ArticleSystematic reviews2026
Guidelines and recommendations for preparing policy briefs from research into policy-making in health sciences: a scoping review.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis scoping review aims to provide an overview of documents describing the preparation of policy briefs from academic health science researchers for policy-making.
introductionNot considering research evidence sufficiently may engender inefficient resource allocation and an inadequate response to public issues. Policy briefs are aimed at bridging this gap and assisting policy-makers in making evidence-informed decisions, yet they lack standardization.
methodsA scoping review following JBI methodology was conducted. We aimed at summarizing recommendations and guidelines for policy briefs from health science academia, focusing on formal criteria and contextual considerations. We included documents describing the preparation of policy briefs from academia to policy-making, as well as those that are usable for various addressees. Documents needed to be published in German, English, French, or Spanish and available in full text. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, LIVIVO (SOMED), and additional sources up to December 01, 2025, resulting in 67 included records out of 1395 scientific publications and 81 grey literature sources.
resultsThe structure of policy briefs varied, with layout and language being the only consistent elements. Guidelines exhibited diversity in length, target groups, references, and timing, with discernible tendencies. Contextual considerations also varied across articles, indicating inconsistency in definitions and frequencies.
conclusionVariability in policy brief design guidance poses challenges for both researchers and end-users, potentially hindering effective evidence communication. Enhanced efforts of co-creation, shared minimum standards, and evaluation may mitigate these challenges. Still, complete standardization may be unattainable, necessitating flexibility to cater to diverse audience needs, priorities, and perspectives. Transparent acknowledgement of such situations is crucial. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/HTJMW.
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.