ReviewHealth policy and planning2016
Taking knowledge users' knowledge needs into account in health: an evidence synthesis framework.
Review in Health policy and planning, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.
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
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outcomes of Extracorporeal Removal in Acute Barium Poisoning: A Scoping Review.Journal of acute medicine · 2026Article
- The NASSS (Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread and Sustainability) framework use over time: A scoping review.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Health knowledge needs of administrative staff and related influencing factors: a cross-sectional data from Yuxi, China.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Strategies for communicating scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and the population: a scoping review.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Characteristics of interprofessional rehabilitation programs for patients with chronic low back pain evaluated in the literature: a scoping review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Mapping the available evidence on the impact of ingested live microbes on health: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2023Article
- The effect of physical activity on sleep disturbance in various populations: a scoping review of randomized clinical trials.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2023Article
- Information and communication technology-based interventions for suicide prevention implemented in clinical settings: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Describing the evidence-base for research engagement by health care providers and health care organisations: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Combining Molecular, Imaging, and Clinical Data Analysis for Predicting Cancer Prognosis.Cancers · 2022Review
- Article
- Creatine Supplementation for Muscle Growth: A Scoping Review of Randomized Clinical Trials from 2012 to 2021.Nutrients · 2022Article
- Protective and resilience factors to promote mental health among Indigenous youth in Canada: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Article
- Family-Based Obesity Prevention Interventions among Hispanic Children and Families: A Scoping Review.Nutrients · 2021Article
- Implementation research approaches to promoting universal health coverage in Africa: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Protocol for a scoping review of implementation research approaches to universal health coverage in Africa.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Article
- Global Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Research Priorities and Learning Challenges under Sustainable Development Goal 6.Development policy review : the journal of the Overseas Development Institute · 2020Article
- A scoping review protocol to map the evidence on interventions to prevent overweight and obesity in children.BMJ open · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The increased demand for evidence-based practice in health policy in recent years has provoked a parallel increase in diverse evidence-based outputs designed to translate knowledge from researchers to policy makers and practitioners. Such knowledge translation ideally creates user-friendly outputs, tailored to meet information needs in a particular context for a particular audience. Yet matching users' knowledge needs to the most suitable output can be challenging. We have developed an evidence synthesis framework to help knowledge users, brokers, commissioners and producers decide which type of output offers the best 'fit' between 'need' and 'response'. We conducted a four-strand literature search for characteristics and methods of evidence synthesis outputs using databases of peer reviewed literature, specific journals, grey literature and references in relevant documents. Eight experts in synthesis designed to get research into policy and practice were also consulted to hone issues for consideration and ascertain key studies. In all, 24 documents were included in the literature review. From these we identified essential characteristics to consider when planning an output-Readability, Relevance, Rigour and Resources-which we then used to develop a process for matching users' knowledge needs with an appropriate evidence synthesis output. We also identified 10 distinct evidence synthesis outputs, classifying them in the evidence synthesis framework under four domains: key features, utility, technical characteristics and resources, and in relation to six primary audience groups-professionals, practitioners, researchers, academics, advocates and policy makers. Users' knowledge needs vary and meeting them successfully requires collaborative planning. The Framework should facilitate a more systematic assessment of the balance of essential characteristics required to select the best output for the purpose.
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.