Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: The Evidence-Informed Policy Network (EVIPNet) is an innovative initiative sponsored by the World Health Organization that promotes the systematic integration of research evidence into health policymaking. One of its main outputs is the production of ‘policy briefs’. They start with a relevant policy issue and then identify, select, appraise and synthesize research evidence in order to better understand the problem, the policy or programmatic options to address the problem, and the implementation strategies for these options. Systematic reviews have been proposed as a ‘premium’ type of research evidence to be included in policy briefs.
Objective: To assess the usefulness of Cochrane reviews in the process of preparation of policy briefs in the Americas.
Methods: We collected policy briefs prepared during 2011 by EVIPNet country teams in the Americas. We identified the policy options framed in each of them and look at the evidence supporting the effects of each option focusing on the presence of systematic reviews.
Results: Six countries teams in the Region prepared seven policy briefs in order to summarise the available evidence about the effects of options to address nationally relevant policy issues (Table 1). Only one of them was not able to locate a relevant review. Fifty six reviews were used in the other 6 policy briefs ranging from 1 to 20. Twenty seven (48%) of those were Cochrane reviews distributed evenly across the different briefs.
Conclusions: Policy briefs have been the main product of EVIPNet teams in the Americas. It is welcomed that systematic reviews are being used in their preparation. However, there are still important gaps in the availability of systematic reviews about the effects of options for addressing nationally relevant policy issues. More and better interaction between Cochrane authors and decision-makers in the Region could be one way forward to bridge this gap.
Objective: To assess the usefulness of Cochrane reviews in the process of preparation of policy briefs in the Americas.
Methods: We collected policy briefs prepared during 2011 by EVIPNet country teams in the Americas. We identified the policy options framed in each of them and look at the evidence supporting the effects of each option focusing on the presence of systematic reviews.
Results: Six countries teams in the Region prepared seven policy briefs in order to summarise the available evidence about the effects of options to address nationally relevant policy issues (Table 1). Only one of them was not able to locate a relevant review. Fifty six reviews were used in the other 6 policy briefs ranging from 1 to 20. Twenty seven (48%) of those were Cochrane reviews distributed evenly across the different briefs.
Conclusions: Policy briefs have been the main product of EVIPNet teams in the Americas. It is welcomed that systematic reviews are being used in their preparation. However, there are still important gaps in the availability of systematic reviews about the effects of options for addressing nationally relevant policy issues. More and better interaction between Cochrane authors and decision-makers in the Region could be one way forward to bridge this gap.
Images
