SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 5: Using research evidence to frame options to address a problem

A taxonomy of demand-driven questions for use by evidence producers, intermediaries and decision-makers: results from a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Globally, a growing number of calls to formalize and strengthen evidence-support systems have been released, all of which emphasize the importance of evidence-informed decision making. To achieve this, it is critical that evidence producers and decision-makers interact, and that decision-makers' evidence needs can be efficiently translated into questions to which evidence producers can respond. This paper aims to create a taxonomy of demand-driven questions for use by evidence producers, intermediaries (i.e., people working in between researchers and decision-makers) and decision-makers.

METHODS

We conducted a global cross-sectional survey of units providing some type of evidence support at the explicit request of decision-makers. Unit representatives were invited to answer an online questionnaire where they were asked to provide a list of the questions that they have addressed through their evidence-support mechanism. Descriptive analyses were used to analyze the survey responses, while the questions collected from each unit were iteratively analyzed to create a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive list of types of questions that can be answered with some form of evidence.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine individuals completed the questionnaire, and more than 250 submitted questions were analysed to create a taxonomy of 41 different types of demand-driven questions. These 41 questions were organized by the goal to be achieved, and the goals were grouped in the four decision-making stages (i) clarifying a societal problem, its causes and potential impacts; (ii) finding and selecting options to address a problem; (iii) implementing or scaling-up an option; and (iv) monitoring implementation and evaluating impacts.

CONCLUSION

The mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive list of demand-driven questions will help decision-makers (to ask and prioritize questions), evidence producers (to organize and present their work), and evidence-intermediaries (to connect evidence needs with evidence supply).

Matching the right study design to decision-maker questions: Results from a Delphi study

Research evidence can play an important role in each stage of decision-making, evidence-support systems play a key role in aligning the demand for and supply of evidence. This paper provides guidance on what type of study designs most suitably address questions asked by decision-makers. This study used a two-round online Delphi approach, including methodological experts in different areas, disciplines, and geographic locations. Participants prioritized study designs for each of 40 different types of question, with a Kendall's W greater than 0.6 and reaching statistical significance (p<0.05) considered as a consensus. For each type of question, we sorted the final rankings based on their median ranks and interquartile ranges, and listed the four study designs with the highest median ranks. Participants provided 29 answers in the two rounds of the Delphi, and reached a consensus for 28 (out of the 40) questions (eight in the first round and 20 in the second). Participants achieved a consensus for 8 of 15 questions in stage I (clarifying a societal problem, its causes, and potential impacts), 12 of 13 in stage II (finding options to address a problem) and four of six in each of stages III (implementing or scaling-up an option) and IV (monitoring implementation and evaluating impact). This paper provides guidance on what study designs are more suitable to give insights on 28 different types of questions. Decision-makers, evidence intermediaries (, researchers and funders can use this guidance to make better decisions on what type of study design to commission, use or fund when answering specific needs.

A comprehensive monitoring and evaluation framework for evidence to policy networks

OBJECTIVE

To describe the development of a framework for monitoring and evaluating knowledge translation (KT) networks.

METHOD

The framework was developed using mixed methods over four phases, including i) a targeted literature review of KT networks, activities and indicators, ii) two scoping reviews to further enhance the set of indicators, iii) peer-reviews by international KT experts and an online expert consultation, and iv) piloting.

RESULTS

A comprehensive theory of change (ToC) and indicators, both for the Network Secretariat and its participating member countries, were identified to develop the monitoring and evaluation framework. The framework includes (i) a ToC, including three key indicator domains across the results chain (outputs, short term outcomes, intermediate outcomes), and (ii) indicators for the three key domains, that can be selected depending on the stage of network maturity, along with suggested data collection methods. The three key indicator domains are 1) KT capacity and skill building; 2) network (structure, governance and leadership); and 3) KT/evidence-informed policy value and culture.

CONCLUSION

The monitoring and evaluation framework that links KT activities with policy and health outcomes fills an important gap in optimizing KT procedures, generating lessons learned and increasing accountability of major multipartner KT networks.

Pharmaceutical subsidy policy in Iran: a qualitative stakeholder analysis

BACKGROUND

Over the past three decades, allocation of foreign currency subsidies has been the primary strategy of various administrations in Iran to improve access to medicines. This strategy has resulted in several challenges, including stakeholder conflicts of interest.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the power, interest, and role of the stakeholders in allocating foreign currency subsidies to medicines in the Iranian health system.

METHODS

In this qualitative study, 39 semi-structured interviews were conducted. Key informants were recruited using a purposive sampling technique. The theoretical framework adopted by Varvasovszky and Brugha was employed. The data were analysed using directed content analysis.

RESULTS

The foreign currency subsidy for medicines included 21 stakeholders in five main categories: governmental organizations, Iranian Parliament, general population, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and the pharmaceutical industry. Stakeholders varied in their level of participation and support in the policy-making process. Among them, the Iranian Government, Planning and Budget Organization, the Ministry of Health and Medical Education (MoHME), and Iran Food and Drug Administration (IFDA) were the most important stakeholders, with highly supportive positions, while domestic drug manufacturers were the strongest opponents of this policy. The Government of Iran is the most powerful institution with regard to the ability to allocate foreign currency subsidies to medicines, followed by the MoHME and the IFDA.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that identifying and analysing the stakeholders involved in allocating foreign currency subsidies to medicines can provide valuable information for policy-makers to enable a more comprehensive understanding and better capacity to determine whether or not to eliminate these subsidies. Moreover, decision-making in this process is a long-term issue that requires consensus among all stakeholders. Because of the political and social consequences of eliminating foreign currency subsidies, the necessary political will is not institutionalized. We recommend a step-by-step approach in eliminating foreign currency subsidies if the requirements are met (i.e., those related to the consequences of such interventions). Therefore, revision of the current policy along with these requirements, in addition to financial transparency and enhanced efficiency, will facilitate progress towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals by improving access to medicines.

Paper 3: Selecting rapid review methods for complex questions related to health policy and system issues

Approaches for rapid reviews that focus on streamlining systematic review methods are not always suitable for exploring complex policy questions, as developing and testing theories to explain these complexities requires configuring diverse qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies. Our objective was therefore to provide a guide to selecting approaches for rapidly (i.e., within days to months) addressing complex questions related to health policy and system issues.We provide a two-stage, transdisciplinary collaborative process to select a rapid review approach to address complex policy questions, which consists of scoping the breadth and depth of the literature and then selecting an optimal approach to synthesis. The first stage (scoping the literature) begins with a discussion with the stakeholders requesting evidence to identify and refine the question for the review, which is then used to conduct preliminary searches and conceptually map the documents identified. In the second stage (selection of an optimal approach), further stakeholder consultation is required to refine and tailor the question and approach to identifying relevant documents to include. The approach to synthesizing the included documents is then guided by the final question, the breadth and depth of the literature, and the time available and can include a static or evolving conceptual framework to code and analyze a range of evidence. For areas already covered extensively by existing systematic reviews, the focus can be on summarizing and integrating the review findings, resynthesizing the primary studies, or updating the search and reanalyzing one or more of the systematic reviews.The choice of approaches for conducting rapid reviews is intertwined with decisions about how to manage projects, the amount of work to be done, and the knowledge already available, and our guide offers support to help make these strategic decisions.

"Everyone Has the Right to Drink Beer": A Stakeholder Analysis of Challenges to Youth Alcohol Harm-Reduction Policies in Lebanon

BACKGROUND

Alcohol use is a major risk factor in premature death and disability, especially among youth. Evidence-based policies to prevent and control the detrimental effect of alcohol use have been recommended. In countries with weak alcohol control policies-such as Lebanon, stakeholder analysis provides critical information to influence policy interventions. This paper assesses the views of stakeholders regarding a national alcohol harm reduction policy for youth.

METHODS

We interviewed a total of 22 key stakeholders over a period of 8 months in 2015. Stakeholders were selected purposively, to include representatives of governmental and non-governmental organizations and industry that could answer questions related to core intervention areas: affordability, availability, regulation of marketing, and drinking and driving. We analyzed interview transcripts using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three themes emerged: Inadequacy of current alcohol control policies; weak governance and disregard for rule of law as a determinant of the status quo; and diverting of responsibility towards 'other' stakeholders. In addition, industry representatives argued against evidence-based policies using time-worn strategies identified globally.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that alcohol harm reduction policies are far from becoming a policy priority in Lebanon. There is a clear need to shift the narrative from victim blaming to structural conditions.

Developing recommendations for neonatal inpatient care service categories: reflections from the research, policy and practice interface in Kenya

Neonatal deaths contribute a growing proportion to childhood mortality, and increasing access to inpatient newborn care has been identified as a potential driver of improvements in child health. However, previous work by this research team identified substantial gaps in the coverage and standardisation of inpatient newborn care in Nairobi City County, Kenya. To address the issue in this particular setting, we sought to draft recommendations on the categorisation of neonatal inpatient services through a process of policy review, evidence collation and examination of guidance in other countries. This work supported discussions by a panel of local experts representing a diverse set of stakeholders, who focused on formulating pragmatic, context-relevant guidance. Experts in the discussions rapidly agreed on overarching priorities guiding their decision-making, and that three categories of inpatient neonatal care (standard, intermediate and intensive care) were appropriate. Through a modified nominal group technique, they achieved consensus on allocating 36 of the 38 proposed services to these categories and made linked recommendations on minimum healthcare worker requirements (skill mix and staff numbers). This process was embedded in the local context where the need had been identified, and required only modest resources to produce recommendations on the categorisation of newborn inpatient care that the experts agreed could be relevant in other Kenyan settings. Recommendations prioritised the strengthening of existing facilities linked to a need to develop effective referral systems. In particular, expansion of access to the standard category of inpatient neonatal care was recommended. The process and the agreed categorisations could inform discussion in other low-resource settings seeking to address unmet needs for inpatient neonatal care.

When "Good Evidence" Is Not Enough: A Case of Global Malaria Policy Development

This paper presents findings from a case study of two different policy development processes within the WHO's malaria department. By comparing the policy processes for the interventions of intermittent preventive treatment in infants versus children, the findings suggest that "good evidence" from a technical perspective, though important, is not sufficient to ensure universal agreement and uptake of recommendations. An analysis of 29 key informant interviews finds that evidence also needs to be relevant to the policy question being asked, and that expert actors retain a concern over the legitimacy of the process by which technical evidence is brought to bear in the policy development process. Previous findings from the field of sustainable development, that evidence must be credible, salient, and legitimate to be accepted by the public, appears to apply equally within scientific advisory committees. While the WHO has principally focused on technical criteria for evidence inclusion in its policy development processes, this study suggests that the design and functionality of its advisory bodies must also enable transparent, responsive, and accepted processes of evidence review to ensure that these bodies are effective in producing advice that engenders change in policy and practice.

Developing a workbook to support the contextualisation of global health systems guidance: a case study identifying steps and critical factors for success in this process at WHO

BACKGROUND

Global guidance can help countries strengthen their health systems to deliver effective interventions to their populations. However, to have an impact, guidance needs to be contextualised or adapted to local settings; this process includes consideration of health system arrangements and political system factors. To date, methods to support contextualisation do not exist. In response, a workbook was designed to provide specific methods and strategies to enable the contextualisation of WHO's 'Optimizing health worker roles to improve maternal and newborn health' (OptimizeMNH) guidance at the national or subnational level. The objective of this study was to describe the process of developing the workbook and identify key steps of the development process, barriers that arose and facilitators that helped overcome some of these barriers.

METHODS

A qualitative single case study design was carried out. Interviews, documents and a reflexive journal were used. Constant comparison and an edit-style of organisation were used during data analysis to develop concepts, themes, subthemes and relationships among them.

RESULTS

Thirteen interviews were conducted and 52 documents were reviewed. Three main steps were identified in the process of developing the workbook for health systems guidance contextualisation, namely (1) determining the need for and gaining approval to develop the workbook, (2) developing the workbook (taking on the task, creating the structure of the workbook, operationalising its components, undergoing approval processes and editing it), and (3) implementing the workbook both at the WHO level and at the national/subnational level. Five barriers and/or facilitators emerged relevant to each step, namely (1) having well-placed and credible champions, (2) creating and capitalising on opportunities, (3) finding the right language to engage various actors and obtain buy-in, (4) obtaining and maintaining meaningful buy-in, and (5) ensuring access to resources.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding the key steps and the critical factors involved in the process of developing the workbook could help in the planning of similar and other tools aimed to support the implementation of WHO guidance. A plan for dissemination and implementation needs to be addressed during the preparation of these tools.

Pharmaceutical interventions in mental health: A review of the literature to support evidence-informed policymaking

BACKGROUND

Pharmaceutical interventions may have an impact on different treatment aspects, such as therapy adherence, reducing the number of different medications in use and lowering treatment costs.

OBJECTIVE

Identify pharmaceutical interventions in the mental health field and their possible application in Brazilian public mental health services, considering the evidence-based model to establish implementation options.

METHODS

A structured search of the literature was performed in the Pubmed (Medline), Cochrane, PsycINFO and Lilacs databases to identify the main pharmaceutical intervention studies conducted in the mental health area. The articles selected were evaluated according to the quality of the evidence. The current laws and public database were researched to collect information on services and procedures provided by the Brazilian units, known as CAPS, and the number the pharmacists allocated to them. The proposal to synthesize the results of pharmaceutical interventions in Brazil was based on SUPPORT methodology items to prepare evidence-based policies.

RESULTS

A total of 1442 studies were identified, 18 of which were included. Several interventions are reported in the literature, educational interventions being frequently cited. However, there is a need for further studies with more methodological rigor. The number of pharmacists working in the CAPS is insufficient to cover all the services, since only 26.5% of CAPS employ pharmacists, who work an average of 29 (±11.1) hours a week. Three options were formulated to implement interventions in the Brazilian context that consider including pharmacists on the basic team of CAPS professionals and educational interventions through pharmacist training.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study could support the establishment of health policies, based on a synthesis of the evidence, contextualization of the current situation, given the absence of local evidence, and a discussion of the options available to implement pharmaceutical interventions in the Brazilian health system. Organizational changes in CAPS are needed to broaden pharmacist participation on the multidisciplinary team.

Using Evidence To Inform Practice and Policy To Enhance the Quality of Care for Persons with Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury

In today's economic climate, there is a need to demonstrate a return on investment for healthcare spending and for clinical practice and policy to be informed by evidence. Navigating this process is difficult for decision-makers, clinicians, and researchers alike. This article will describe how a knowledge translation framework and an evidence-based policy-making process were integrated to clarify the problem, frame options, and plan implementation, to impact clinical practice and policy in the area of traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI). The Access to Care and Timing (ACT) project is focused on optimizing the access and timing of specialized healthcare delivery for persons sustaining a tSCI in Canada. A simulation model was developed that uses current patient data to address complex problems faced by the healthcare system. At a workshop, participants stressed the importance of linking interventions to short- and long-term outcomes to drive change. Presently, there are no national, system level indicators to monitor performance after tSCI. Although the ideal system of care after tSCI is unknown, indicator collection will establish a baseline to measure improvement. The workshop participants prioritized two indicators important from the clinician and patient perspective-timely admission to rehabilitation and meaningful community participation. The ACT simulation model for tSCI care will be used to promote the uptake of identified indicators and provide a predictive link between interventions on potential outcomes. The standardized collection of outcome-oriented indicators will help to evaluate the access and timing of care and to define the ideal system of care after SCI.

Exploring the dynamics of food-related policymaking processes and evidence use in Fiji using systems thinking

BACKGROUND

Obesity and non-communicable diseases are significant public health issues globally and particularly in the Pacific. Poor diet is a major contributor to this issue and policy change is a powerful lever to improve food security and diet quality. This study aims to apply systems thinking to identify the causes and consequences of poor evidence use in food-related policymaking in selected government ministries in Fiji and to illicit strategies to strengthen the use of evidence in policymaking.

METHODS

The Ministry of Health and Medical Services and the Ministry of Agriculture in Fiji were invited through their respective Permanent Secretaries to participate in the study. Three 180-minute group model building (GMB) workshops were conducted separately in each ministry over three consecutive days with selected policymakers who were instrumental in developing food-related policies designed to prevent non-communicable diseases. The GMB workshops mapped the process of food-related policymaking and the contribution of scientific and local evidence to the process, and identified actions to enhance the use of evidence in policymaking.

RESULTS

An average of 10 policymakers participated from each ministry. The causal loop diagrams produced by each ministry illustrated the causes and consequences of insufficient evidence use in developing food policies or precursors of the specific actions. These included (1) consultation, (2) engagement with stakeholders, (3) access and use of evidence, and (4) delays in policy processes. Participants agreed to potential leverage points on the themes above, addressing pertinent policymaker challenges in precursor control, including political influence, understanding of trade policies, competing government priorities and level of awareness on the problem. Specific actions for strengthening evidence use included training in policy development and research skills, and strengthening of coordination between ministries.

CONCLUSIONS

The GMB workshops improved participants' understanding of how different parts of the policy system interact. The causal loop diagrams and subsequent action plans enabled the identification of systems-level interventions in both ministries to improve evidence-informed policy development. A guide for integrating multi-sectoral consultation and stakeholder engagement in developing cross-cutting policies is currently being developed.

Suggestions for the promotion of evidence-based public health in South Korea

Evidence-based public health (EBPH) is defined as public health decision-making based on current best evidence. Debates about the latent tuberculosis infection control program suggested by the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2017 highlight the need to promote EBPH. Three strategies have been proposed, including providing necessary evidence by evaluating policy-evidence gaps; delivering high-quality, relevant, and timely evidence by conducting systematic reviews and adapting public health guidelines; and making value-driven decisions by training and educating public health policymakers.

The comprehensive 'Communicate to Vaccinate' taxonomy of communication interventions for childhood vaccination in routine and campaign contexts

BACKGROUND

Communication can be used to generate demand for vaccination or address vaccine hesitancy, and is crucial to successful childhood vaccination programmes. Research efforts have primarily focused on communication for routine vaccination. However, vaccination campaigns, particularly in low- or middle-income countries (LMICs), also use communication in diverse ways. Without a comprehensive framework integrating communication interventions from routine and campaign contexts, it is not possible to conceptualise the full range of possible vaccination communication interventions. Therefore, vaccine programme managers may be unaware of potential communication options and researchers may not focus on building evidence for interventions used in practice. In this paper, we broaden the scope of our existing taxonomy of communication interventions for routine vaccination to include communication used in campaigns, and integrate these into a comprehensive taxonomy of vaccination communication interventions.

METHODS

Building on our taxonomy of communication for routine vaccination, we identified communication interventions used in vaccination campaigns through a targeted literature search; observation of vaccination activities in Cameroon, Mozambique and Nigeria; and stakeholder consultations. We added these interventions to descriptions of routine vaccination communication and categorised the interventions according to their intended purposes, building from an earlier taxonomy of communication related to routine vaccination.

RESULTS

The comprehensive taxonomy groups communication used in campaigns and routine childhood vaccination into seven purpose categories: 'Inform or Educate'; 'Remind or Recall'; 'Enhance Community Ownership'; 'Teach Skills'; 'Provide Support'; 'Facilitate Decision Making' and 'Enable Communication'. Consultations with LMIC stakeholders and experts informed the taxonomy's definitions and structure and established its potential uses.

CONCLUSIONS

This taxonomy provides a standardised way to think and speak about vaccination communication. It is categorised by purpose to help conceptualise communication interventions as potential solutions to address needs or problems. It can be utilised by programme planners, implementers, researchers and funders to see the range of communication interventions used in practice, facilitate evidence synthesis and identify evidence gaps.

An interpretive review of consensus statements on clinical guideline development and their application in the field of traditional and complementary medicine

BACKGROUND

Despite ongoing consumer demand and an emerging scientific evidence-base for traditional and complementary medicine (T&CM), there remains a paucity of reliable information in standard clinical guidelines about their use. Often T&CM interventions are not mentioned, or the recommendations arising from these guidelines are unhelpful to end-users (i.e. patients, practitioners and policy makers). Insufficient evidence of efficacy may be a contributing factor; however, often informative recommendations could still be made by drawing on relevant information from other avenues. In light of this, the aim of this research was to review national and internationally endorsed consensus statements for clinical guideline developers, and to interpret how to apply these methods when making recommendations regarding the use of T&CM.

METHOD

The critical interpretive review method was used to identify and appraise relevant consensus statements published between 1995 and 2015. The statements were identified using a purposive sampling technique until data saturation was reached. The most recent edition of a statement was included in the analysis. The content, scope and themes of the statements were compared and interpreted within the context of the T&CM setting; including history, regulation, use, emerging scientific evidence-base and existing guidelines.

RESULTS

Eight consensus statements were included in the interpretive review. Searching stopped at this stage as no new major themes were identified. The five themes relevant to the challenges of developing T&CM guidelines were: (1) framing the question; (2) the limitations of using an evidence hierarchy; (3) strategies for dealing with insufficient, high quality evidence; (4) the importance of qualifying a recommendation; and (5) the need for structured consensus development.

CONCLUSION

Evidence regarding safety, efficacy and cost effectiveness are not the only information required to make recommendations for clinical guidelines. Modifying factors such as burden of disease, magnitude of effect, current use, demand, equity and ease of integration should also be considered. Uptake of the recommendations arising from this review are expected to result in the development of higher quality clinical guidelines that offer greater assistance to those seeking answers about the appropriate use of T&CM.

Factors affecting evidence-use in food policy-making processes in health and agriculture in Fiji

BACKGROUND

There is limited research on the use of evidence to inform policy-making in the Pacific. This study aims to identify and describe factors that facilitate or limit the use of evidence in food-related policy-making in the Health and Agriculture Ministries in Fiji.

METHODS

Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with selected policy-makers in two government ministries that were instrumental in the development of food-related policies in Fiji designed to prevent Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs). Snowball sampling was used to recruit, as key informants, senior policy-makers in management positions such as national advisors and directors who were based at either the national headquarters or equivalent. Interviewees were asked about their experiences in developing food-related or other policies, barriers or facilitators encountered in the policy development and implementation process and the use of evidence. Each interview lasted approximately 45-60 minutes, and was conducted in English. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed, thematically coded and analyzed using N-Vivo 8.0 software.

RESULTS

Thirty-one policy-makers from the Ministry of Health and Medical Services (MoHMS n = 18) and the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA n = 13) in Fiji participated in the study. Whilst evidence is sometimes used in food-related policy-making in both the Health and Agriculture Ministries (including formal evidence such as published research and informal evidence such as personal experiences and opinions), it is not yet embedded as an essential part of the process. Participants indicated that a lack of resources, poor technical support in terms of training, the absence of clear strategies for improving competent use of evidence, procedures regarding engagement with other stakeholders across sectors, varying support from senior managers and limited consultation across sectors were barriers to evidence use. The willingness of organizations to create a culture of using evidence was reported as a facilitator.

CONCLUSION

The use of evidence in policy-making will only become a reality in Fiji if it is a formalized part of the government's policy-making systems. A systems approach to food-related policy-making and implementation may achieve this by helping Ministries manage the complex and dynamic nature of food-related policy-making in Fiji.

Developments in Impact Assessment of New Diagnostic Algorithms for Tuberculosis Control

A modified presentation of the impact assessment framework is proposed that improves accessibility while continuing to provide a checklist of the evidence needed to support policy decisions on the implementation of new tools for the diagnosis of tuberculosis.

Methods of a multi-faceted rapid knowledge synthesis project to inform the implementation of a new health service model: Collaborative Emergency Centres

BACKGROUND

The aim of this rapid knowledge synthesis was to provide relevant research evidence to inform the implementation of a new health service in Nova Scotia, Canada: Collaborative Emergency Centres (CECs). CECs propose to deliver both primary and urgent care to rural populations where traditional delivery is a challenge. This paper reports on the methods used in a rapid knowledge synthesis project to provide timely evidence to policy makers about this novel healthcare delivery model.

METHODS

We used a variety of methods, including a jurisdictional/scoping review, modified systematic review methodologies, and integrated knowledge translation. We scanned publicly available information about similar centres across our country to identify important components of CECs and CEC-type models to operationalize the definition of a CEC. We conducted literature searches in PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE, and in the grey literature, to identify evidence on the key structures and processes and effectiveness of CEC-type models of care delivery. Our searches were limited to published systematic reviews. The research team facilitated two integrated knowledge translation workshops during the project to engage stakeholders, to refine the research goals and objectives, and to share interim and final results. Citations and included articles were categorized by whether they addressed the CEC model or component structures and processes. Data and key messages were extracted from these reviews to inform implementation.

RESULTS

CEC-type models have limited peer-reviewed evidence available; no peer-reviewed studies on CECs as a standalone healthcare model were found. As a result, our evidence search and synthesis was revised to focus on core CEC-type structures and processes, prioritized through consensus methods with the stakeholder group, and resulted in provision of a meaningful evidence synthesis to help inform the development and implementation of CECs in Nova Scotia.

CONCLUSIONS

A variety of methods and partnership with decision-makers and stakeholders enabled the project to address the limitations in the evidence regarding CECs and meet the challenge of identifying the best available evidence in a transparent way to meet the needs of decision-makers in a short timeframe.

Context analysis for epidemic control in the Netherlands

When epidemics occur, experts advise the Ministries on effective control measures. There is uncertainty in the translation of epidemiological evidence into effective outbreak management interventions, due to contradicatory problem perspectives, diverse interests and time pressure. Several models have been developed that aim to integrate societal context information in risk assessment to improve the feasibility and the implementation of adviced measures. The current study explored the views of relevant public officials on this issue using the Rapid Risk Assessment of Acute Public Health Events model of the World Health Organization. Eighteen public officials involved in infectious disease risk assessment and policy making in the Netherlands participated in semi-structured qualitative interviews. Their experiences, expectations and expert opinions on the use of societal context information for infectious disease outbreak control were explored. Most interviewees consider information on societal context necessary for infectious disease risk management. However, different perspectives exist on which information is relevant, and how, when, why and by whom it should be obtained. We conclude that outbreak control could benefit from systematically gathered information on the societal context. This requires identifying which information is beneficial and selecting or designing methods to obtain it. Explicit stakeholder assessment seems a first step.

How contexts and issues influence the use of policy-relevant research syntheses: a critical interpretive synthesis

CONTEXT

Evidence briefs have emerged as a promising approach to synthesizing the best available research evidence for health system policymakers and stakeholders. An evidence brief may draw on systematic reviews and many other types of policy-relevant information, including local data and studies, to describe a problem, options for addressing it, and key implementation considerations. We conducted a systematic review to examine the ways in which context- and issue-related factors influence the perceived usefulness of evidence briefs among their intended users.

METHODS

We used a critical interpretive synthesis approach to review both empirical and nonempirical literature and to develop a model that explains how context and issues influence policymakers' and stakeholders' views of the utility of evidence briefs prepared for priority policy issues. We used a "compass" question to create a detailed search strategy and conducted electronic searches in CINAHL, EMBASE, HealthSTAR, IPSA, MEDLINE, OAIster (gray literature), ProQuest A&I Theses, ProQuest (Sociological Abstracts, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Worldwide Political Science Abstracts, International Bibliography of Social Sciences, PAIS, Political Science), PsychInfo, Web of Science, and WilsonWeb (Social Science Abstracts). Finally, we used a grounded and interpretive analytic approach to synthesize the results.

FINDINGS

Of the 4,461 papers retrieved, 3,908 were excluded and 553 were assessed for "relevance," with 137 included in the initial sample of papers to be analyzed and an additional 23 purposively sampled to fill conceptual gaps. Several themes emerged: (1) many established types of "evidence" are viewed as useful content in an evidence brief, along with several promising formatting features; (2) contextual factors, particularly the institutions, interests, and values of a given context, can influence views of evidence briefs; (3) whether an issue is polarizing and whether it is salient (or not) and familiar (or not) to actors in the policy arena can influence views of evidence briefs prepared for that issue; (4) influential factors can emerge in several ways (as context driven, issue driven, or a result of issue-context resonance); (5) these factors work through two primary pathways, affecting either the users or the producers of briefs; and (6) these factors influence views of evidence briefs through a variety of mechanisms.

CONCLUSIONS

Those persons funding and preparing evidence briefs need to consider a variety of context- and issue-related factors when deciding how to make them most useful in policymaking.

Knowledge brokering between researchers and policymakers in Fiji to develop policies to reduce obesity: a process evaluation

BACKGROUND

The importance of using research evidence in decisionmaking at the policy level has been increasingly recognized. However, knowledge brokering to engage researchers and policymakers in government and non-government organizations is challenging. This paper describes and evaluates the knowledge exchange processes employed by the Translational Research on Obesity Prevention in Communities (TROPIC) project that was conducted from July 2009 to April 2012 in Fiji. TROPIC aimed to enhance: the evidence-informed decisionmaking skills of policy developers; and awareness and utilization of local and other obesity-related evidence to develop policies that could potentially improve the nation's food and physical activity environments. The specific research question was: Can a knowledge brokering approach advance evidence-informed policy development to improve eating and physical activity environments in Fiji.

METHODS

The intervention comprised: recruiting organizations and individuals; mapping policy environments; analyzing organizational capacity and support for evidence-informed policymaking (EIPM); developing EIPM skills; and facilitating development of evidence-informed policy briefs. Flexible timetabling of activities was essential to accommodate multiple competing priorities at both individual and organizational levels. Process diaries captured the duration, frequency and type of each interaction and/or activity between the knowledge brokering team and participants or their organizations.

RESULTS

Partnerships were formalized with high-level officers in each of the six participating organization. Participants (n = 49) developed EIPM skills (acquire, assess, adapt and apply evidence) through a series of four workshops and applied this knowledge to formulate briefs with ongoing one-to-one support from TROPIC team members. A total of 55% of participants completed the 12 to18 month intervention, and 63% produced one or more briefs (total = 20) that were presented to higher-level officers within their organizations. The knowledge brokering team spent an average of 30 hours per participant during the entire TROPIC process.

CONCLUSIONS

Active engagement of participating organizations from the outset resulted in strong individual and organizational commitment to the project. The TROPIC initiative provided a win-win situation, with participants expanding skills in EIPM and policy development, organizations increasing EIPM capacity, and researchers providing data to inform policy.

Human resource capacity to effectively implement malaria elimination: a policy brief for Ethiopia

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate malaria elimination in Ethiopia. Ethiopia has planned to eliminate malaria by 2015 in areas of unstable malaria transmission and in the entire country by 2020. However, there is a shortage and maldistribution of the health workforce in general and malaria experts in particular. Training, motivating, and retaining the health workforce involved in malaria control is one strategy to address the shortage and maldistribution of the health workforce to achieve the goal of elimination.

METHODS

Policy options include the following: (i) in-service training (educational outreach visits, continuing education meetings and workshops, audit and feedback, tailored interventions, and guideline dissemination) may improve professional practice; (ii) recruiting and training malaria specialists together with academic support, career guidance, and social support may increase the number of malaria experts; and (iii) motivation and retention packages (such as financial, educational, personal, and professional support incentives) may help motivate and retain malaria professionals.

RESULTS

Implementation strategies include the following: (i) massive training of health personnel involved in malaria elimination and malaria experts (requiring special training) at different levels (national, sub-national, District & community levels), and (ii) recruiting highly qualified health personnel and retention and motivation mechanisms are needed.

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of adequately trained human resources and personnel attrition are major challenges to effectively implement the planned multi-faceted malaria elimination by 2020 strategy in Ethiopia. Although a reduction in malaria incidence has been observed in the last 3-4 years, maintaining this success and achieving the malaria elimination goal with the present human resource profile will be impossible. A clear strategy for developing the capacity of the health workers in general, and malaria experts in particular, and retaining and motivating staff are crucial for malaria control and elimination.

Improving access to skilled attendance at delivery: a policy brief for Uganda

OBJECTIVE

This study describes the process of production, findings for a policy brief on Increasing Access to Skilled Birth Attendance, and subsequent use of the report by policy makers and others from the health sector in Uganda.

METHODS

The methods used to prepare the policy brief use the SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health policy making. The problem that this evidence brief addresses was identified through an explicit priority setting process involving policy makers and other stakeholders, further clarification with key informant interviews of relevant policy makers, and review of relevant documents. A working group of national stakeholder representatives and external reviewers commented on and contributed to successive drafts of the report. Research describing the problem, policy options, and implementation considerations was identified by reviewing government documents, routinely collected data, electronic literature searches, contact with key informants, and reviewing the reference lists of relevant documents that were retrieved.

RESULTS

The proportion of pregnant women delivering from public and private non-profit facilities was low at 34 percent in 2008/09. The three policy options discussed in the report could be adopted independently or complementary to the other to increase access to skilled care. The Ministry of Health in deliberating to provide intrapartum care at first level health facilities from the second level of care, requested for research evidence to support these decisions. Maternal waiting shelters and working with the private-for-profit sector to facilitate deliveries in health facilities are promising complementary interventions that have been piloted in both the public and private health sector. A combination of strategies is needed to effectively implement the proposed options as discussed further in this article.

CONCLUSIONS

The policy brief report was used as a background document for two stakeholder dialogue meetings involving members of parliament, policy makers, health managers, researchers, civil society, professional organizations, and the media.

Policy development, implementation and evaluation by the AIDS control program in Uganda: a review of the processes

Background

The AIDS Control Program (ACP) in Uganda has spearheaded the national health sector HIV response for the last three decades. ACP has developed, revised and implemented various HIV prevention, care and treatment policies in order to keep interventions relevant to the changing dynamics of the HIV epidemic. However, the ACP team and partners remain concerned about the lengthy policy development processes. This study documented the policy development and revision processes to identify strengths and weaknesses in order to inform adjustments as Uganda embraces the move to ‘zero’ HIV infections.

Methods

Data was collected through a review of the relevant policy documents and key informant interviews with the five program officers involved in the recently developed Safe Male Circumcision (SMC) policy and the recently revised HIV Counseling and Testing (HCT) policy. Qualitative data was analyzed manually using pre-determined themes.

Results

Development and revision of the SMC and HCT policies followed similar processes that included a series of meetings between senior management and a selected technical working group. However, the gaps included: i) inadequate awareness of the existence of national policy development and management guidelines; ii) limited engagement of the policy analysis unit in the policy development/revision processes; iii) inadequate tracking and evaluation of the policies before revision or development of new related policies; iv) lack of specific protocols/standard operating procedures (SOPs); and, v) limited indigenous funding for the entire policy development processes which contributed to non-adherence to the anticipated timelines.

Conclusions

Policy development and revision of the SMC and HCT policies followed similar processes. Gaps identified included lack of protocols/SOPs for the processes and limited indigenous funding to support adherence to anticipated timelines. We recommend active involvement of the policy analysis unit in all policy processes. Specific protocols/SOPs for development, analysis, revision, implementation, monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment processes should be developed prior to commencement of the activities.

Cochrane systematic reviews are useful to map research gaps for decreasing maternal mortality

OBJECTIVES

To use an "evidence-mapping" approach to assess the usefulness of Cochrane reviews in identifying research gaps in the maternal health.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

The article describes the general mapping, prioritizing, reconciling, and updating approach: (1) identifying gaps in the maternal health research using published systematic reviews and formulating research questions, (2) prioritizing questions using Delphi method, (3) reconciling identified research priorities with the existing literature (i.e., searching of ongoing trials in trials registries), (4) updating the process. A comprehensive search of Cochrane systematic reviews published or updated from January 2006 to March 2011 was performed. We evaluated the "Implications for Research" section to identify gaps in the research.

RESULTS

Our search strategy identified 695 references; 178 systematic reviews identifying at least one research gap were used. We formulated 319 research questions, which were classified into 11 different categories based on the direct and indirect causes of maternal mortality: postpartum hemorrhage, abortion, hypertensive disorders, infection/sepsis, caesarean section, diabetes, pregnancy prevention, preterm labor, other direct causes, indirect causes, and health policies and systems. Most research questions concerned the effectiveness of clinical interventions, including drugs (42.6%), nonpharmacologic interventions (16.3%), and health system (14.7%).

CONCLUSION

It is possible to identify gaps in the maternal health research by using this approach.

Knowledge exchange in the Pacific: The TROPIC (Translational Research into Obesity Prevention Policies for Communities) project

BACKGROUND

Policies targeting obesogenic environments and behaviours are critical to counter rising obesity rates and lifestyle-related non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Policies are likely to be most effective and enduring when they are based on the best available evidence. Evidence-informed policy making is especially challenging in countries with limited resources. The Pacific TROPIC (Translational Research for Obesity Prevention in Communities) project aims to implement and evaluate a tailored knowledge-brokering approach to evidence-informed policy making to address obesity in Fiji, a Pacific nation challenged by increasingly high rates of obesity and concomitant NCDs.

METHODS

The TROPIC project draws on the concept of 'knowledge exchange' between policy developers (individuals; organisations) and researchers to deliver a knowledge broking programme that maps policy environments, conducts workshops on evidence-informed policy making, supports the development of evidence-informed policy briefs, and embeds evidence-informed policy making into organisational culture. Recruitment of government and nongovernment organisational representatives will be based on potential to: develop policies relevant to obesity, reach broad audiences, and commit to resourcing staff and building a culture that supports evidence-informed policy development. Workshops will increase awareness of both obesity and policy cycles, as well as develop participants' skills in accessing, assessing and applying relevant evidence to policy briefs. The knowledge-broking team will then support participants to: 1) develop evidence-informed policy briefs that are both commensurate with national and organisational plans and also informed by evidence from the Pacific Obesity Prevention in Communities project and elsewhere; and 2) collaborate with participating organisations to embed evidence-informed policy making structures and processes. This knowledge broking initiative will be evaluated via data from semi-structured interviews, a validated self-assessment tool, process diaries and outputs.

DISCUSSION

Public health interventions have rarely targeted evidence-informed policy making structures and processes to reduce obesity and NCDs. This study will empirically advance understanding of knowledge broking processes to extend evidence-informed policy making skills and develop a suite of national obesity-related policies that can potentially improve population health outcomes.

Knowledge translation of research findings

BACKGROUND

One of the most consistent findings from clinical and health services research is the failure to translate research into practice and policy. As a result of these evidence-practice and policy gaps, patients fail to benefit optimally from advances in healthcare and are exposed to unnecessary risks of iatrogenic harms, and healthcare systems are exposed to unnecessary expenditure resulting in significant opportunity costs. Over the last decade, there has been increasing international policy and research attention on how to reduce the evidence-practice and policy gap. In this paper, we summarise the current concepts and evidence to guide knowledge translation activities, defined as T2 research (the translation of new clinical knowledge into improved health). We structure the article around five key questions: what should be transferred; to whom should research knowledge be transferred; by whom should research knowledge be transferred; how should research knowledge be transferred; and, with what effect should research knowledge be transferred?

DISCUSSION

We suggest that the basic unit of knowledge translation should usually be up-to-date systematic reviews or other syntheses of research findings. Knowledge translators need to identify the key messages for different target audiences and to fashion these in language and knowledge translation products that are easily assimilated by different audiences. The relative importance of knowledge translation to different target audiences will vary by the type of research and appropriate endpoints of knowledge translation may vary across different stakeholder groups. There are a large number of planned knowledge translation models, derived from different disciplinary, contextual (i.e., setting), and target audience viewpoints. Most of these suggest that planned knowledge translation for healthcare professionals and consumers is more likely to be successful if the choice of knowledge translation strategy is informed by an assessment of the likely barriers and facilitators. Although our evidence on the likely effectiveness of different strategies to overcome specific barriers remains incomplete, there is a range of informative systematic reviews of interventions aimed at healthcare professionals and consumers (i.e., patients, family members, and informal carers) and of factors important to research use by policy makers.

SUMMARY

There is a substantial (if incomplete) evidence base to guide choice of knowledge translation activities targeting healthcare professionals and consumers. The evidence base on the effects of different knowledge translation approaches targeting healthcare policy makers and senior managers is much weaker but there are a profusion of innovative approaches that warrant further evaluation.

Knowledge translation of research findings

BACKGROUND

One of the most consistent findings from clinical and health services research is the failure to translate research into practice and policy. As a result of these evidence-practice and policy gaps, patients fail to benefit optimally from advances in healthcare and are exposed to unnecessary risks of iatrogenic harms, and healthcare systems are exposed to unnecessary expenditure resulting in significant opportunity costs. Over the last decade, there has been increasing international policy and research attention on how to reduce the evidence-practice and policy gap. In this paper, we summarise the current concepts and evidence to guide knowledge translation activities, defined as T2 research (the translation of new clinical knowledge into improved health). We structure the article around five key questions: what should be transferred; to whom should research knowledge be transferred; by whom should research knowledge be transferred; how should research knowledge be transferred; and, with what effect should research knowledge be transferred?

DISCUSSION

We suggest that the basic unit of knowledge translation should usually be up-to-date systematic reviews or other syntheses of research findings. Knowledge translators need to identify the key messages for different target audiences and to fashion these in language and knowledge translation products that are easily assimilated by different audiences. The relative importance of knowledge translation to different target audiences will vary by the type of research and appropriate endpoints of knowledge translation may vary across different stakeholder groups. There are a large number of planned knowledge translation models, derived from different disciplinary, contextual (i.e., setting), and target audience viewpoints. Most of these suggest that planned knowledge translation for healthcare professionals and consumers is more likely to be successful if the choice of knowledge translation strategy is informed by an assessment of the likely barriers and facilitators. Although our evidence on the likely effectiveness of different strategies to overcome specific barriers remains incomplete, there is a range of informative systematic reviews of interventions aimed at healthcare professionals and consumers (i.e., patients, family members, and informal carers) and of factors important to research use by policy makers.

SUMMARY

There is a substantial (if incomplete) evidence base to guide choice of knowledge translation activities targeting healthcare professionals and consumers. The evidence base on the effects of different knowledge translation approaches targeting healthcare policy makers and senior managers is much weaker but there are a profusion of innovative approaches that warrant further evaluation.

Guidance for evidence-informed policies about health systems: linking guidance development to policy development

In the second paper in a three-part series on health systems guidance, John Lavis and colleagues explore the challenge of linking guidance development and policy development at global and national levels.

Guidance for evidence-informed policies about health systems: assessing how much confidence to place in the research evidence

In the third paper in a three-part series on health systems guidance, Simon Lewin and colleagues explore the challenge of assessing how much confidence to place in evidence on health systems interventions.

Task shifting in maternal and child health care: an evidence brief for Uganda

THE PROBLEM

There is a shortage and maldistribution of medically trained health professionals to deliver cost-effective maternal and child health (MCH) services. Hence, cost-effective MCH services are not available to over half the population of Uganda and progress toward the Millennium Development Goals for MCH is slow. Optimizing the roles of less specialized health workers ("task shifting") is one strategy to address the shortage and maldistribution of more specialized health professionals.

POLICY OPTIONS

(i) Lay health workers (community health workers) may reduce morbidity and mortality in children under five and neonates; and training for traditional birth attendants may improve perinatal outcomes and appropriate referrals. (ii) Nursing assistants in facilities might increase the time available from nurses, midwives, and doctors to provide care that requires more training. (iii) Nurses and midwives to deliver cost-effective MCH interventions in areas where there is a shortage of doctors. (iv) Drug dispensers to promote and deliver cost-effective MCH interventions and improve the quality of the services they provide. The costs and cost-effectiveness of all four options are uncertain. Given the limitations of the currently available evidence, rigorous evaluation and monitoring of resource use and activities is warranted for all four options.

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

A clear policy on optimizing health worker roles. Community mobilization and reduction of out-of-pocket costs to improve mothers' knowledge and care-seeking behaviors, continuing education, and incentives to ensure health workers are competent and motivated, and community referral and transport schemes for MCH care are needed.

Supporting the use of health technology assessments in policy making about health systems

Objectives:The objective of this study is to profile the health technology assessments (HTAs) produced in Canada and other selected countries and assess their potential to inform policy making about health systems in jurisdictions other than the ones for which they were produced, and to develop and pilot test prototypes for packaging and assessing the relevance of HTAs for health system managers and policy makers.

Methods:We compiled an inventory of all HTAs that were produced by nine HTA agencies between September 2003 and August 2006; coded the title and abstract of each HTA according to the technologies assessed, methods used, and whether or not context-specific actionable messages were provided; developed a prototype for a structured, decision-relevant HTA summary and for a relevance-assessment form; and pilot-tested the prototypes using semistructured telephone interviews with a purposive sample of Canadian healthcare managers and policy makers.

Results:Our review of the 223 HTAs identified that: (i) 44 HTAs addressed health system arrangements (20 percent); (ii) 205 incorporated a systematic review (92 percent), whereas only 12 incorporated a sociopolitical assessment using explicit methods (5 percent); and (iii) 50 contained context-specific actionable messages (22 percent). Our interviews identified significant support for both the general idea of an HTA summary and the prototype's specific elements, but mixed views about using peer assessments of relevance.

Conclusions:Those involved in supporting the use of HTAs in policy making about health systems may wish to produce structured decision-relevant summaries for their systematic review-containing HTAs to increase the prospects for their HTAs being used outside the jurisdiction for which they were produced.

A knowledge management tool for public health: health-evidence.ca

BACKGROUND

The ultimate goal of knowledge translation and exchange (KTE) activities is to facilitate incorporation of research knowledge into program and policy development decision making. Evidence-informed decision making involves translation of the best available evidence from a systematically collected, appraised, and analyzed body of knowledge. Knowledge management (KM) is emerging as a key factor contributing to the realization of evidence-informed public health decision making. The goal of health-evidence.ca is to promote evidence-informed public health decision making through facilitation of decision maker access to, retrieval, and use of the best available synthesized research evidence evaluating the effectiveness of public health interventions.

METHODS

The systematic reviews that populate health evidence.ca are identified through an extensive search (1985-present) of 7 electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, BIOSIS, and SportDiscus; handsearching of over 20 journals; and reference list searches of all relevant reviews. Reviews are assessed for relevance and quality by two independent reviewers. Commonly-used public health terms are used to assign key words to each review, and project staff members compose short summaries highlighting results and implications for policy and practice.

RESULTS

As of June 2010, there are 1913 reviews in the health-evidence.ca registry in 21 public health and health promotion topic areas. Of these, 78% have been assessed as being of strong or moderate methodological quality. Health-evidence.ca receives approximately 35,000 visits per year, 20,596 of which are unique visitors, representing approximately 100 visits per day. Just under half of all visitors return to the site, with the average user spending six minutes and visiting seven pages per visit. Public health nurses, program managers, health promotion workers, researchers, and program coordinators are among the largest groups of registered users, followed by librarians, dieticians, medical officers of health, and nutritionists. The majority of users (67%) access the website from direct traffic (e.g., have the health-evidence.ca webpage bookmarked, or type it directly into their browser).

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent use of health-evidence.ca and particularly the searching for reviews that correspond with current public health priorities illustrates that health-evidence.ca may be playing an important role in achieving evidence-informed public health decision making.

Prospective policy analysis: how an epistemic community informed policymaking on intentional self poisoning in Sri Lanka

Background

Policy analysis is often retrospective and not well suited to helping policy makers decide what to do; in contrast prospective policy analysis seeks to assist in formulating responses to challenging public policy questions. Suicide in Sri Lanka is a major public health problem, with ingestion of pesticides being the primary method. Previous policy interventions have been associated with reduced mortality through restricting access to the most toxic pesticides. Additional means of reducing access are still needed.

Methods

The prospective policy analysis comprised two stages. The first used a consensus activity within a well defined policy community to generate and frame policy options. The second broadened the analysis to include other stakeholders. We report the consensus activity with seven actors from agriculture, health, and academia. Policy options were identified through two rounds of discussion along with ratings by each participant on their degree of support for each option. Data were analysed quantitatively and discussions analysed with Nvivo 8 to code prominent and recurrent themes.

Results

The main finding was the strong support and consensus for two proposals: further regulation of pesticides and the novel idea of repackaging pesticides into non-lethal doses. Participants identified several factors that were supportive of future policy change including a strong legislative framework, good links between agriculture, health and academia, and a collaborative relationship with industry. Identified barriers and potential threats to policy change included political interference, difficulties of intersectoral collaboration, acceptability of options to the community, difficulty of implementation in rural communities and the challenge of reducing mortality.

Conclusions

The development and consideration of policy options within this epistemic community reflected an appreciation and understanding of many of the factors that can facilitate or thwart policy change. The understanding of context, evidence and ideas, implementation and impact influenced how the participants considered and rated the options. Use of epistemic community actors identified the level of support for each option, helped elaborate the particularities of context, as well as the power and influence of ideas. Further examination of the potential barriers and opportunities for these options will determine if broader consensus, involving a wider range of stakeholders, can be achieved and policy change promoted.

EVIPNet Africa's first series of policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking

EVIPNet (Evidence-Informed Policy Network) Africa—a network of World Health Organization (WHO)-sponsored knowledge-translation (KT) platforms in seven sub-Saharan African countries—was launched at a meeting in Brazzaville, Congo, in March 2006 (1;2). EVIPNet Africa can trace its origins to resolutions from both the Ministerial Summit on Health Research (November 2004) and the World Health Assembly (May 2005) (10;11), the spirit of which was re-affirmed at the Global Ministerial Forum on Research for Health (November 2008) (13). The World Health Assembly called for “establishing or strengthening mechanisms to transfer knowledge in support of evidence-based public health and health care delivery systems and evidence-based related policies” (10). EVIPNet Africa can trace its inspiration to a more local development: the preparatory work that led to the establishment of the East African Community–sponsored Regional East African Community Health (REACH) Policy initiative, a KT platform involving Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda (and more recently Burundi and Rwanda as well). REACH Policy is now part of the EVIPNet Africa family.

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 8: Deciding how much confidence to place in a systematic review

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. The reliability of systematic reviews of the effects of health interventions is variable. Consequently, policymakers and others need to assess how much confidence can be placed in such evidence. The use of systematic and transparent processes to determine such decisions can help to prevent the introduction of errors and bias in these judgements. In this article, we suggest five questions that can be considered when deciding how much confidence to place in the findings of a systematic review of the effects of an intervention. These are: 1. Did the review explicitly address an appropriate policy or management question? 2. Were appropriate criteria used when considering studies for the review? 3. Was the search for relevant studies detailed and reasonably comprehensive? 4. Were assessments of the studies' relevance to the review topic and of their risk of bias reproducible? 5. Were the results similar from study to study?

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 3: Setting priorities for supporting evidence-informed policymaking

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. Policymakers have limited resources for developing--or supporting the development of--evidence-informed policies and programmes. These required resources include staff time, staff infrastructural needs (such as access to a librarian or journal article purchasing), and ongoing professional development. They may therefore prefer instead to contract out such work to independent units with more suitably skilled staff and appropriate infrastructure. However, policymakers may only have limited financial resources to do so. Regardless of whether the support for evidence-informed policymaking is provided in-house or contracted out, or whether it is centralised or decentralised, resources always need to be used wisely in order to maximise their impact. Examples of undesirable practices in a priority-setting approach include timelines to support evidence-informed policymaking being negotiated on a case-by-case basis (instead of having clear norms about the level of support that can be provided for each timeline), implicit (rather than explicit) criteria for setting priorities, ad hoc (rather than systematic and explicit) priority-setting process, and the absence of both a communications plan and a monitoring and evaluation plan. In this article, we suggest questions that can guide those setting priorities for finding and using research evidence to support evidence-informed policymaking. These are: 1. Does the approach to prioritisation make clear the timelines that have been set for addressing high-priority issues in different ways? 2. Does the approach incorporate explicit criteria for determining priorities? 3. Does the approach incorporate an explicit process for determining priorities? 4. Does the approach incorporate a communications strategy and a monitoring and evaluation plan?

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 4: Using research evidence to clarify a problem

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers.

Policymakers and those supporting them often find themselves in situations that spur them on to work out how best to define a problem. These situations may range from being asked an awkward or challenging question in the legislature, through to finding a problem highlighted on the front page of a newspaper. The motivations for policymakers wanting to clarify a problem are diverse. These may range from deciding whether to pay serious attention to a particular problem that others claim is important, through to wondering how to convince others to agree that a problem is important. Debates and struggles over how to define a problem are a critically important part of the policymaking process. The outcome of these debates and struggles will influence whether and, in part, how policymakers take action to address a problem. Efforts at problem clarification that are informed by an appreciation of concurrent developments are more likely to generate actions. These concurrent developments can relate to policy and programme options (e.g. the publication of a report demonstrating the effectiveness of a particular option) or to political events (e.g. the appointment of a new Minister of Health with a personal interest in a particular issue). In this article, we suggest questions that can be used to guide those involved in identifying a problem and characterising its features. These are: 1. What is the problem? 2. How did the problem come to attention and has this process influenced the prospect of it being addressed? 3. What indicators can be used, or collected, to establish the magnitude of the problem and to measure progress in addressing it? 4. What comparisons can be made to establish the magnitude of the problem and to measure progress in addressing it? 5. How can the problem be framed (or described) in a way that will motivate different groups?

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 7: Finding systematic reviews

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. Systematic reviews are increasingly seen as a key source of information in policymaking, particularly in terms of assisting with descriptions of the impacts of options. Relative to single studies they offer a number of advantages related to understanding impacts and are also seen as a key source of information for clarifying problems and providing complementary perspectives on options. Systematic reviews can be undertaken to place problems in comparative perspective and to describe the likely harms of an option. They also assist with understanding the meanings that individuals or groups attach to a problem, how and why options work, and stakeholder views and experiences related to particular options. A number of constraints have hindered the wider use of systematic reviews in policymaking. These include a lack of awareness of their value and a mismatch between the terms employed by policymakers, when attempting to retrieve systematic reviews, and the terms used by the original authors of those reviews. Mismatches between the types of information that policymakers are seeking, and the way in which authors fail to highlight (or make obvious) such information within systematic reviews have also proved problematic. In this article, we suggest three questions that can be used to guide those searching for systematic reviews, particularly reviews about the impacts of options being considered. These are: 1. Is a systematic review really what is needed? 2. What databases and search strategies can be used to find relevant systematic reviews? 3. What alternatives are available when no relevant review can be found?

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP)

This article is the Introduction to a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers.

Knowing how to find and use research evidence can help policymakers and those who support them to do their jobs better and more efficiently. Each article in this series presents a proposed tool that can be used by those involved in finding and using research evidence to support evidence-informed health policymaking. The series addresses four broad areas: 1. Supporting evidence-informed policymaking 2. Identifying needs for research evidence in relation to three steps in policymaking processes, namely problem clarification, options framing, and implementation planning 3. Finding and assessing both systematic reviews and other types of evidence to inform these steps, and 4. Going from research evidence to decisions. Each article begins with between one and three typical scenarios relating to the topic. These scenarios are designed to help readers decide on the level of detail relevant to them when applying the tools described. Most articles in this series are structured using a set of questions that guide readers through the proposed tools and show how to undertake activities to support evidence-informed policymaking efficiently and effectively. These activities include, for example, using research evidence to clarify problems, assessing the applicability of the findings of a systematic review about the effects of options selected to address problems, organising and using policy dialogues to support evidence-informed policymaking, and planning policy monitoring and evaluation. In several articles, the set of questions presented offers more general guidance on how to support evidence-informed policymaking. Additional information resources are listed and described in every article. The evaluation of ways to support evidence-informed health policymaking is a developing field and feedback about how to improve the series is welcome.