Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2023 Jun 1;21(1):40.
doi: 10.1186/s12961-023-00989-5.

Evidence synthesis to policy: development and implementation of an impact-oriented approach from the Eastern Mediterranean Region

Affiliations
Review

Evidence synthesis to policy: development and implementation of an impact-oriented approach from the Eastern Mediterranean Region

Fadi El-Jardali et al. Health Res Policy Syst. .

Abstract

Background: Despite the importance of evidence syntheses in informing policymaking, their production and use remain limited in the Eastern Mediterranean region (EMR). There is a lack of empirical research on approaches to promote and use policy-relevant evidence syntheses to inform policymaking processes in the EMR.

Objective: This study sought to describe the development of an impact-oriented approach to link evidence synthesis to policy, and its implementation through selected case studies in Lebanon, a middle-income country in the EMR.

Methods: This study followed a multifaceted and iterative process that included (i) a review of the literature, (ii) input from international experts in evidence synthesis and evidence-informed health policymaking, and (iii) application in a real-world setting (implementation). We describe four selected case studies of implementation. Surveys were used to assess policy briefs, deliberative dialogues, and post-dialogue activities. Additionally, Kingdon's stream theory was adopted to further explain how and why the selected policy issues rose to the decision agenda.

Results: The approach incorporates three interrelated phases: (1) priority setting, (2) evidence synthesis, and (3) uptake. Policy-relevant priorities are generated through formal priority setting exercises, direct requests by policymakers and stakeholders, or a focusing event. Identified priorities are translated into focused questions that can be addressed via evidence synthesis (phase 1). Next, a scoping of the literature is conducted to identify existing evidence syntheses addressing the question of interest. Unless the team identifies relevant, up-to-date and high-quality evidence syntheses, it proceeds to conducting SRs addressing the priority questions of interest (phase 2). Next, the team prepares knowledge translation products (e.g., policy briefs) for undertaking knowledge uptake activities, followed by monitoring and evaluation (phase 3). There are two prerequisites to the application of the approach: enhancing contextual awareness and capacity strengthening. The four case studies illustrate how evidence produced from the suites of activities was used to inform health policies and practices.

Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study to describe both the development and implementation of an approach to link evidence synthesis to policy in the EMR. We believe the approach will be useful for researchers, knowledge translation platforms, governments, and funders seeking to promote evidence-informed policymaking and practice.

Keywords: Approach; Eastern Mediterranean Region; Evidence synthesis; Evidence-to-policy; Impact; Knowledge translation; Lebanon; Policy-relevant; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests in this section.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Summary of steps
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Impact-oriented approach to link evidence synthesis to policy

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Koon AD, Rao KD, Tran NT, Ghaffar A. Embedding health policy and systems research into decision-making processes in low- and middle-income countries. Health Res Policy Syst. 2013;11:30. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-11-30. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. World Health Organization. Evidence-informed decision-making for health policy and programmes: insights and best practices from successful country initiatives. 2021.
    1. Pantoja T, Barreto J, Panisset U. Improving public health and health systems through evidence informed policy in the Americas. BMJ. 2018;362:k2469. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k2469. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chhetri DZF. Advocacy for evidence-based policy-making in public health: experiences and the way forward. J Health Manag. 2021;23(1):85–94. doi: 10.1177/0972063421994948. - DOI
    1. Rodriguez DC, Shearer J, Mariano AR, Juma PA, Dalglish SL, Bennett S. Evidence-informed policymaking in practice: country-level examples of use of evidence for iCCM policy. Health Policy Plan. 2015;30(Suppl 2):36–45. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czv033. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources