- Can automated content analysis be used to assess and improve the use of evidence in mental health policy? A systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- A systematic review of frameworks for the interrelationships of mental health evidence and policy in low- and middle-income countries.Health research policy and systems · 2018Pooled it
- Bridging the gap between public health, academia and policy.BMJ global health · 2026Article
- Translating one health research evidence into action: co-production of rabies control knowledge in Côte d'Ivoire.Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
- Expériences et perceptions de la mise à l'échelle d'une intervention de santé publique: entretiens auprès d'une variété d'acteurs français.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2026Article
- Facilitating collaboration between public health researchers and policymakers: a scoping review of global practices, barriers and facilitators.Health research policy and systems · 2026Review
- Uncovering drivers of climate research in policy with pretrained language models.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- Mapping health evidence ecosystem in Brazil: a mixed-methods study protocol for developing a framework.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Community-Academic Workshop on Translating Research Findings into Policy Briefs for Broader Dissemination.Ethnicity & disease · 2025Article
- Beyond evidence: how actor dynamics and power shape knowledge translation for health policy in Kenya.Health policy and planning · 2025Article
- Understanding UK policymakers' evidence needs through policy questions.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Frameworks to support evidence-informed decision-making in public health and infectious disease prevention and control: a scoping review.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2025Article
- Use of evidence to inform regional primary health care planning in Australia.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Canadian public health experiences during COVID-19: a new framework for assessing evidence.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
88 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite 40 years of research into evidence-based policy (EBP) and a continued drive from both policymakers and researchers to increase research uptake in policy, barriers to the use of evidence are persistently identified in the literature. However, it is not clear what explains this persistence - whether they represent real factors, or if they are artefacts of approaches used to study EBP. Based on an updated review, this paper analyses this literature to explain persistent barriers and facilitators. We critically describe the literature in terms of its theoretical underpinnings, definitions of 'evidence', methods, and underlying assumptions of research in the field, and aim to illuminate the EBP discourse by comparison with approaches from other fields. Much of the research in this area is theoretically naive, focusing primarily on the uptake of research evidence as opposed to evidence defined more broadly, and privileging academics' research priorities over those of policymakers. Little empirical data analysing the processes or impact of evidence use in policy is available to inform researchers or decision-makers. EBP research often assumes that policymakers do not use evidence and that more evidence - meaning research evidence - use would benefit policymakers and populations. We argue that these assumptions are unsupported, biasing much of EBP research. The agenda of 'getting evidence into policy' has side-lined the empirical description and analysis of how research and policy actually interact in vivo. Rather than asking how research evidence can be made more influential, academics should aim to understand what influences and constitutes policy, and produce more critically and theoretically informed studies of decision-making. We question the main assumptions made by EBP researchers, explore the implications of doing so, and propose new directions for EBP research, and health policy.
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.