ArticleScientific reports2025
Understanding UK policymakers' evidence needs through policy questions.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
The present mixed methods study used UK policymakers to answer the following: (1) are there common topics for which evidence is requested over time (2019 to 2023) that cut across government departments or agencies, and (2) is there a preferred style in the way evidence is requested? Three separate datasets of policy questions (n = 3260) posed by UK policy makers to academics were coded by a combination of humans and an algorithm and then analysed. First, of the 7 recurring topics identified (Climate and Environment, Defence and Security, Economy, Health, Information Technology, Social Welfare, Technology), Economy (27%) was the most featured across all policy makers across all 5 years. Climate and Environment showed the sharpest rise over time (16-38%). Second, of 7 styles of questions, procedural (33%) was the most common, which means addressing "how to" (e.g. measure, intervene, prevent) type questions. In the qualitative interviews policymakers reported gaining the most from an exploratory rather than a goal-specific approach during one-to-one interactions with academics. Also when having their assumptions challenged this helped to expand the way they thought of policy issues that they were currently addressing. This UK test case shows the value of focused iterative policy-academic exchanges and could be a way to enhance evidence-based policymaking initiatives.
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.