SynthesisOpen research Europe2024
Collaborative Policymaking: a qualitative systematic review of advice for policymakers.
Synthesis in Open research Europe, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Systems Leadership: a qualitative systematic review of advice for policymakers.Open research Europe · 2025Pooled it
- The pursuit of equity in COVID-19 policy and policymaking: A qualitative systematic review.Open research Europe · 2025Pooled it
- Collaborative Policymaking: a qualitative systematic review of advice for policymakers.Open research Europe · 2024Pooled it
- Turning policy implications into policy impact: Lessons from behavioral science in financial markets.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Stakeholders' views on the development and adoption of health policies related to pharmacist scope of practice and the pharmacy practice environment in Australia.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2026Article
- Systematic review of undeclared prohibited substances and pharmacological adulterants in dietary supplements: prevalence, detection, and risks in sport.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Review
- Expanding modeling boundaries to design more resilient vaccine supply networks.Health care management science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Complex policy problems are not amenable to simple solutions by a few powerful policy actors in one central government. They require collaboration across government and between actors inside and outside of government. However, this Methods: We conducted a qualitative systematic review (2024) of peer reviewed journal articles (Web of Science) and grey literature reports (Policy Commons). Each article or report had to inform advice on collaborative policymaking. We used an immersive and inductive approach to identify key themes and relate the results to well-established insights from policy theories. Results: 86 texts meet the inclusion criteria (49 Web of Science, 37 Policy Commons). Most provide broad definitions of collaborative policymaking, which are similar to definitions of collaborative governance (and connected aims such as policy co-creation). Many assert or assume that greater collaboration, across and inside/outside of government, will improve policymaking and policy. Few individual studies give advice on how to collaborate effectively, but they combine to identify common features of collaboration. Conclusions: We synthesise the available advice to identify five main features of collaborative policymaking: plan and prepare to collaborate, such as by designing rules and allocating resources; create a sense of collective purpose, such as by setting a boundary around the collaboration and co-producing a common vision; foster creative methods to visualise collaboration and design policy; create new forums to supplement formal collaboration; and clarify the roles and skills essential to each collaborative task.
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.