ArticleRevista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health2020
[Institutionalizing evidence-based policies in BrazilInstitucionalización de las políticas informadas por evidencia].
Article in Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Editorial processing of Epidemiologia e Serviços de Saúde: advances and perspectives in 2025.Epidemiologia e servicos de saude : revista do Sistema Unico de Saude do Brasil · 2025Article
- An integrated framework to guide evidence-informed public health policymaking.Journal of public health policy · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate capacities, organizational arrangements, and barriers to the implementation of Evidence Centers (NEvs) as part of Brazil's Evidence-Informed Policy Network (EVIPNet).
methodA mixed methods descriptive-analytical, multiple-case exploratory study was performed. Coordinators of active NEvs answered a questionnaire in three parts: participant characteristics, assessment of the capacity to "acquire, assess, adapt, and apply" evidence (4A), and open questions addressing organizational arrangements and barriers to the implementation of NEvs.
resultsThe study included 15 NEvs, mostly from the Midwest; 73.3% were based in universities, while 20% were installed in state/city health departments or in the Ministry of Health. All coordinators had completed graduate training and 80% reported 1 to 5 years' experience with evidence-based policies as well as proficiency in English. None of the participants worked exclusively as NEv coordinator. NEv teams included health care professionals, students (undergraduate/graduate), professors, and civil servants from health departments. The data revealed high capacity to "acquire" and "assess" evidence, and low capacity to "adapt" and "apply" evidence. On average, three activities or products were developed yearly by each NEv, especially knowledge translation initiatives (systematic reviews and deliberative dialogues) and training for health care professionals, managers and undergraduate/graduate students. Five barrier categories were described: 1) financing, 2) network integration, 3) institutionalization of demands, 4) adaptive capacity, and 5) research communication skills to recommend actions at the local level.
conclusionsTrained human resources associated with academic and research institutions are available to support evidence-informed policies. However, the sustainability of NEvs depends on coordinated action to ensure the capacity to adapt and apply evidence.
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.