Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39118156›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2024

Research evidence communication for policy-makers: a rapid scoping review on frameworks, guidance and tools, and barriers and facilitators.

Jorge Otávio Maia Barreto, Roberta Crevelário de Melo, Letícia Aparecida Lopes Bezerra da Silva, Bruna Carolina de Araújo, Cintia de Freitas Oliveira, Tereza Setsuko Toma, Maritsa Carla de Bortoli, Peter Nichols Demaio, Tanja Kuchenmüller

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Ten new insights in climate science 2024.One earth (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025
    Review
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.

Jorge Otávio Maia BarretoOswaldo Cruz Foundation, Fiocruz, Brasília, Brazil. jorgeomaia@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7648-0472
Roberta Crevelário de MeloOswaldo Cruz Foundation, Fiocruz, Brasília, Brazil.
Letícia Aparecida Lopes Bezerra da SilvaOswaldo Cruz Foundation, Fiocruz, Brasília, Brazil.
Bruna Carolina de AraújoOswaldo Cruz Foundation, Fiocruz, Brasília, Brazil.
Cintia de Freitas OliveiraHealth Institute, São Paulo, Brazil.
Tereza Setsuko TomaHealth Institute, São Paulo, Brazil.
Maritsa Carla de BortoliHealth Institute, São Paulo, Brazil.
Peter Nichols DemaioMcMaster Health Forum, Hamilton, Canada.
Tanja KuchenmüllerEvidence to Policy and Impact, Research for Health, Science Division, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

World Health Organization 001World Health Organization Consultant Contract No. 202759444/2021
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommunication is a multifaceted process, ranging from linear, one-way approaches, such as transmitting a simple message, to continuous exchanges and feedback loops among stakeholders. In particular the COVID-19 pandemic underscored the critical need for timely, effective and credible evidence communication to increase awareness, levels of trust, and evidence uptake in policy and practice. However, whether to improve policy responses in crises or address more commonplace societal challenges, comprehensive guidance on evidence communication to decision-makers in health policies and systems remains limited. Our objective was to identify and systematize the global evidence on frameworks, guidance and tools supporting effective communication of research evidence to facilitate knowledge translation and evidence-informed policy-making processes, while also addressing barriers and facilitators.

methodsWe conducted a rapid scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Manual. Literature searches were performed across eight indexed databases and two sources of grey literature, without language or time restrictions. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed, and a narrative-interpretative synthesis was applied to present the findings.

resultsWe identified 16 documents presenting either complete frameworks or framework components, including guidance and tools, aimed at supporting evidence communication for policy development. These frameworks outlined strategies, theoretical models, barriers and facilitators, as well as insights into policy-makers' perspectives, communication needs, and preferences. Three primary evidence communication strategies, comprising eleven sub-strategies, emerged: "Health information packaging", "Targeting and tailoring messages to the audience", and "Combined communication strategies". Based on the documented barriers and facilitators at micro, meso and macro levels, critical factors for successful communication of evidence to policy-makers were identified.

conclusionsEffective communication is indispensable for facilitating knowledge translation and evidence-informed policy-making. Nonetheless gaps persist in frameworks designed to enhance research communication to policy-makers, particularly regarding the effectiveness of multiple communication strategies. To advance in this field, the development of comprehensive frameworks incorporating implementation strategies is warranted. Additionally, barriers and facilitators to implementing effective communication must be recognized and addressed taking diverse contexts into consideration. Registration https://zenodo.org/record/5578550.

Indexed as

Administrative PersonnelCommunicationCOVID-19Health PolicyPolicy MakingDecision MakingHumansInformation DisseminationPandemicsSARS-CoV-2Translational Research, BiomedicalEvidence-informed policyFrameworksKnowledge translationPolicy-makersResearch communication

Identifiers

PMID39118156
PMCPMC11312384

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.