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
. 2009 Dec 16;7 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S13.
doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-7-S1-S13.

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

Affiliations

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

John N Lavis et al. Health Res Policy Syst. .

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?

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Lavis JN, Oxman AD, Lewin S, Fretheim A. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP). Introduction. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009;7(Suppl 1):I1. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-7-S1-I1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rosenbaum SE, Glenton C, Oxman A, Members of the SUPPORT Collaboration. Evidence Summaries Tailored for Health Policy Makers in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Oslo, Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services; 2009.
    1. Colby DC, Quinn BC, Williams CH, Bilheimer LT, Goodell S. Research glut and information famine: making research evidence more useful for policymakers. Health Aff (Millwood) 2008;27:1177–82. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.27.4.1177. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lavis JN, Davies HTO, Oxman A, Denis JL, Golden-Biddle K, Ferlie E. Towards systematic reviews that inform healthcare management and policymaking. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10:35–48. doi: 10.1258/1355819054308549. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lavis JN, Hammill A, Gildiner A, McDonagh RJ, Wilson MG, Ross SE, Ouimet M, Stoddart GL. A Systematic Review of the Factors that Influence the Use of Research Evidence by Public Policymakers. Final Report Submitted to the Canadian Population Health Initiative. Hamilton, Canada, McMaster University Program in Policy Decision-Making; 2005.