Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35246139›Full record

ReviewHealth research policy and systems2022

Domains and processes for institutionalizing evidence-informed health policy-making: a critical interpretive synthesis.

Tanja Kuchenmüller, Laura Boeira, Sandy Oliver, Kaelan Moat, Fadi El-Jardali, Jorge Barreto, John Lavis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health research policy and systems, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Producing Mobility, Withholding Authority: Epistemic Drain and Nursing Sovereignty in Nepal.Nursing philosophy : an international journal for healthcare professionals · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Tanja KuchenmüllerResearch for Health, Science Division, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. kuchenmullert@who.int.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9021-981X
Laura BoeiraInstituto Veredas, São Paulo, Brazil.
Sandy OliverSocial Research Institute, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Kaelan MoatMcMaster Health Forum/WHO Collaborating Centre for Evidence-Informed Policy, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Fadi El-JardaliKnowledge to Policy (K2P) Center/WHO Collaborating Centre for Evidence-Informed Policy and Practice, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Jorge BarretoOswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz), Brasília, Brazil.
John LavisFaculty of Humanities, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile calls for institutionalization of evidence-informed policy-making (EIP) have become stronger in recent years, there is a paucity of methods that governments and organizational knowledge brokers can use to sustain and integrate EIP as part of mainstream health policy-making. The objective of this paper was to conduct a knowledge synthesis of the published and grey literatures to develop a theoretical framework with the key features of EIP institutionalization.

methodsWe applied a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) that allowed for a systematic, yet iterative and dynamic analysis of heterogeneous bodies of literature to develop an explanatory framework for EIP institutionalization. We used a "compass" question to create a detailed search strategy and conducted electronic searches to identify papers based on their potential relevance to EIP institutionalization. Papers were screened and extracted independently and in duplicate. A constant comparative method was applied to develop a framework on EIP institutionalization. The CIS was triangulated with the findings of stakeholder dialogues that involved civil servants, policy-makers and researchers.

resultsWe identified 3001 references, of which 88 papers met our eligibility criteria. This CIS resulted in a definition of EIP institutionalization as the "process and outcome of (re-)creating, maintaining and reinforcing norms, regulations, and standard practices that, based on collective meaning and values, actions as well as endowment of resources, allow evidence to become-over time-a legitimate and taken-for-granted part of health policy-making". The resulting theoretical framework comprised six key domains of EIP institutionalization that capture both structure and agency: (1) governance; (2) standards and routinized processes; (3) partnership, collective action and support; (4) leadership and commitment; (5) resources; and (6) culture. Furthermore, EIP institutionalization is being achieved through five overlapping stages: (i) precipitating events; (ii) de-institutionalization; (iii) semi-institutionalization (comprising theorization and diffusion); (iv) (re)-institutionalization; and (v) renewed de-institutionalization processes.

conclusionsThis CIS advances the theoretical and conceptual discussions on EIP institutionalization, and provides new insights into an evidence-informed framework for initiating, strengthening and/or assessing efforts to institutionalize EIP.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CarePolicy MakingHealth PolicyHumansKnowledgeOrganizationsConceptual frameworkDefinitionEvidence-informed policyInstitutional capacityInstitutionalizationKnowledge translationKnowledge translation platformSustainability

Identifiers

PMID35246139
PMCPMC8894559

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.