Scientific Advisory Research Articles

Human recreational activity does not influence open cup avian nest survival in urban green spaces

The breeding period of birds is a critical and sensitive portion of the annual cycle. Understanding how human use of urban green spaces affects nest survival can improve our understanding of conserving breeding bird populations in cities and support science-based management of urban green spaces that benefit both people and nature. We conducted a nest survival field study between April and August of 2023 in multiple green spaces in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, the country’s second-largest city. We asked whether human presence (distance to trails and amount of human activity) influences the nest survival of four common open-cup nesting bird species: American robins (Turdus migratorius), gray catbirds (Dumetella carolinensis), Northern cardinals (Cardinalis cardinalis), and yellow warblers (Setophaga petechia). We also asked if variables traditionally associated with nest survival, such as vegetation concealment and seasonality, would influence nest survival. Our analyses surprisingly revealed no significant influence of human activity, vegetation concealment, and seasonality on nest survival for our target species. We found for nests that did fail, nests established during the earlier part of the nesting period failed faster. American robin nests were the most successful of our study’s four target species, whereas Northern cardinal nests were the least successful. Within the limitations of our study system, our findings suggest that human presence on trails is not negatively impacting the nesting success for our target bird species using urban green spaces. Our study provides integrated science advice to land managers so they can support opportunities for people to connect with nature without causing trade-offs with biodiversity conservation.

Challenges and ongoing initiatives towards better integrated EU scientific advice

Scientific advice is the main avenue for clarification of EU regulators’ scientific evidence requirements during medicines development. There are multiple avenues for seeking scientific advice in the EU with partially overlapping scope which creates room for divergence and contradictions; simplification and better integration among them could help harmonize EU regulators’ requirements. Interaction with other decision makers providing advice along the lifecycle of medicines and other healthcare solutions reduces development uncertainties. The proposal for a new EU pharmaceutical legislation solidifies existing advice mechanisms and creates new avenues for enhanced integration of development support.

Methodological Insights on Biomarker-Based Patient Selection: A Review of Scientific Advice Procedures at the European Medicines Agency.

Biomarkers play a pivotal role in the selection and enrollment of trial participants. Particularly, predictive biomarkers help tailor medical care to individual patients; however, also prognostic biomarkers require consideration at the design stage. At the time of initiating a clinical trial, there may be uncertainty about whether a biomarker is predictive or prognostic, and the trial design may need to account for this. Relevant discussions between drug developers and regulators on the role of a biomarker in a specific drug development program are expected to take place during Scientific Advice (SA) procedures. SA procedures at the European Medicines Agency from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2020, were systematically searched for methodological discussions around the use of predictive or prognostic biomarkers. The final analysis included 45 SA procedures for which key characteristics were summarized quantitatively. Selected methodological issues such as the cutoff selection of continuous biomarkers or study design considerations were elaborated in a qualitative summary. Our results identify commonly encountered points for discussion between drug developers and the European Medicines Agency for biomarker-informed patient selection and enrollment. Identified topics addressed during SA procedures include cutoff selection, study design, multiplicity control, and data-driven subgroup selection. The majority of the identified 45 SA procedures concern development programs in oncology. Addressing these issues upfront will allow for an improved dialogue between drug developers and regulators and support the drug development program and ultimately patient-centered access to medicines.

Stroke Subtypes Mortality Attributable to Smoking in China: A Study Based on the Global Burden of Disease Database 2021

Background: The objective of this study was to analyze long-term trends in ischemic stroke (IS), subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) mortality from smoking in China from 1992 to 2021, to provide scientific advice on stroke prevention and treatment in China. Methods: The mortality data of smoking-related stroke and its subtypes in China during 1992–2021 were collected from the Global Burden of Disease 2021. Joinpoint regression model and Age-period-cohort (APC) model were used for trend analysis. Results: The age-standardized mortality rate of stroke and subtypes caused by smoking showed a decreasing trend in China from 1992 to 2021. The decline was greater for women than for men. According to APC model analysis, the age effect showed that ICH and IS showed an increasing trend, while SAH increased first and then decreased. The results of the cohort effect were similar to those of the period effect, with relative risk decreasing for all subtypes. The local drift showed that the stroke and subtypes in males showed a “U” shaped trend, a relatively stable trend for stroke and is in females, and a downward trend for SAH and ICH. Conclusions: Over the past 30 years, the burden of stroke and stroke subtype deaths attributable to smoking in China has decreased. However, future efforts should focus on preventing ICH. Strengthening tobacco control legislation, particularly targeting older men and young people, is crucial for further reducing smoking-related stroke risk.

Making expert advice public in a time of emergency: Independent SAGE and the contestation of science during the Covid pandemic in the UK.

This article presents a situational analysis of the expert advice offered by Independent SAGE, a group of scientists that formed in May 2020 in the UK to provide advice on the Covid response. Based on interviews with the group's members and partners, we argue that through its interventions Indie SAGE demonstrated an important alternative approach to linking science and politics in a time of emergency. They showed that the only way to ensure that policy and decision-making on Covid-19 was grounded in knowledge was by making expert advice public. Indie SAGE's decision to 'go public' was a response to the political situation in the UK, one in which scientific advice, in particular public health expertise, was being ignored, sidelined and contested as such. We identify four rationales for making expert advice public: openness, calling out, translation, and responsive engagement. We describe associated modes of intervention that Indie SAGE adopted in relation to different critical situations of Covid-19. Distinctive about their advice, we argue, is its prioritization of situational adequacy. Much of it was explicitly oriented towards addressing practical and existential challenges experienced by particular social groups, professions and everyday publics. We argue that this way of making science public in an 'ontological' register acquires critical importance in a political situation like the UK Covid response, which was marked not just by disagreements about science but growing contestation of science as such. In this respect, our study holds a wider lesson for the understanding of the role of evidence in public politics. To advocate for evidence-based governance, as Indie SAGE did, is not necessarily to endorse a post-political vision of government. When science is contested in a time of emergency, making evidence public becomes a key means for responding to the demands of situations. It is not only pragmatic but a critical accomplishment.

Unmet medical needs definition and incentives: stakeholders perspectives on the reform of the EU pharmaceutical legislation.

The 2020 pharmaceutical strategy for Europe stressed that rethinking regulatory policies to foster innovation in disease areas with unmet medical needs (UMN) is one of the European Commission's (EC) priority areas. To understand stakeholders' views regarding appropriate UMN criteria and incentives, the EC developed a survey and launched it for public consultation between September and December 2021. This study aims to assess stakeholders' views on the policy revisions proposed by the EC, particularly those regarding the definition of UMN, its criteria and incentives and evaluate how stakeholders' views are reflected in the proposed reform of the EU pharmaceutical legislation of 2023. The public consultation survey comprised 14 questions including multiple-choice and open answer questions about the reform of the pharmaceutical legislation. A mixed-method analysis was conducted on publicly available data of stakeholders' responses, including descriptive and quantitative statistics for multiple-choice questions and a qualitative thematic framework analysis for open answer questions. A subgroup analysis was performed to assess differences and similarities in stakeholders' views, and results were compared with the proposed reform of the EU pharmaceutical legislation. A total of 478 participants completed the survey consisting of 36% industry, 19% end-users, 17% healthcare providers, 7.5% researchers and 7.5% public bodies. All stakeholder groups favored including "absence of satisfactory authorized treatment" and "disease seriousness" as defining criteria for UMN. However, stakeholders disagreed on including the criterion "lack of access for patients," with public bodies and industry being less in favour. Industry favored maintaining or having additional incentives like transferable exclusivity vouchers on top of current intellectual property rights to foster innovation. In contrast, other stakeholders supported alternative proposals, namely enhancing the use of scientific advice and implementing expediting measures for regulatory evaluation of medicines targeting UMN. Stakeholders agreed on including availability of alternatives and disease seriousness in the UMN definition but highlighted its ambiguity. Industry participants supported additional incentives like transferable exclusivity vouchers, whereas others preferred scientific and regulatory support. These findings underscore the need for further discussion on UMN criteria and incentives to stimulate innovation while ensuring patient-centric outcomes and equitable access to medicines across Europe.

Primary care in the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: Lessons from Ontario.

To understand the role of primary care in the COVID-19 pandemic to provide insight into its functioning and inform potential reforms. The now dissolved Ontario COVID-19 Science Advisory Table (Science Table) was formed in July 2020 to provide decision makers and the public with a synthesis of rapidly evolving evidence related to COVID-19. The Science Table was based at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto, and supported by Public Health Ontario. Authors worked with the leadership and secretariat of the Science Table to synthesize evidence and inputs. Authors drew on their expertise in research, policy, and front-line care delivery and coupled this with data analysis and reviews of the literature relevant to the topic areas discussed. Data analysis and literature reviews were done with the support of the Ontario Medical Association, the INSPIRE-Primary Health Care research program, and the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the University of Toronto. Experts conducted a rapid review of the briefs prior to publication, and authors presented the briefs' content at a series of meetings attended by Science Table members for their input. As Science Table briefs were intended to provide rapid-response answers to important health system questions in real time, the intent was not to conduct a systematic review but rather to gather available relevant evidence and present it in a form that could be used by policy-makers. This summary describes the work of primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario up to September 2022; outlines current challenges in primary care capacity and structure; and makes recommendations for strengthening the sector to better address population needs for current and future public health priorities. While the focus is on Ontario, many of the findings are relevant to other jurisdictions in Canada and elsewhere. Universal formal attachment to an accountable interprofessional primary care team supported by adequate infrastructure should be the cornerstone of pandemic recovery planning.

XPRIZE HEALTHSPAN: A PATH TO ACCELERATE TRANSLATIONAL GEROSCIENCE

Abstract By targeting biological aging pathways with a single or combination of therapeutic treatments, it may be possible to restore function lost to age-related degradation of multiple organ systems. Interventions targeting aging pathways are being translated to humans, yet public perception, poor alignment and testing guidelines, and unclear regulatory and commercial pathways are barriers to clinical translation. XPRIZE Healthspan is a 7-yr $101M global competition to incentivize scientific teams to develop and test gerotherapeutics, accelerating progress from research & development to clinical trials. The winning team will demonstrate that their therapeutic treatment restores muscle, cognitive, and immune function in adults aged 50-80 years. The XPRIZE Healthspan concept was created through a deliberate process of scientific engagement and collaboration by 22 scientific advisors and technical experts across commercial and non-profit scientific sectors coupled with an open public comment period, and registration opened officially in July 2024. To date >420 investigative teams and companies from 53 countries have submitted an intent to compete. Teams span academic investigators, research networks or collaboratives, commercial start-ups, established biotech and pharmaceutical companies. A wide variety of potential therapeutics are proposed by teams for testing, including but not limited to AI-driven small molecule discovery, novel and repurposed pharmacologics, nutraceuticals, lifestyle interventions, devices, immunomodulatory agents, stem cell therapies, other biologics, and partial reprogramming – administered alone or in combination. In this talk we will review design of the global competition, describe frameworks for early-stage clinical trials, and provide an overview of the rapidly emerging field of translational geroscience.

From evidence to advice in France, Germany, and the UK: transparency, accountability, and participation in pandemic science advice.

Politicians often claim to be "following science" but their claims are, reasonably, disputed. To claim to be following the science can mean that scientific evidence affects or legitimates decisions. The evidence that politicians are following science often comes from formal systems of advice that translate science into advice. We study the systems that informed policy in France, Germany, and the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic. We found that while in all three countries politicians had incentive to prefer private advice tailored to their needs, more transparent and independent advice appeared to contribute more to good policymaking and implementation, including by enhancing government's current and future accountability for their decisions.

Exploring pre-diagnosis hospital contacts in women with endometriosis using ICD-10: a Danish case-control study.

How does pre-diagnosis use of hospital care differentiate between women later diagnosed with endometriosis and age-matched controls without a diagnosis? Women with hospital-diagnosed endometriosis had more frequent hospital contacts in the 10 years leading up to the diagnosis compared to women without a diagnosis of endometriosis, and the contacts were related to registered diagnoses in nearly all of the included ICD-10 chapters for the entire period. Only a few studies have investigated the utilization of health care among women with endometriosis in the time before diagnosis, but current research shows that women with endometriosis have a higher utilization compared to women without diagnosed endometriosis. To our knowledge, no study has investigated the type of contact related to the higher utilization by using the ICD-10 diagnoses registered to the hospital contact. This study was conducted as a national Danish registry-based case-control study of 129696 women. Cases were women with a first-time hospital-based diagnosis of endometriosis between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2017. Using density sampling, we identified 21616 cases. Each case was matched on age at the date of diagnosis (index date) to five women without hospital-diagnosed endometriosis (n = 108080) at the time of matching. The utilization and registered ICD-10 diagnoses related to the hospital contact were included for the 10 years before the index date. The probability of having a high number of hospital contacts (six or more) was more common among women with endometriosis (68.6%) compared to women without endometriosis (55.7%) In general, women without endometriosis were more likely to have fewer than six contacts. The diagnoses registered to the contact among cases were related to a greater variety of ICD-10 chapters when compared to controls with the same number of contacts. For nearly all of the included ICD-10 chapters, women with endometriosis were more likely to have a diagnosis over the entire period compared to controls, with the only exception being in the chapter related to pregnancy. Our results are only applicable for women with hospital-based diagnosed endometriosis since we were not able to include women diagnosed at the general practitioner or private gynecologists. We were not able to make a causal interpretation, as we do not have information on the onset of symptoms of the included diseases. The association may be overestimated due to detection bias. However, a sensitivity analysis only changed the results slightly, indicating a low risk of this bias. This study is in accordance with previous studies on the subject, indicating that the utilization of health care prior to endometriosis is not necessarily restricted to endometriosis-related symptoms and that endometriosis can be associated with many other diseases. Future studies may explore hospital contacts and causes/diagnoses following the endometriosis diagnosis to further shed light on whether our results are due to a pattern of multiple pathologies or rather an expression of misdiagnoses among women with endometriosis before diagnosis. This study is supported by grants from the project Finding Endometriosis using Machine Learning (FEMaLe/101017562), which has received funding from The European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program and Helsefonden (21-B-0141). A.W.H. received grant funding from NIHR, CSO, Roche Diagnostics, and Wellbeing of Women. A.W.H.'s institution received consultation fees from Theramex, Joii, Gesynta, and Gedeon Richter. A.W.H.'s institution received honoraria for lectures from Theramex and Gedeon Richter. A.W.H. is listed as co-inventor on a patent application (UK Patent App No. 2217921.2, International Patent App No. PCT/GB2023/053076). P.T.K.S.'s institution (University of Edinburgh) received consultation fees from Gesynta Pharma AB and BenevolentAI Bio Ltd. P.T.K.S's institution (University of Edinburgh) declares a patent application (UK Patent Application No. 2310300.5. Androgens in diagnostic strategies for endometriosis). P.T.K.S. is a treasurer of the World Endometriosis Society, Fellowship in the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and a Scientific Advisor of the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. N/A.

Large-Core Ischemic Stroke Endovascular Treatment: A Science Advisory From the American Heart Association.

Several trials of endovascular treatment for patients with large-core acute ischemic stroke have been completed. Whereas future stroke clinical guidelines will provide specific recommendations, this advisory aims to summarize the results of these trials, analyze the commonalities and differences among the studies, and discuss the clinical implications of these new results.

Reforming United Nations Ocean Governance

Abstract This commentary examines a proposal, currently supported primarily by the European Union, to establish an Intergovernmental Panel on Ocean Sustainability (IPOS). It contextualises this proposal by explaining the broader perception of a set of problems with international ocean governance. While emphasising that the IPOS is a good idea, the commentary highlights that its lack of attention to reform of the legal and institutional architecture through which ocean governance is delivered is a potential problem. One way to address this would be to complement IPOS’ orientation towards unifying scientific knowledge by empowering an attached governance body to coordinate how the scientific advice tendered by the IPOS is implemented, or to design an alternative body.

Vascular Neurology Considerations for Antiamyloid Immunotherapy: A Science Advisory From the American Heart Association.

Antibodies directed at the amyloid-β peptide offer the prospect of disease-modifying therapy for early-stage Alzheimer disease but also carry the risk of brain edema or bleeding events, collectively designated amyloid-related imaging abnormalities. Introduction of the antiamyloid immunotherapies into practice is therefore likely to present a new set of questions for clinicians treating patients with cerebrovascular disease: Which manifestations of cerebrovascular disease should preclude, or permit, antibody treatment? Is it safe to prescribe amyloid immunotherapies to individuals who require antithrombotic treatment, or to administer thrombolysis to antibody-treated individuals with acute stroke? How should severe amyloid-related imaging abnormalities be managed? This science advisory summarizes the data and key considerations to guide these challenging decisions as the medical community collects further data and experience with these groundbreaking agents.

The Problem of Artistry in Scientific Cinema of the 1930s (based on the Film “Physiology and Pathology of Higher Nervous Activity”)

The article examines the scientific film “Physiology and Pathology of Higher Nervous Activity” about the theory of Academician I. P. Pavlov. Based on archival documents first introduced into scientific discourse, the process of the film's creation is reconstructed, revealing fundamental contradictions in the attitudes of its participants. In the 1930s, which was a transitional period for Soviet scientific cinema, what both the Committee for Cinematography and the scientific advisers expected from a scientific film was, first and foremost, a stark presentation of documentary material addressing a narrow professional audience. The filmmakers, on the other hand, drawing on their experience in feature films, sought to influence the viewer through artistic means, and appealed to the widest possible audience. The article demonstrates that this clashing of values led to the creation of a hybrid product typical for the scientific cinema of the 1930s.

PP17 Navigating Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Requirements During Development Through Early HTA Scientific Advice: Insights From Companies’ Strategies, Challenges, And Priorities

IntroductionPharmaceutical companies have been actively taking early scientific advice from health technology assessment (HTA) agencies during development, focusing on study design to understand the HTA evidentiary requirements. The evolving advice landscape, including multistakeholder and international collaborations, highlights proactive engagement’s importance. This opinion survey assessed international pharmaceutical companies’ current experiences in seeking early HTA and explored strategies for forward-looking actions and considerations.MethodsAn opinion survey was designed and conducted in 2023 as a cross-sectional questionnaire consisting of multiple-choice questions. The questionnaire provided a qualitative assessment of companies’ current strategies and experiences in taking early HTA advice as well as future considerations. Eligible survey participants were the senior management of Global HTA/market access departments at 22 top international pharmaceutical companies.ResultsResponses were received from 13 companies. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) or the Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, G-BA) were utilized mostly for early HTA advice (92% respondents). Past European Medicines Agency HTA experience exists (50%), but there is no current engagement in Joint Scientific Consultation (JSC). However, JSC is deemed a top priority (83%) given the Regulation (EU) 2021/2282 on health technology assessment. Challenges in seeking advice include agency availability and internal resource and timing constraint. Advice-seeking actions mostly occurred during phase II trials but were frequently limited by agencies’ availability (84% respondents). Divergences were identified regarding eligibility criteria to seek advice and internal practices. Five success indicators were identified with the top-rated being the impact on development plan.ConclusionsThis survey assessed companies’ practices in seeking early HTA advice, with most engaging national agencies like NICE and G-BA. The lack of current JSC participation, despite companies’ prioritization, highlights the agencies’ need to enhance capacity and resources. Survey results underscored the importance of companies’ adaptive strategies in the evolving environment, which can be supported by active measures of advice success.

PP32 Health Technology Assessment Regulation In Europe: Implications For A National Authority

IntroductionThe Regulation (EU) 2021/2282 on health technology assessment (HTAR) for medicines will come into effect in January 2025; initially, new oncology medicines and advanced therapy medicinal products will be assessed at EU level. How will this work in practice? What does this mean for national HTA bodies, such as the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics (NCPE) Ireland that uses a cost-effectiveness framework to inform decision-making for medicines?MethodsJoint work to be conducted under the Regulation includes joint clinical assessments (JCA), joint scientific consultations (JSC), and production of procedures and methodological guidance. A review was undertaken of key areas that will be impacted by the HTAR in the Irish HTA process for medicines, including timing, evidence synthesis structure, capacity building, and resource implications.ResultsThe HTAR will alter the current process for medicines assessment in Ireland, from early scientific advice to cost-effectiveness assessment post-authorization. JSCs will represent an additional step. Significant training and capacity implications are associated with the JCA, which will require earlier engagement with stakeholders. The NCPE’s pragmatic HTA early triaging process, the “Rapid Review,” may be delayed due to the non-duplication clause in the HTAR. The availability of high-quality comparative effectiveness evidence may help avoid full HTAs in some cases. The benefit of the JCA will be realized if the results can directly inform treatment-effectiveness estimates in cost-effectiveness modeling.ConclusionsThe HTAR will significantly impact on medicines reimbursement procedures in Ireland. For the HTAR to be effective in achieving its aims, sufficient resources will need to be built into the EU HTA system. The balance between the extra resources needed and the resources spared will depend on the quality of the comparative effectiveness evidence available for the JCA.

HTA56 Implementation of Early Scientific Advice and Public Engagement for the HTA Development in Ukraine

HTA56 Implementation of Early Scientific Advice and Public Engagement for the HTA Development in Ukraine

Building capacity in dissemination and implementation research: the presence and impact of advice networks

BackgroundAs dissemination and implementation (D&I) research increases, we must continue to expand training capacity and research networks. Documenting, understanding, and enhancing advice networks identifies key connectors and areas where networks are less established. In 2012 Norton et al. mapped D&I science advice and collaboration networks. The current study builds on this work and aims to map current D&I research advice networks.MethodsD&I researchers in the United States (US) and Canada were identified through a combination of publication metrics, and key persons identified networks and were invited to participate (n = 1,576). In this social network analysis study, participants completed an online survey identifying up to 10 people from whom they sought and/or gave advice on D&I research. Participants identified four types of advice received: research methods, grant, career, or another type (e.g., work/life balance). We used descriptive statistics to characterize the sample and network metrics and visualizations to describe the composition of advice networks.ResultsA total of 482 individuals completed the survey. Eighty-six (18%) worked in Canada and 396 (82%) in the US. Respondents had varying D&I research expertise levels; 14% beginner expertise, 45% intermediate, 29% advanced, and 12% expert. The advice network included 978 connected nodes/individuals. For all research types, out-degree, or advice giving, was higher for those with advanced or expert-level expertise (6.9 and 11.9, respectively) than those with beginner or intermediate expertise (0.8 and 2.2, respectively). Respondents reporting White race reported giving (out-degree = 5.2) and receiving (in-degree = 6.1) more advice compared to individuals reporting Asian (out-degree = 2.9, in-degree = 5.3), Black (out-degree = 2.3, in-degree = 5.2), or other races (out-degree = 2.5, in-degree = 5.4). Assortativity analyses revealed 98% of network ties came from individuals within the same country. The top two reasons for advice seeking were trusting the individual to give good advice (78%) and the individual’s knowledge/experience in specific D&I content (69%).ConclusionsThe D&I research network is becoming more dispersed as the field expands. Findings highlight opportunities to further connect D&I researchers in the US and Canada, individuals with emerging skills in D&I research, and minoritized racial groups. Expanding peer mentoring opportunities, especially for minoritized groups, can enhance the field’s capacity for growth.

Knowledge mobilisation of rapid evidence reviews to inform health and social care policy and practice in a public health emergency: Appraisal of the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre processes and impact, 2021-23.

The Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre (WCEC) was established from 2021-23 to ensure that the latest coronavirus (COVID-19) relevant research evidence was readily available to inform health and social care policy and practice decision-makers. Although decisions need to be evidence-based, ensuring that accessible and relevant research evidence is available to decision-makers is challenging, especially in a rapidly evolving pandemic environment when timeframes for decision-making are days or weeks rather than months or years. We set up knowledge mobilisation processes to bridge the gap between evidence review and informing decisions, making sure that the right information reaches the right people at the right time. To describe the knowledge mobilisation processes used by the WCEC, evaluate the impact of the WCEC rapid evidence reviews, and share lessons learned. Our knowledge mobilisation methods were flexible and tailored to meet stakeholders' needs. They included stakeholder co-production in our rapid evidence review processes, stakeholder-informed and participatory knowledge mobilisation, wider dissemination of outputs and associated activities including public engagement, capacity building and sharing of methodologies. Feedback on processes and evidence of impact was collected via stakeholder engagement and a stakeholder survey. Findings indicate that knowledge mobilisation processes successfully enabled use of the WCEC's rapid evidence reviews to inform policy and practice decision-makers during the COVID-19 pandemic in Wales. Realising actual public and patient benefit from this 'pathway to impact' work will take further time and resources. The WCEC knowledge mobilisation processes successfully supported co-production and use of rapid evidence review findings by scientific advisors and policy and practice decision-makers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Identified barriers and facilitators are of potential relevance to wider evidence initiatives, for setting up similar Centres during crisis situations, and supporting future evidence-based policy and practice decision-making.

The devil‐angel shift in times of crisis: How Swiss scientists used policy narratives during the COVID‐19 pandemic

AbstractThis paper studies how scientists participated in policy debates during the COVID‐19 pandemic in Switzerland not only by telling facts but also by telling stories. It combines insights from Narrative Policy Framework and science communication literature with a conceptualization of scientific advice to study how scientists used narratives and the devil‐angel shift narrative strategy to communicate about policies and problems. Quantitative content analysis of Swiss newspaper articles shows that in statements with problem advice scientists use more narratives than in statements with policy advice and that the devil‐angel shift score for problem advice is significantly lower for narratives with problem advice. Overall, the research shows that problem advice is a good predictor for the use of the devil shift. However, when scientists used narratives with policy advice, they often followed a negative narrative strategy that also highlights problems.