Artikel
Policy briefs from research into policy making in Health Sciences
Suche in Medline nach
Autoren
-
Marie Derstroff
- Brandenburg Medical School (Theodor Fontane), Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Institute for Health Services and Health System Research, Deutschland; Brandenburg Medical School (Theodor Fontane), Center for Health Services Research, Deutschland
-
Luisa Urban
- University Medical Center Göttingen, Department of Medical Statistics, Göttingen, Deutschland
-
Tim Mathes
- University Medical Center Göttingen, Department of Medical Statistics, Göttingen, Deutschland
-
Eni Shehu
- Brandenburg Medical School (Theodor Fontane), Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Institute for Health Services and Health System Research, Deutschland; Brandenburg Medical School (Theodor Fontane), Center for Health Services Research, Deutschland
-
Charlotte Mareike Kugler
- Brandenburg Medical School (Theodor Fontane), Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Institute for Health Services and Health System Research, Deutschland; Brandenburg Medical School (Theodor Fontane), Center for Health Services Research, Deutschland
-
Martin Bujard
- Federal Institute for Population Research (BiB), Deutschland; University Heidelberg, Institute for Medical Psychology, Medical Faculty, Heidelberg, Deutschland
-
Helena Ludwig-Walz
- Federal Institute for Population Research (BiB), Deutschland
-
Dawid Pieper
- Brandenburg Medical School (Theodor Fontane), Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Institute for Health Services and Health System Research, Deutschland; Brandenburg Medical School (Theodor Fontane), Center for Health Services Research, Deutschland
| Veröffentlicht: | 12. März 2024 |
|---|
Gliederung
Text
Background/research question: Not considering research evidence sufficiently may engender inefficient resource allocation and an inadequate response to public issues. Knowledge translation endeavours to bridge this gap by developing evidence-based formats of synthesising, operationalising, and disseminating information in real-world settings. Policy briefs are one such format that can assist policy-makers in making evidence-informed decisions, yet a lack of standardisation hinders their efficacy. Addressing this issue, this scoping review aimed to provide an overview of recommendations and guidelines for preparing policy briefs from academic health science researchers into policy making.
Methods: We undertook a scoping review to give an overview of recommendations and guidelines regarding the structure, format, lengths, layout and key characteristics of policy briefs aimed at informing policy decision-making from health science academia. Relevant literature was searched in PubMed, Embase, and additional manual searches up to April 2023. Data were extracted and synthesised using pre-defined items.
Results: From the 685 scientific publications and 63 grey literature sources identified, 66 records were included. The policy brief guidelines consistently emphasise structural elements, such as title, executive summary, key issue, policy options, recommendations, and references. Notably, some publications recommend additional components such as methodology, funding, affiliations, and conflicts of interest. Policy-makers constitute the primary target audience, yet some publications underscore the merit of engaging a broader stakeholder range. Suggested lengths vary from concise one-to-two-page briefs to more elaborate graded-entry formats. Concerning timing, several guidelines recommend using momenta, such as crises or impending political decisions. Dissemination strategies are sparsely mentioned, yet several guidelines propose multi-faceted approaches, encompassing presentations, social media, websites, and email campaigns.
Conclusion: The diversity of recommendations, particularly concerning components and length, may stem from the need for flexibility to accommodate different topics, scopes, urgency, and preferences of diverse target audiences. Nonetheless, a higher degree of standardisation, rooted in evidence and tailored to policy-makers’ needs, likely amplifies the efficacy of research-to-policy communication.
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
References
- 1.
- Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:2.
- 2.
- Lancaster K, Rhodes T. What prevents health policy from being evidence-based? New ways to think about evidence, policy and interventions in health. Br Med Bull. 2020;135(1):38-49.
- 3.
- Cairney P, Oliver K. Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy?. Health Res Policy Syst. 2017;15(1):35.
