SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2025
Scientific Evidence in Public Health Decision-Making: A Systematic Literature Review of the Past 50 Years.
Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Scientific output of the Revista Médica del IMSS in PubMed (2005-2025): a bibliometric analysis].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScientific evidence plays a critical role in informing public health decision-making processes. However, the extent, nature, and effectiveness of its use remain uneven across contexts. Despite the increasing volume of literature on the subject, previous syntheses have often suffered from narrow thematic, temporal, or geographic scopes.
objectivesThis study undertook a comprehensive systematic literature review spanning 50 years to (i) synthesise current knowledge on the use of scientific evidence in public health decisions, (ii) identify key determinants, barriers, and enablers, (iii) evaluate implementation patterns, and (iv) propose future directions for research and practice.
methodsWe adopted the PRISMA model (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). Moreover, we researched three large databases (Web of Science, Embase, and PubMed), and this study focused on articles published in the English and French languages between January 1974 and December 2024. Studies were analysed thematically and descriptively to identify trends, patterns, and knowledge gaps.
resultsThis review reveals a growing corpus of scholarship with a predominance of qualitative studies mainly published in public health journals. Evidence use is most frequently analysed at the national policy level. Analyses of the evolution of scientific production over time revealed significant shifts beginning as early as 2005. Critical impediments included limited access to reliable and timely data, a lack of institutional capacity, and insufficient training among policy-makers. In contrast, enablers encompass cross-sector collaboration, data transparency, and alignment between researchers and decision-makers.
conclusionsAddressing persistent gaps necessitates a more nuanced appreciation of interdisciplinary and contextual factors. Our findings call for proactive policies aimed at promoting the use of scientific evidence by improving the accessibility of health data (addressing the absence or lack of data, as well as its reliability, timeliness, and accessibility), and by training decision-makers in the use of scientific evidence for decision making. Furthermore, our findings advocate for better alignment between the agendas of healthcare professionals (e.g., data collection), researchers (e.g., the selection of research topics), and decision-makers (e.g., expectations and needs) in order to develop and implement public health policies that are grounded in and informed by scientific evidence.
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.