ArticleBMJ global health2022
Challenges to evidence-informed decision-making in the context of pandemics: qualitative study of COVID-19 policy advisor perspectives.
Article in BMJ global health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Formal and informal science-policy interaction during public health emergencies of international concern: a scoping review.BMC global and public health · 2026Pooled it
- Barriers and facilitators to knowledge translation at the science-policy interface during the COVID-19 pandemic public health emergency: a rapid review and theoretical analysis to inform development of a logic model.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- In uncharted territory: managing the COVID-19 pandemic in Swedish regions and municipalities from a primary health care perspective.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Article
- COVID-19 education policy often relied on older research despite available new evidence.STAR protocols · 2026Article
- Youth-developed recommendations on public health planning for future pandemics or public health emergencies: a national Delphi study.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2026Article
- West African Policy Dialogue-impulse for better data: progress towards better analytics and better decisions.BMC proceedings · 2026Article
- Conducting evidence synthesis and developing evidence-based advice in public health and beyond: A scoping review and map of methods guidance.Research synthesis methods · 2026Article
- Barriers to the application of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) results: the case of COVID-19 vaccine deployment in Ghana.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026Article
- Strengthening pandemic preparedness in Peru: a qualitative study of high-level leaders involved in the COVID-19 response.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Building national health research agendas and defining research questions.Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2026Article
- Data generation and modeling during COVID-19: utility, barriers, and priorities for future investments in public health response.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Rocky Mountain West COVID-19 Modeling: A Descriptive Assessment of Public Health Needs During the COVID-19 Pandemic to Endemic Transition in Summer 2022.Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974) · 2025Article
- Out of sight but still in mind: Developing an expectation for surprises by formalizing unknowledge in a contemporary risk-assessment framework.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025Article
- Users' experience of frameworks to support evidence-informed decision-making in public health: a scoping review.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2025Article
- The future of pandemic modeling in support of decision making: lessons learned from COVID-19.BMC global and public health · 2025Article
- Evidence-informed decision-making in public health in Canada: a qualitative exploration.JBI evidence implementation · 2025Article
- Use of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support decision-making during health emergencies: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Effectiveness of mRNA-1273.815 Against COVID-19 Hospitalization Among Adults Aged ≥ 18 Years in the United States.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2025Article
- A Scoping Review of Frameworks for Promoting Employment among Multiply Marginalized People with Disabilities.Journal of rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Addressing data quality issues to assess clinical and epidemiological risk factors for COVID-19 among documented cases in Liberia: a single-centre, retrospective, observational study.BMJ public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe exceptional production of research evidence during the COVID-19 pandemic required deployment of scientists to act in advisory roles to aid policy-makers in making evidence-informed decisions. The unprecedented breadth, scale and duration of the pandemic provides an opportunity to understand how science advisors experience and mitigate challenges associated with insufficient, evolving and/or conflicting evidence to inform public health decision-making.
objectivesTo explore critically the challenges for advising evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) in pandemic contexts, particularly around non-pharmaceutical control measures, from the perspective of experts advising policy-makers during COVID-19 globally.
methodsWe conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with 27 scientific experts and advisors who are/were engaged in COVID-19 EIDM representing four WHO regions and 11 countries (Australia, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Ghana, Hong Kong, Nigeria, Sweden, Uganda, UK, USA) from December 2020 to May 2021. Participants informed decision-making at various and multiple levels of governance, including local/city (n=3), state/provincial (n=8), federal or national (n=20), regional or international (n=3) and university-level advising (n=3). Following each interview, we conducted member checks with participants and thematically analysed interview data using NVivo for Mac software.
resultsFindings from this study indicate multiple overarching challenges to pandemic EIDM specific to interpretation and translation of evidence, including the speed and influx of new, evolving, and conflicting evidence; concerns about scientific integrity and misinterpretation of evidence; the limited capacity to assess and produce evidence, and adapting evidence from other contexts; multiple forms of evidence and perspectives needed for EIDM; the need to make decisions quickly and under conditions of uncertainty; and a lack of transparency in how decisions are made and applied.
conclusionsFindings suggest the urgent need for global EIDM guidance that countries can adapt for in-country decisions as well as coordinated global response to future pandemics.
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.