ReviewHealth policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2022
Open science communication: The first year of the UK's Independent Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies.
Review in Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The pursuit of equity in COVID-19 policy and policymaking: A qualitative systematic review.Open research Europe · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Impact of a large-scale interactive and immersive science pop-up shop about infection and hygiene on visitors and volunteers.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- The next viral pandemic-where do we stand?Folia microbiologica · 2025Review
- Independent SAGE as an example of effective public dialogue on scientific research.Nature protocols · 2025Article
- The attributes of public health leadership.European journal of public health · 2025Article
- An Agenda for Public Health Diplomacy in an Age of Populism.Public health reviews · 2025Article
- Communicating medicine: new ways, new audiences.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2024Article
- Equity-focused evidence synthesis - A need to optimise our approach.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- [A Case Study on the Decision-making of Non-pharmaceutical Interventions].Jugan geon-gang gwa jilbyeong · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has shone a light on the complex relationship between science and policy. Policymakers have had to make decisions at speed in conditions of uncertainty, implementing policies that have had profound consequences for people's lives. Yet this process has sometimes been characterised by fragmentation, opacity and a disconnect between evidence and policy. In the United Kingdom, concerns about the secrecy that initially surrounded this process led to the creation of Independent SAGE, an unofficial group of scientists from different disciplines that came together to ask policy-relevant questions, review the evolving evidence, and make evidence-based recommendations. The group took a public health approach with a population perspective, worked in a holistic transdisciplinary way, and were committed to public engagement. In this paper, we review the lessons learned during its first year. These include the importance of learning from local expertise, the value of learning from other countries, the role of civil society as a critical friend to government, finding appropriate relationships between science and policy, and recognising the necessity of viewing issues through an equity lens.
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.