Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42827721›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of public health2026

From evidence to action: expert perspectives on stakeholder dialogues in Swiss health policy.

Sara Rubinelli, Cristina Mesa-Vieira, Isabelle Peytremann-Bridevaux, Nicola Diviani, Sarah Mantwill, Natalie Gray Messerli, Maddalena Fiordelli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Sara RubinelliFaculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Universitat Luzern, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Cristina Mesa-VieiraFaculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Universitat Luzern, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Isabelle Peytremann-BridevauxDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Systems, Unisanté, University Center for Primary Care and Public Health and Université de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Nicola DivianiFaculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Universitat Luzern, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Sarah MantwillFaculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Universitat Luzern, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Natalie Gray MesserliFaculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Universitat Luzern, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Maddalena FiordelliInstitute of Public Health, Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Stakeholder dialogues are increasingly used to link research evidence with policy and practice in health systems. Yet little is known about the practical reasoning behind their design, conduct, and use. This study investigated how researchers and public-health professionals conceptualise and operationalise stakeholder dialogues, with a primary focus on Switzerland's federal, multilingual health system and broader relevance to other settings. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with fourteen experts involved in designing, facilitating, or implementing stakeholder dialogues in Switzerland and internationally. Interview data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Stakeholder dialogues emerged as structured, evidence-informed discussions linking research to implementation. Success depended on high-quality evidence briefs, skilled neutral facilitation, and inclusive formats enabling equal participation. Consensus was not required; clarified disagreement and transparent reasoning were legitimate outcomes. Impact ranged from mutual learning to policy uptake, shaped by federalism and linguistic diversity. Conclusion: Stakeholder dialogues function as boundary infrastructures that integrate evidence, experience, and values. When deliberately designed, they enhance the quality of reasoning, trust, and coordination, transforming evidence use from a technical exercise into a relational practice in health policymaking.

Indexed as

Health PolicyPolicy MakingStakeholder ParticipationHumansInterviews as TopicQualitative ResearchSwitzerlanddeliberative processesevidence-informed policymakinghealth policyknowledge translationqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID42827721
PMCPMC13630709

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.