Abstract

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.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?

Highlights

  • For policymakers (Scenario 1), this article suggests a number of questions that they might ask themselves or their staff to consider when assessing a policy brief

  • A number of research groups, including the SUPPORT collaboration http://www.support-collaboration.org/, produce policymaker-friendly summaries of systematic reviews. These summaries always highlight the key messages from the review but some of them, like SUPPORT summaries, address considerations related to quality, local applicability, and equity [2]

  • It could include a list of those involved in establishing the terms of reference of the policy brief, a list of the key informants contacted for additional perspectives on the issue and to identify relevant data and research evidence, and their affiliations

Read more

Summary

13: Preparing and using policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking

Address: 1Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Department of Political Science, McMaster University, 1200 Main St. West, HSC-2D3, Hamilton, ON, Canada, L8N 3Z5, 2Health Evidence Network, World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, Scherfigsvej 8, Copenhagen, Denmark DK-2100, 3Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, P.O. Box 7004, St. Olavs plass, N0130 Oslo, Norway, 4Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, P.O. Box 7004, St. Olavs plass, N0130 Oslo, Norway; Health Systems Research Unit, Medical Research Council of South Africa and 5Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, P.O. Box 7004, St. Olavs plass, N0130 Oslo, Norway; Section for International Health, Institute of General Practice and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Norway. Published: 16 December 2009 Health Research Policy and Systems 2009, 7(Suppl 1):S13 doi:10.1186/1478-4505-7-S1-S13.

Background
Does the policy brief employ a graded-entry format?
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call