ArticleHealth research policy and systems2024
Research evidence communication for policy-makers: a rapid scoping review on frameworks, guidance and tools, and barriers and facilitators.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding the formulation of non-communicable disease policies in Nepal: a qualitative study.Health policy and planning · 2026Article
- Supporting policymakers with a decision aid to evaluate the impact of e-cigarette flavour restrictions.Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
- Bakteriopolis: Introducing Microbes to Society.Microbial biotechnology · 2026Review
- Bridging the Evidence-to-Policy Gap: Strengthening Capacities in Low- and Middle-Income Countries to Translate Antimicrobial Resistance Data and Evidence into Effective Policies.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Guidelines and recommendations for preparing policy briefs from research into policy-making in health sciences: a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- "You've just got to have it ready for when they're ready" - Australian policymakers' perceptions of living evidence synthesis and its opportunity to support health policy.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Balancing Efficiency and Engagement: AI-Assisted Content for Research Communications in the RECOVER Initiative.Research square · 2025Article
- Patients' Perspectives on Postoperative Follow-Up Calls in Day Surgery: A Qualitative Study.Scandinavian journal of caring sciences · 2025Article
- 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
- Ten new insights in climate science 2024.One earth (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
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
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.