ArticleInternational journal of public health2026
From evidence to action: expert perspectives on stakeholder dialogues in Swiss health policy.
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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.