Evidence summaries tailored to health policy-makers in low- and middle-income countries

Rosenbaum, Sarah; Glenton, Claire; Wiysonge, Charles Shey; Ábalos, Edgardo; Mignini, Luciano; Young, Taryn; Althabe, Fernando; Ciapponi, Agustín; Martí, Sebastián García; Meng, Qingyue; Wang, Jian; Bradford, Ana María de la Hoz; Kiwanuka, Suzanne N; Rutebemberwa, Elizeus; Pariyo, George; Flottorp, Signe; Oxman, Andrew D

doi:10.2471/blt.10.075481

Cited by 93 publications

(170 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

163

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These observations support previous recommendations that have been made about the use of these strategies in the research literature. [15][16][17][28][29][30][31] "Not concluding with recommendations" emerged as the least helpful feature of evidence briefs from the perspective of all of the respondents taken together, whereas "not aiming for consensus" emerged as the least helpful SD, standard deviation. a Each respondent's role was categorized as "policy-maker", "stakeholder", "researcher" or "other".…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues: perceptions and intentions to act on what was learnt

Moat

Lavis

Clancy

et al. 2013

Bull. World Health Organ.

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues: perceptions and intentions to act on what was learnt

Moat

Lavis

Clancy

et al. 2013

Bull. World Health Organ.

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This workshop is what we need to be part of. 22. The presentations are very friendly and understandable we pray for the presenters for more wisdom.…”

Section: Bureaucracy and Administrative Bottleneck Often Impede Us Frmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…They cited several reports where this recognition has led to the development of a plethora of information-packaging efforts, which aim to support action based on the messages arising from research and other policy-relevant information. [21][22][23] There are numerous reports which have shown that the availability of timely, suitably packaged and policy relevant research evidence is important in supporting increased use of research evidence in the policy processes in LMICs. [20][21][22][23] A number of studies have shown that effective techniques for communicating research findings to decision-makers include presenting readily understandable; timely data in visually compelling formats; using illustrative anecdotes where appropriate; sending clear key messages about the meaning of data; suggesting ways to use research findings for answering important policy questions; and establishing relationships of trust and credibility with policy-makers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[21][22][23] There are numerous reports which have shown that the availability of timely, suitably packaged and policy relevant research evidence is important in supporting increased use of research evidence in the policy processes in LMICs. [20][21][22][23] A number of studies have shown that effective techniques for communicating research findings to decision-makers include presenting readily understandable; timely data in visually compelling formats; using illustrative anecdotes where appropriate; sending clear key messages about the meaning of data; suggesting ways to use research findings for answering important policy questions; and establishing relationships of trust and credibility with policy-makers. [24][25][26][27] In a report on preparing and using evidence-informed policy briefs to support EIP, Lavis and colleagues, 28 noted that policy brief is an effective evidence-packaging mechanism and a new approach to improving the policy-making process by supporting evidence-informed policy-making.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Enhancing the Capacity of Policy-Makers to Develop Evidence-Informed Policy Brief on Infectious Diseases of Poverty in Nigeria

Uneke

Ezeoha

Uro-Chukwu

et al. 2015

Int J Health Policy Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The lack of effective use of research evidence in policy-making is a major challenge in most low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). There is need to package research data into effective policy tools that will help policy-makers to make evidence-informed policy regarding infectious diseases of poverty (IDP). The objective of this study was to assess the usefulness of training workshops and mentoring to enhance the capacity of Nigerian health policy-makers to develop evidence-informed policy brief on the control of IDP. Methods: A modified "before and after" intervention study design was used in which outcomes were measured on the target participants both before the intervention is implemented and after. A 4-point Likert scale according to the degree of adequacy; 1 = "grossly inadequate, " 4 = "very adequate" was employed. The main parameter measured was participants' perceptions of their own knowledge/understanding. This study was conducted at subnational level and the participants were the career health policy-makers drawn from Ebonyi State in the South-Eastern Nigeria. A oneday evidence-to-policy workshop was organized to enhance the participants' capacity to develop evidence-informed policy brief on IDP in Ebonyi State. Topics covered included collaborative initiative; preparation and use of policy briefs; policy dialogue; ethics in health policy-making; and health policy and politics. Results: The preworkshop mean of knowledge and capacity ranged from 2.49-3.03, while the postworkshop mean ranged from 3.42-3.78 on 4-point scale. The percentage increase in mean of knowledge and capacity at the end of the workshop ranged from 20.10%-45%. Participants were divided into 3 IDP mentorship groups (malaria, schistosomiasis, lymphatic filariasis [LF]) and were mentored to identify potential policy options/recommendations for control of the diseases for the policy briefs. These policy options were subjected to research evidence synthesis by each group to identify the options that have the support of research evidence (mostly systematic reviews) from PubMed, Cochrane database and Google Scholar. After the evidence synthesis, five policy options were selected out of 13 for malaria, 3 out of 10 for schistosomiasis and 5 out of 11 for LF. Conclusion:The outcome suggests that an evidence-to-policy capacity enhancement workshop combined with a mentorship programme can improve policy-makers' capacity for evidence-informed policy-making (EIP). Implications for policy makers• Policy-makers need to have access to the right information on infectious diseases of poverty (IDP) at the right time to inform decisions that draw on the evidence of what works. There are numerous reports which have shown that the availability of timely, suitably packaged and policy relevant research evidence is important in supporting increased use of research evidence in the policy processes. • Policy-makers' knowledge and capacity to develop evidence-informed policy materials such as policy briefs can be enhanced via evidence-top...

show abstract

“…Overfor denne gruppen har Kunnskapssenteret deltatt i utviklingen av såkalte "SUPPORT Summaries" (8). Disse er spesielt rettet mot byråkrater og andre som bidrar til politikkutforming i lav-og mellominntektsland, og er 6-8-sider lange.…”

Section: Formateksempel 3: Support Summariesunclassified

Cochrane i Norge - Hvordan formidler vi resultatene fra Cochrane-oversikter?

Glenton¹,

Rosenbaum²

2013

Nor J Epidemiol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1) Seksjon for global helse, Nasjonalt kunnskapssenter for helsetjenesten/ Norwegian branch of the Nordic Cochrane Centre2) Seksjon for kommunikasjon, Nasjonalt kunnskapssenter for helsetjenester E-post: claire.glenton@kunnskapssenteret.no Telefon: 41 65 16 58 SAMMENDRAGCochrane-systematiske oversikter oppleves ofte som lite tilgjengelige. En av hovedaktivitetene til det norske Cochrane-miljøet er å utvikle måter å presentere resultatene fra Cochrane-oversikter på for at de lettere tas i bruk. Vi beskriver her fire hovedprinsipper for dette arbeidet, og gir eksempler på dokumentformater vi har vaert med på å utvikle.De overordnete prinsippene er: 1) Informasjonen bør vaere forståelig for personer uten ekspertkunnskap om forskningsmetodikk. Vi har erfart at når det gjelder forståelsen av resultater fra systematiske oversikter går det største skillet mellom forskere og ikke-forskere og i mindre grad mellom ulike grupper som helsepersonell, pasienter og byråkrater. 2) Informasjonen bør presenteres på en mest mulig nøytral måte. 3) Informasjonen bør vaere brukertilpasset. Det innebaerer at vi innhenter tilbakemeldinger fra sluttbrukere i utviklingsarbeidet og gjør nødvendige tilpasninger i flere omganger. 4) Informasjonsstrukturen bør følge "1:3:25-prinsippet". Her presenteres informasjonen både summarisk (1 side), kort oppsummert (3 sider), og mer utdypende (25 sider).I artikkelen beskriver vi flere presentasjonsformater vi har utviklet, blant annet "Summary of Findings" der resultatene av Cochrane-oversikter presenteres i lettfattelige tabeller; "plain language summaries", som er tekstbaserte oppsummeringer rettet mot en bred lesergruppe; "SUPPORT summaries" rettet mot byråkrater og "policymakers"; og "DECIDE Frameworks" der resultatene presenteres sammen med annen informasjon som er relevant i en beslutningsprosess. ENGLISH SUMMARYCochrane systematic reviews are often perceived as inaccessible. One of the main activities of the Norwegian branch of the Cochrane Collaboration is to develop ways to present the results of Cochrane reviews so that they are easier to use. In this paper we describe four main principles that underlie this work, and several of the document formats we have helped produce. Our overarching principles: 1) Information should be understandable for people who do not have expert knowledge about research methodology. When it comes to understanding the results of systematic reviews, we have experienced that the biggest difference is between researchers and non-researchers and to a lesser extent between health personnel, patients and policy makers. 2) Information should be presented in a neutral form. 3) Information should be developed using a user-oriented approach. This involves us collecting responses from the end users in our developmental work and making the necessary adjustments in several phases. 4) The information structure should follow the "1:3:25 principle" where the information is structured in several layers, with increasing level of detail.In this paper, we describe several of the doc...

show abstract

Evidence summaries tailored to health policy-makers in low- and middle-income countries

Cited by 93 publications

References 36 publications

Evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues: perceptions and intentions to act on what was learnt

Evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues: perceptions and intentions to act on what was learnt

Enhancing the Capacity of Policy-Makers to Develop Evidence-Informed Policy Brief on Infectious Diseases of Poverty in Nigeria

Cochrane i Norge - Hvordan formidler vi resultatene fra Cochrane-oversikter?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About