ArticleHealth research policy and systems2026
Co-development of a research-to-policy framework for Indonesia's health policy-making: a multiperspective approach.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionDespite the global promotion of evidence-informed health policy-making, translating research into actionable policy remains a challenge across settings. While global frameworks have provided guidance, adaptation to local contexts remains limited. This study aimed to co-develop a practical, context-specific, stakeholder-informed research-to-policy (R2P) framework for Indonesia.
methodsA multilevel qualitative study (May 2024-May 2025) combined a narrative literature review, expert consultations, and cognitive debriefing interviews. Literature searches in the WHO Library and PubMed, supplemented by reference list screening were conducted to explore barriers, enablers, and steps in evidence translation. Consultations involved researchers, policy-makers (national and subnational), and civil society to capture multi-stakeholder perspectives. A follow-up round of cognitive debriefing was conducted to refine the draft framework and guidance. All sessions were transcribed and analysed thematically using the Steps for Coding and Theorization (SCAT) approach. Findings were mapped against factors identified in the WHO EIDM framework on evidence uptake to inform the development of the final R2P framework.
resultsSeventeen participants contributed to framework co-development. The literature confirmed the absence of a formal R2P framework in Indonesia. Barriers included weak infrastructure, fragmented governance, low research capacity outside major centres, limited dissemination, and misalignment between research outputs and policy needs. Enablers included political commitment, knowledge-to-policy units, policy-relevant outputs, and collaborative relationships. For early researchers, policy-maker engagement, knowledge brokering, and institutional capacity building emerged as key needs. The resulting R2P framework comprises two interlinked domains: evidence generation and the policy process, highlighting continuous, multidirectional collaboration among academia, policy-makers, and communities.
conclusionsThe co-developed R2P framework offers a practical pathway to strengthen trust, accelerate translation, and promote inclusive, evidence-informed health policies. While tailored to Indonesia, its principles of early engagement, coproduction, contextual adaptation, and institutional capacity-building may be adapted across diverse health system settings.
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.