ArticlePloS one2024
Knowledge mobilisation of rapid evidence reviews to inform health and social care policy and practice in a public health emergency: Appraisal of the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre processes and impact, 2021-23.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A bespoke rapid evidence review process engaging stakeholders for supporting evolving and time-sensitive policy and clinical decision-making: reflection and lessons learned from the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre 2021-2023.Health research policy and systems · 2025Review
- Informing evidence-based policy during the COVID-19 pandemic and recovery period: learning from a national evidence centre.Global health research and policy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre (WCEC) was established from 2021-23 to ensure that the latest coronavirus (COVID-19) relevant research evidence was readily available to inform health and social care policy and practice decision-makers. Although decisions need to be evidence-based, ensuring that accessible and relevant research evidence is available to decision-makers is challenging, especially in a rapidly evolving pandemic environment when timeframes for decision-making are days or weeks rather than months or years. We set up knowledge mobilisation processes to bridge the gap between evidence review and informing decisions, making sure that the right information reaches the right people at the right time. AIMS AND
objectivesTo describe the knowledge mobilisation processes used by the WCEC, evaluate the impact of the WCEC rapid evidence reviews, and share lessons learned.
methodsOur knowledge mobilisation methods were flexible and tailored to meet stakeholders' needs. They included stakeholder co-production in our rapid evidence review processes, stakeholder-informed and participatory knowledge mobilisation, wider dissemination of outputs and associated activities including public engagement, capacity building and sharing of methodologies. Feedback on processes and evidence of impact was collected via stakeholder engagement and a stakeholder survey.
resultsFindings indicate that knowledge mobilisation processes successfully enabled use of the WCEC's rapid evidence reviews to inform policy and practice decision-makers during the COVID-19 pandemic in Wales. Realising actual public and patient benefit from this 'pathway to impact' work will take further time and resources. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionThe WCEC knowledge mobilisation processes successfully supported co-production and use of rapid evidence review findings by scientific advisors and policy and practice decision-makers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Identified barriers and facilitators are of potential relevance to wider evidence initiatives, for setting up similar Centres during crisis situations, and supporting future evidence-based policy and practice decision-making.
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.