Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38822437›Full record

ArticleGlobal health research and policy2024

Informing evidence-based policy during the COVID-19 pandemic and recovery period: learning from a national evidence centre.

Alison Cooper, Ruth Lewis, Micaela Gal, Natalie Joseph-Williams, Jane Greenwell, Angela Watkins, Alexandra Strong, Denitza Williams, Elizabeth Doe, Rebecca-Jane Law and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global health research and policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

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

  1. Scientific Evidence in Public Health Decision-Making: A Systematic Literature Review of the Past 50 Years.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. 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

11 authors.

Alison CooperWales Centre for Primary and Emergency Care Research (PRIME Centre Wales), Bangor, Wales. CooperA8@cardiff.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-8660-6721
Ruth LewisWales Centre for Primary and Emergency Care Research (PRIME Centre Wales), Bangor, Wales.
Micaela GalWales Centre for Primary and Emergency Care Research (PRIME Centre Wales), Bangor, Wales.
Natalie Joseph-WilliamsWales Centre for Primary and Emergency Care Research (PRIME Centre Wales), Bangor, Wales.
Jane GreenwellWales Centre for Primary and Emergency Care Research (PRIME Centre Wales), Bangor, Wales.
Angela WatkinsWales Centre for Primary and Emergency Care Research (PRIME Centre Wales), Bangor, Wales.
Alexandra StrongPublic Contributor, WCEC Public Partnership Group, Bangor, Wales.
Denitza WilliamsWales Centre for Primary and Emergency Care Research (PRIME Centre Wales), Bangor, Wales.
Elizabeth DoeWales Centre for Primary and Emergency Care Research (PRIME Centre Wales), Bangor, Wales.
Rebecca-Jane LawTechnical Advisory Cell, Welsh Government, Cardiff, Wales.
Adrian EdwardsWales Centre for Primary and Emergency Care Research (PRIME Centre Wales), Bangor, Wales.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the vital need for research to inform policy decision-making and save lives. The Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre (WCEC) was established in March 2021 and funded for two years, to make evidence about the impact of the pandemic and ongoing research priorities for Wales available and actionable to policy decision-makers, service leads and the public.

objectivesWe describe the approaches we developed and our experiences, challenges and future vision. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION: The centre operated with a core team, including a public partnership group, and six experienced research groups as collaborating partners. Our rapid evidence delivery process had five stages: 1. Stakeholder engagement (continued throughout all stages); 2. Research question prioritisation; 3. Bespoke rapid evidence review methodology in a phased approach; 4. Rapid primary research; and 5. Knowledge Mobilisation to ensure the evidence was available for decision-makers. MAIN ACHIEVEMENTS: Between March 2021-23 we engaged with 44 stakeholder groups, completed 35 Rapid Evidence Reviews, six Rapid Evidence Maps and 10 Rapid Evidence Summaries. We completed four primary research studies, with three published in peer reviewed journals, and seven ongoing. Our evidence informed policy decision-making and was cited in 19 Welsh Government papers. These included pandemic infection control measures, the Action Plan to tackle gender inequalities, and Education Renew and Reform policy. We conducted 24 Welsh Government evidence briefings and three public facing symposia. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Strong engagement with stakeholder groups, a phased rapid evidence review approach, and primary research to address key gaps in current knowledge enabled high-quality efficient, evidence outputs to be delivered to help inform Welsh policy decision-making during the pandemic. We learn from these processes to continue to deliver evidence from March 2023 as the Health and Care Research Wales Evidence Centre, with a broader remit of health and social care, to help inform policy and practice decisions during the recovery phase and beyond.

Indexed as

COVID-19Health PolicyPolicy MakingDecision MakingEvidence-Based MedicineEvidence-Based PracticeHumansPandemicsWalesEvidence-based policyKnowledge mobilisationRapid evidence synthesisResearch prioritisationStakeholder engagement

Identifiers

PMID38822437
PMCPMC11140997

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.