Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28011815›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

Barriers, facilitators, strategies and outcomes to engaging policymakers, healthcare managers and policy analysts in knowledge synthesis: a scoping review protocol.

Andrea C Tricco, Wasifa Zarin, Patricia Rios, Ba' Pham, Sharon E Straus, Etienne V Langlois

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Lived Experience Participation in Suicide Prevention Activities in Australia, a Scoping Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Andrea C TriccoLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Wasifa ZarinLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Patricia RiosLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ba' PhamLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sharon E StrausFaculty of Medicine, Department of Geriatric Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Etienne V LangloisAlliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionEngaging policymakers, healthcare managers and policy analysts in the conduct of knowledge synthesis can help increase its impact. This is particularly important for knowledge synthesis studies commissioned by decision-makers with limited timelines, as well as reviews of health policy and systems research. A scoping review will be conducted to assess barriers, facilitators, strategies and outcomes of engaging these individuals in the knowledge synthesis process. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for scoping reviews. Literature searches of electronic databases (eg, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ERIC, PsycINFO) will be conducted from inception onwards. The electronic search will be supplemented by searching for sources that index unpublished/difficult to locate studies (eg, GreyNet International database), as well as through scanning of reference lists of reviews on related topics. All study designs using either qualitative or quantitative methodologies will be eligible if there is a description of the strategies, barriers or facilitators, and outcomes of engaging policymakers, healthcare managers and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process. Screening and data abstraction will be conducted by 2 team members independently after a calibration exercise across the team. A third team member will resolve all discrepancies. We will conduct frequency analysis and thematic analysis to chart and characterise the literature, identifying data gaps and opportunities for future research, as well as implications for policy. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This project was commissioned by the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, WHO. The results will be used by Alliance Review Centers of health policy and systems research in low-income and middle-income countries that are conducting knowledge synthesis to inform health policymaking and decision-making. Our results will also be disseminated through conference presentations, train-the-trainer events, peer-reviewed publication and a 1-page policy brief that will be posted on the authors' websites.

Indexed as

Decision MakingHealth PolicyPolicy MakingResearchHealth Services AdministrationHumansKnowledgeResearch DesignReview Literature as TopicScoping Reviews as TopicStakeholder Participationengagingknowledge synthesisknowledge translationpolicy makerscoping review

Identifiers

PMID28011815
PMCPMC5223640

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.