The COVID-19 pandemic presents the worst public health crisis in recent history. The response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been challenged by many factors, including scientific uncertainties, scarcity of relevant research, proliferation of misinformation and fake news, poor access to actionable evidence, time constraints, and weak collaborations among relevant stakeholders. Knowledge translation (KT) platforms, composed of organisations, initiatives and networks supporting evidence-informed policy-making, can play an important role in providing relevant and timely evidence to inform pandemic responses and bridge the gap between science, policy, practice and politics. In this Commentary, we highlight the emerging roles of KT platforms in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. We also reflect on the lessons learned from the efforts of a KT platform in a middle-income country to inform decision-making and practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. The lessons learned can be integrated into strengthening the role, structures and mandates of KT platforms as hubs for trustworthy evidence that can inform policies and practice during public health crises and in promoting their integration and institutionalisation within the policy-making processes.

IntroductionMedia interventions can potentially play a major role in influencing health policies. This integrative systematic review aimed to assess the effects of planned media interventions—including social media—on the health policy-making process.MethodsEligible study designs included randomized and non-randomized designs, economic studies, process evaluation studies, stakeholder analyses, qualitative methods, and case studies. We electronically searched Medline, EMBASE, Communication and Mass Media Complete, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the WHO Global Health Library. We followed standard systematic review methodology for study selection, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment.ResultsTwenty-one studies met our eligibility criteria: 10 evaluation studies using either quantitative (n = 7) or qualitative (n = 3) designs and 11 case studies. None of the evaluation studies were on social media. The findings of the evaluation studies suggest that media interventions may have a positive impact when used as accountability tools leading to prioritizing and initiating policy discussions, as tools to increase policymakers’ awareness, as tools to influence policy formulation, as awareness tools leading to policy adoption, and as awareness tools to improve compliance with laws and regulations. In one study, media-generated attention had a negative effect on policy advocacy as it mobilized opponents who defeated the passage of the bills that the media intervention advocated for. We judged the confidence in the available evidence as limited due to the risk of bias in the included studies and the indirectness of the evidence.ConclusionThere is currently a lack of reliable evidence to guide decisions on the use of media interventions to influence health policy-making. Additional and better-designed, conducted, and reported primary research is needed to better understand the effects of media interventions, particularly social media, on health policy-making processes, and the circumstances under which media interventions are successful.Trial registrationPROSPERO 2015:CRD42015020243 Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0581-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Public policymaking is complex and suffers from limited uptake of research evidence, particularly in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR). In-depth case studies examining health policymaking in the EMR are lacking. This retrospective policy analysis aims at generating insights about how policies are being made, identifying factors influencing policymaking and assessing to what extent evidence is used in this process by using the Lebanese Voluntary Health Insurance policy as a case study. The study examined the policymaking process through a policy tracing technique that covered a period of 12 years. The study employed a qualitative research design using a case study approach and was conducted in two phases over the course of two years. Data was collected using multiple sources including: 1) a comprehensive and chronological media review; 2) twenty-two key informant interviews with policymakers, stakeholders, and journalists; and 3) a document review of legislations, minutes of meetings, actuarial studies, and official documents. Data was analyzed and validated using thematic analysis. Findings showed that the voluntary health insurance policy was a political decision taken by the government to tackle an urgent political problem. Evidence was not used to guide policy development and implementation and policy implementers and other stakeholders were not involved in policy development. Factors influencing policymaking were political interests, sectarianism, urgency, and values of policymakers. Barriers to the use of evidence were lack of policy-relevant research evidence, political context, personal interests, and resource constraints. Findings suggest that policymakers should be made more aware of the important role of evidence in informing public policymaking and the need for building capacity to develop, implement and evaluate policies. Study findings are likely to matter in light of the changes that are unfolding in some Arab countries and the looming opportunities for policy reforms.

No abstract

Background The development of trustworthy guidelines requires substantial investment of resources and time. This highlights the need to prioritize topics for guideline development and update. Objective To systematically identify and describe prioritization exercises that have been conducted for the purpose of the de novo development, update or adaptation of health practice guidelines. Methods We searched Medline and CINAHL electronic databases from inception to July 2019, supplemented by hand-searching Google Scholar and the reference lists of relevant studies. We included studies describing prioritization exercises that have been conducted during the de novo development, update or adaptation of guidelines addressing clinical, public health or health systems topics. Two reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to complete study selection and data extraction. We consolidated findings in a semi-quantitative and narrative way. Results Out of 33,339 identified citations, twelve studies met the eligibility criteria. All included studies focused on prioritizing topics; none on questions or outcomes. While three exercises focused on updating guidelines, nine were on de novo development. All included studies addressed clinical topics. We adopted a framework that categorizes prioritization into 11 steps clustered in three phases (pre-prioritization, prioritization and post-prioritization). Four studies covered more than half of the 11 prioritization steps across the three phases. The