SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 13: Preparing and using policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking

被引:64
|
作者
Lavis, John N. [1 ,2 ]
Permanand, Govin [3 ]
Oxman, Andrew D. [4 ]
Lewin, Simon [4 ,5 ]
Fretheim, Atle [4 ,6 ]
机构
[1] McMaster Univ, Ctr Hlth Econ & Policy Anal, Dept Clin Epidemiol & Biostat, 1200 Main St West,HSC 2D3, Hamilton, ON L8N 3Z5, Canada
[2] McMaster Univ, Dept Polit Sci, Hamilton, ON L8N 3Z5, Canada
[3] WHO, Reg Off Europe, Hlth Evidence Network, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
[4] Norwegian Knowledge Ctr Hlth Serv, N-0130 Oslo, Norway
[5] Med Res Council South Africa, Hlth Syst Res Unit, Cape Town, South Africa
[6] Univ Oslo, Fac Med, Inst Gen Practice & Community Med, Sect Int Hlth, Oslo, Norway
来源
关键词
Research Evidence; Primary Healthcare; Scientific Quality; Equity Consideration; Transparent Method;
D O I
10.1186/1478-4505-7-S1-S13
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Policy briefs are a relatively new approach to packaging research evidence for policymakers. The first step in a policy brief is to prioritise a policy issue. Once an issue is prioritised, the focus then turns to mobilising the full range of research evidence relevant to the various features of the issue. Drawing on available systematic reviews makes the process of mobilising evidence feasible in a way that would not otherwise be possible if individual relevant studies had to be identified and synthesised for every feature of the issue under consideration. In this article, we suggest questions that can be used to guide those preparing and using policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking. These are: 1. Does the policy brief address a high-priority issue and describe the relevant context of the issue being addressed? 2. Does the policy brief describe the problem, costs and consequences of options to address the problem, and the key implementation considerations? 3. Does the policy brief employ systematic and transparent methods to identify, select, and assess synthesised research evidence? 4. Does the policy brief take quality, local applicability, and equity considerations into account when discussing the synthesised research evidence? 5. Does the policy brief employ a graded-entry format? 6. Was the policy brief reviewed for both scientific quality and system relevance?
引用
收藏
页码:507 / 513
页数:9
相关论文
共 21 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], OPTIMALLY PACKAGED R
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2005, Final report submitted to the Canadian Population Health Initiative
  • [3] Research glut and information famine: Making research evidence more useful for policymakers
    Colby, David C.
    Quinn, Brian C.
    Williams, Claudia H.
    Bilheimer, Linda T.
    Goodell, Sarah
    [J]. HEALTH AFFAIRS, 2008, 27 (04) : 1177 - 1182
  • [4] SUPPORT Tools for Evidence-informed Policymaking in health 6: Using research evidence to address how an option will be implemented
    Fretheim, Atle
    Munabi-Babigumira, Susan
    Oxman, Andrew D.
    Lavis, John N.
    Lewin, Simon
    [J]. HEALTH RESEARCH POLICY AND SYSTEMS, 2009, 7 : 276 - 283
  • [5] Hartley J, 2004, J MED LIBR ASSOC, V92, P368
  • [6] MORE INFORMATIVE ABSTRACTS REVISITED
    HAYNES, RB
    MULROW, CD
    HUTH, EJ
    ALTMAN, DG
    GARDNER, MJ
    [J]. ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1990, 113 (01) : 69 - 76
  • [7] Lavis JN, 2009, EVIDENCE BRIEF IMPRO
  • [8] Lavis JN, 2009, HLTH RES POLICY S S1, V7, pI1, DOI DOI 10.1186/1478-4505-7-S1-I1
  • [9] Lavis JN, 2004, GOVERNANCE HLTH CARE, P257
  • [10] Lavis John, 2005, J Health Serv Res Policy, V10 Suppl 1, P35, DOI 10.1258/1355819054308549