Background: Increasing policy involvement in systematic reviews is part of a wider social movement of more inclusive approaches to conducting research.

Objectives: To investigate institutional mechanisms and editorial pathways for maximising relevance of systematic reviews to policy makers.

Methods: Insider research interviewing both policy makers and systematic reviewers about systematic reviews and working together; and, in the course of our own work, reflecting on the drivers, processes and impacts of working with policy makers to commission policy-relevant reviews and supporting authors to produce them.

Results: No specific review methodology was considered uniquely appropriate for policy-relevant systematic reviews. It was the mutual engagement across the research-policy interface that enhanced the policy relevance of reviews. We identified institutional mechanisms that bring the worlds of policy and research closer, to create more policy relevant systematic reviews. These clustered into four review production models to suit different policy situations. Lastly we revealed communication methods for collective analysis to shape policy-relevant review questions.

Conclusions: Shaping review questions, and supporting others to do so, has parallels with qualitative analysis and non-directive counselling. Recognising these parallels offers clear procedures for guiding the intellectual work required to get a review started.