SynthesisBMC global and public health2026
Formal and informal science-policy interaction during public health emergencies of international concern: a scoping review.
Synthesis in BMC global and public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Formal and informal science-policy interaction during public health emergencies of international concern: a scoping review.BMC global and public health · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInteraction between science and policy might be a crucial asset for policy decisions during public health emergencies. Much work has been published about processes and forms of science-policy interaction on the one hand and challenges of public health emergency contexts on the other. However, more knowledge is needed to understand the challenges that arise when these two issues intersect.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review informed by the Johanna-Briggs-Institute protocol and searched seven databases to identify formal and informal approaches to organising science-policy interaction. The original search was conducted in April 2022 and updated in March 2026. The searches included Embase.com, Medline, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science Social Science Citation Index, ERIC, Global Health, and Google Scholar. Systematic reviews, articles related to endemic diseases, on clinical and hospital contexts, and impact evaluations of research evidence in decision-making processes were excluded. Information on defined procedures for science policy interaction, form of interaction, selection process of interaction participants, perception of interaction, and barriers and facilitators of the interaction was extracted. Inclusion criteria were a) describe interaction/s of researcher/s and policymaker/s, and b) describe the study setting of a public health emergency. Data analysis followed qualitative content analysis.
results87 relevant studies were identified. Most included studies focused on the COVID-19 pandemic, with Scientific Advisory Committees (hereafter SACs) as the dominant mode of interaction. Informal mechanisms, such as committees without formal remit and unclear or undisclosed practices, were less frequently reported but played key roles. Common challenges included unclear roles, political interference, and limited communication. Key requirements are role transparency, formalisation, and institutionalisation of science-policy interaction.
conclusionsScience-policy interactions during public health emergencies are shaped by dominant formal structures and underexplored informal practices. Strengthening inclusive, transparent, and interdisciplinary advisory systems is key to improving preparedness for future crises.
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.