Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Health Evidence Network (HEN) synthesis report series is the World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe’s (WHO/Europe) information service for public health decision-makers. Operating since 2003, it supports rapid learning in health systems by summarizing the best available evidence, on average within a 9-month publication timeline, to respond to policy questions. 67 reports have been published, covering high-priority topics in WHO/Europe. To better understand their impact on policy-making, standardised methods have been used to monitor their use and uptake since 2017.
Objectives: The aim was to better understand how HEN supports evidence-informed policymaking and identify lessons learnt from the HEN process to inform the improvement of HEN and other similar services.
Methods: A multimethod qualitative approach was used. HEN commissioners and authors were asked standardised questions after reports were published about the HEN process and how the reports were used in policymaking. It also drew on findings from HEN uptake summaries, through citation searches and website analytics, that track how HEN synthesis reports have been used and shared for one year from publication.
Results: Feedback from 10 authors and 8 commissioners on 16 reports and from 12 HEN uptake summaries identified that HEN reports have contributed to the development of technical guidelines, strategies, and other policy documents, served as a foundation for technical assistance and capacity building, and contributed to relationship building and opportunities for collaboration with other stakeholders. Commissioners felt that HEN’s well-known brand and established structure added legitimacy to synthesis reports. The findings identified how HEN currently facilitates evidence-informed policymaking and areas where HEN can do so more effectively. The following lessons can be for improvement of HEN, and other evidence synthesis services:
•A coordinating team is crucial to maintain focus by facilitating communication between authors, commissioners and reviewers, and ensuring adherence to timelines
•Author team diversity (expertise, country of origin, and language) contributes to a better grasp of the evidence, but may pose difficulties for working cohesively
•Create consensus between authors and commissioners early on about the project scope, methods and limitations and provide tools, training and support to ensure that authors can derive policy considerations from the evidence
•A platform for authors to stay involved in HEN and WHO processes longer term
•Technical editing maintains a consistent style for reports
•Evidence synthesis use should be evaluated 1 to 2 years post-publication
Conclusions: Effective evidence synthesis can improve health policies which affect people’s experiences, health outcomes, and costs. HEN synthesis reports offers valuable lessons for ensuring that evidence syntheses in the future are being carried out in the most effective and efficient way possible to meet the needs of policymakers and promote evidence uptake.
Objectives: The aim was to better understand how HEN supports evidence-informed policymaking and identify lessons learnt from the HEN process to inform the improvement of HEN and other similar services.
Methods: A multimethod qualitative approach was used. HEN commissioners and authors were asked standardised questions after reports were published about the HEN process and how the reports were used in policymaking. It also drew on findings from HEN uptake summaries, through citation searches and website analytics, that track how HEN synthesis reports have been used and shared for one year from publication.
Results: Feedback from 10 authors and 8 commissioners on 16 reports and from 12 HEN uptake summaries identified that HEN reports have contributed to the development of technical guidelines, strategies, and other policy documents, served as a foundation for technical assistance and capacity building, and contributed to relationship building and opportunities for collaboration with other stakeholders. Commissioners felt that HEN’s well-known brand and established structure added legitimacy to synthesis reports. The findings identified how HEN currently facilitates evidence-informed policymaking and areas where HEN can do so more effectively. The following lessons can be for improvement of HEN, and other evidence synthesis services:
•A coordinating team is crucial to maintain focus by facilitating communication between authors, commissioners and reviewers, and ensuring adherence to timelines
•Author team diversity (expertise, country of origin, and language) contributes to a better grasp of the evidence, but may pose difficulties for working cohesively
•Create consensus between authors and commissioners early on about the project scope, methods and limitations and provide tools, training and support to ensure that authors can derive policy considerations from the evidence
•A platform for authors to stay involved in HEN and WHO processes longer term
•Technical editing maintains a consistent style for reports
•Evidence synthesis use should be evaluated 1 to 2 years post-publication
Conclusions: Effective evidence synthesis can improve health policies which affect people’s experiences, health outcomes, and costs. HEN synthesis reports offers valuable lessons for ensuring that evidence syntheses in the future are being carried out in the most effective and efficient way possible to meet the needs of policymakers and promote evidence uptake.