Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38418985›Full record

ReviewBMC health services research2024

Activities used by evidence networks to promote evidence-informed decision-making in the health sector- a rapid evidence review.

Germán Andrés Alarcón Garavito, Thomas Moniz, Cristián Mansilla, Syka Iqbal, Rozalia Dobrogowska, Fiona Bennin, Shivangi Talwar, Ahmad Firas Khalid, Cecilia Vindrola-Padros

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Evidence-informed policies: tools for decision-making in the Brazilian Unified Health System.Epidemiologia e servicos de saude : revista do Sistema Unico de Saude do Brasil · 2026
    Article
  4. 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

9 authors.

Germán Andrés Alarcón GaravitoRapid Research Evaluation and Appraisal Lab (RREAL) - Department of Targeted Intervention, University College London, London, UK.
Thomas MonizRapid Research Evaluation and Appraisal Lab (RREAL) - Department of Targeted Intervention, University College London, London, UK.
Cristián MansillaMcMaster Health Forum, McMaster University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Syka IqbalRapid Research Evaluation and Appraisal Lab (RREAL) - Department of Targeted Intervention, University College London, London, UK.
Rozalia DobrogowskaRapid Research Evaluation and Appraisal Lab (RREAL) - Department of Targeted Intervention, University College London, London, UK.
Fiona BenninRapid Research Evaluation and Appraisal Lab (RREAL) - Department of Targeted Intervention, University College London, London, UK.
Shivangi TalwarRapid Research Evaluation and Appraisal Lab (RREAL) - Department of Targeted Intervention, University College London, London, UK.
Ahmad Firas KhalidSchool of Global Health, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Cecilia Vindrola-PadrosRapid Research Evaluation and Appraisal Lab (RREAL) - Department of Targeted Intervention, University College London, London, UK. c.vindrola@ucl.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence networks facilitate the exchange of information and foster international relationships among researchers and stakeholders. These networks are instrumental in enabling the integration of scientific evidence into decision-making processes. While there is a global emphasis on evidence-based decision-making at policy and organisational levels, there exists a significant gap in our understanding of the most effective activities to exchange scientific knowledge and use it in practice. The objective of this rapid review was to explore the strategies employed by evidence networks to facilitate the translation of evidence into decision-making processes. This review makes a contribution to global health policymaking by mapping the landscape of knowledge translation in this context and identifying the evidence translation activities that evidence networks have found effective.

methodsThe review was guided by standardised techniques for conducting rapid evidence reviews. Document searching was based on a phased approach, commencing with a comprehensive initial search strategy and progressively refining it with each subsequent search iterations. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement was followed.

resultsThe review identified 143 articles, after screening 1135 articles. Out of these, 35 articles were included in the review. The studies encompassed a diverse range of countries, with the majority originating from the United States (n = 14), followed by Canada (n = 5), Sweden (n = 2), and various other single locations (n = 14). These studies presented a varied set of implementation strategies such as research-related activities, the creation of teams/task forces/partnerships, meetings/consultations, mobilising/working with communities, influencing policy, activity evaluation, training, trust-building, and regular meetings, as well as community-academic-policymaker engagement.

conclusionsEvidence networks play a crucial role in developing, sharing, and implementing high-quality research for policy. These networks face challenges like coordinating diverse stakeholders, international collaboration, language barriers, research consistency, knowledge dissemination, capacity building, evaluation, and funding. To enhance their impact, sharing network efforts with wider audiences, including local, national, and international agencies, is essential for evidence-based decision-making to shape evidence-informed policies and programmes effectively.

Indexed as

Decision MakingPolicy MakingAdministrative PersonnelHealth PolicyHumansOrganizationsTrustDecision-makingEvidence disseminationEvidence-informedEvidence networkHealth policyKnowledge brokerKnowledge translation

Identifiers

PMID38418985
PMCPMC10903073

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.