An ethical analysis of policy dialogues.

BACKGROUND: A policy dialogue is a tool which promotes evidence-informed policy-making. It involves deliberation about a high-priority issue, informed by a synthesis of the best-available evidence, where potential policy interventions are discussed by stakeholders. We offer an ethical analysis of policy dialogues - an argument about how policy dialogues ought to be conceived and executed - to guide those organizing and participating in policy dialogues. Our analysis focuses on the deliberative dialogues themselves, rather than ethical issues in the broader policy context within which they are situated. METHODS: We conduct a philosophical conceptual analysis of policy dialogues, informed by a formal and an interpretative literature review. RESULTS: We identify the objectives of policy dialogues, and consider the procedural and substantive values that should govern them. As knowledge translation tools, the chief objective of policy dialogues is to ensure that prospective evidence-informed health policies are appropriate for and likely to support evidence-informed decision-making in a particular context. We identify five core characteristics which serve this objective: policy dialogues are (i) focused on a high-priority issue, (ii) evidence-informed, (iii) deliberative, (iv) participatory and (v) action-oriented. In contrast to dominant ethical frameworks for policy-making, we argue that transparency and accountability are not central procedural values for policy dialogues, as they are liable to inhibit the open deliberation that is necessary for successful policy dialogues. Instead, policy dialogues are legitimate insofar as they pursue the objectives and embody the core characteristics identified above. Finally, we argue that good policy dialogues need to actively consider a range of substantive values other than health benefit and equity. CONCLUSIONS: Policy dialogues should recognize the limits of effectiveness as a guiding value for policy-making, and operate with an expansive conception of successful outcomes. We offer a set of questions to support those organizing and participating in policy dialogues.

Development of a STandard reporting guideline for Evidence briefs for Policy (STEP): context and study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Evidence briefs for policy (EBP) draw on best-available data and research evidence (e.g., systematic reviews) to help clarify policy problems, frame options for addressing them, and identify implementation considerations for policymakers in a given context. An increasing number of governments, non-governmental organizations and research groups have been developing EBP on a wide variety of topics. However, the reporting characteristics of EBP vary across organizations due to a lack of internationally accepted standard reporting guidelines. This project aims to develop a STandard reporting guideline of Evidence briefs for Policy (STEP), which will encompass a reporting checklist and a STEP statement and a user manual. METHODS: We will refer to and adapt the methods recommended by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network. The key actions include: (1) developing a protocol; (2) establishing an international multidisciplinary STEP working group (consisting of a Coordination Team and a Delphi Panel); (3) generating an initial draft of the potential items for the STEP reporting checklist through a comprehensive review of EBP-related literature and documents; (4) conducting a modified Delphi process to select and refine the reporting checklist; (5) using the STEP to evaluate published policy briefs in different countries; (6) finalizing the checklist; (7) developing the STEP statement and the user manual (8) translating the STEP into different languages; and (9) testing the reliability through real world use. DISCUSSION: Our protocol describes the development process for STEP. It will directly address what and how information should be reported in EBP and contribute to improving their quality. The decision-makers, researchers, journal editors, evaluators, and other stakeholders who support evidence-informed policymaking through the use of mechanisms like EBP will benefit from the STEP. Registration We registered the protocol on the EQUATOR network. ( https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/#84 ).

Domains and processes for institutionalizing evidence-informed health policy-making: a critical interpretive synthesis.

BACKGROUND: While calls for institutionalization of evidence-informed policy-making (EIP) have become stronger in recent years, there is a paucity of methods that governments and organizational knowledge brokers can use to sustain and integrate EIP as part of mainstream health policy-making. The objective of this paper was to conduct a knowledge synthesis of the published and grey literatures to develop a theoretical framework with the key features of EIP institutionalization. METHODS: We applied a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) that allowed for a systematic, yet iterative and dynamic analysis of heterogeneous bodies of literature to develop an explanatory framework for EIP institutionalization. We used a "compass" question to create a detailed search strategy and conducted electronic searches to identify papers based on their potential relevance to EIP institutionalization. Papers were screened and extracted independently and in duplicate. A constant comparative method was applied to develop a framework on EIP institutionalization. The CIS was triangulated with the findings of stakeholder dialogues that involved civil servants, policy-makers and researchers. RESULTS: We identified 3001 references, of which 88 papers met our eligibility criteria. This CIS resulted in a definition of EIP institutionalization as the "process and outcome of (re-)creating, maintaining and reinforcing norms, regulations, and standard practices that, based on collective meaning and values, actions as well as endowment of resources, allow evidence to become-over time-a legitimate and taken-for-granted part of health policy-making". The resulting theoretical framework comprised six key domains of EIP institutionalization that capture both structure and agency: (1) governance; (2) standards and routinized processes; (3) partnership, collective action and support; (4) leadership and commitment; (5) resources; and (6) culture. Furthermore, EIP institutionalization is being achieved through five overlapping stages: (i) precipitating events; (ii) de-institutionalization; (iii) semi-institutionalization (comprising theorization and diffusion); (iv) (re)-institutionalization; and (v) renewed de-institutionalization processes. CONCLUSIONS: This CIS advances the theoretical and conceptual discussions on EIP institutionalization, and provides new insights into an evidence-informed framework for initiating, strengthening and/or assessing efforts to institutionalize EIP.

Examining and Contextualizing Approaches to Establish Policy Support Organizations - A Critical Interpretive Synthesis.

BACKGROUND: In response to worldwide calls for the need to support evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM), more countries are increasingly interested in enhancing their efforts to use research to inform policy-making. In order to inform the efforts of those asked to lead the support of EIPM, our aim is to develop a conceptual framework to guide the process of establishing a policy support organization (PSO). METHODS: We conducted a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS). We conducted a two steps literature review. In the second step, we systematically searched OVID EMBASE, PsychInfo, HealthStar, CINAHL, Web of Science, Social Science Abstract, Health Systems Evidence, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global databases for documents reporting the establishment of PSOs and the contextual factors influencing the process of establishing these organizations. We assessed the eligibility of the retrieved articles and synthesized the findings iteratively. RESULTS: We included 52 documents in the synthesis. Our findings suggest that a PSO establishment process has four interconnected stages: awareness, development, assessment, and maturation. The process of establishing a PSO is iterative and influenced by political, research and health systems contextual factors, which determine the availability of the resources and the trust between researchers and policy-makers. The contextual factors have an impact on each other, and the challenges that arise from one factor can be mitigated by other factors. CONCLUSION: For those interested in establishing a PSO, our framework provides a road map for identifying the most appropriate starting point and the factors that might influence the establishment process. Leaders of such PSOs can use our findings to expand or refine their scope of work. Given that this framework focuses only on PSOs in the health sector, an important next step for research would be to include other sectors from social systems and identify any additional insight that can enhance our framework.

Examining and Contextualizing Approaches to Establish Policy Support Organizations - A Mixed Method Study.

BACKGROUND: There has been an increase in the number of policy support organizations (PSOs) that have been created to foster the systematic use of evidence in health system policymaking. Our aim was to identify approaches for establishing a PSO or similar entities by soliciting insights from those with practical experience with developing and operationalizing PSOs in real-world contexts. METHODS: We used a sequential mixed method approached. We first conducted a survey to identify the views and experiences of those who were directly involved in the establishment of PSOs that have been developed and implemented across a variety of political-, health- and research-system contexts. The survey findings were then used to develop a purposive sample of PSO leaders and refine an interview guide for interviews with them. RESULTS: We received 19 completed surveys from leaders of PSOs in countries across the WHO regions and that operate in different settings (eg, as independent organization or within a university or government department) and conducted interviews with 15 senior managers from nine PSOs. Our findings provide in-depth insights about approaches and strategies across four stages for establishing a PSO, which include: (i) building awareness for the PSO; (ii) developing the PSO; (iii) assessing the PSO to identify potential areas for enhancement; and (iv) supporting maturation to build sustainability in the long-term. Our findings provide rich insights about the process of establishing a PSO from leaders who have undertaken the process. CONCLUSION: While all PSOs share the same objective in supporting evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM), there is no single approach that can be considered to be the most successful in establishing a PSO, and each country should identify the approach based on its context.

Addressing overuse of health services in health systems: a critical interpretive synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Health systems are increasingly focusing on the issue of 'overuse' of health services and how to address it. We developed a framework focused on (1) the rationale and context for health systems prioritising addressing overuse, (2) elements of a comprehensive process and approach to reduce overuse and (3) implementation considerations for addressing overuse. METHODS: We conducted a critical interpretive synthesis informed by a stakeholder-engagement process. The synthesis identified relevant empirical and non-empirical articles about system-level overuse. Two reviewers independently screened records, assessed for inclusion and conceptually mapped included articles. From these, we selected a purposive sample, created structured summaries of key findings and thematically synthesised the results. RESULTS: Our search identified 3545 references, from which we included 251. Most articles (76%; n = 192) were published within 5 years of conducting the review and addressed processes for addressing overuse (63%; n = 158) or political and health system context (60%; n = 151). Besides negative outcomes at the patient, system and global level, there were various contextual factors to addressing service overuse that seem to be key issue drivers. Processes for addressing overuse can be grouped into three elements comprising a comprehensive approach, including (1) approaches to identify overused health services, (2) stakeholder- or patient-led approaches and (3) government-led initiatives. Key implementation considerations include the need to develop 'buy in' from stakeholders and citizens. CONCLUSIONS: Health systems want to ensure the use of high-value services to keep citizens healthy and avoid harm. Our synthesis can be used by policy-makers, stakeholders and researchers to understand how the issue has been prioritised, what approaches have been used to address it and implementation considerations. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014013204 .

The factors affecting the institutionalisation of two policy units in Burkina Faso's health system: a case study.

BACKGROUND: This paper is one of three linked studies that attempts to understand the process of institutionalisation of policy units within Burkina Faso's health system. It examines the relationships between the existence of an institutional framework, data production capacity and other resource availability in the institutionalisation of policy units in health systems. It therefore contributes to our understanding of the dynamics linking the key drivers and indicators of institutionalisation. Additionally, it examines how factors within the managerial setting, including workplace environment, and budgetary and human resource availability, may influence the institutionalisation process. METHODS: The study used an explanatory qualitative case study approach, examining two policy units in Burkina Faso's Ministry of Health, the first of which had been institutionalised successfully and the other less so. Data were collected from key policymakers, including 13 connected with the first policy unit and 10 with the second, plus two funders. We also conducted a documentary analysis of the National Program for Health Development, two mid-term strategic plans, 230 action plans, eight Ministry of Health state budgets, eight Ministry of Health annual statistics reports, 16 policy unit budgets and published literature. RESULTS: The framework within which the government gave the policy unit its mandate and policy focus had the strongest effect on the institutionalisation process. Institutionalisation depended on political will, in both the host government and any donors, and the priority given to the policy unit's focus. It was also affected by the leadership of the policy unit managers. These factors were influenced by human resource capacity, and our findings suggest that, for successful institutionalisation in Burkina Faso's health system, policy units need to be given sufficient human resources to achieve their objectives. CONCLUSION: Policy units' institutionalisation in Burkina Faso's health system depend on the leadership of the unit managers to implement relevant activities, mobilise funding, and recruit and maintain enough human resources, as well as the mandate given by the government.

Analysis of the policymaking process in Burkina Faso's health sector: case studies of the creation of two health system support units.

BACKGROUND: Burkina Faso has made a number of health system policy decisions to improve performance on health indicators and strengthen responsiveness to health-related challenges. These included the creation of a General Directorate of Health Information and Statistics (DGISS) and a technical unit to coordinate performance-based financing (CT-FBR). We analysed the policymaking processes associated with the establishment of these units, and documented the factors that influenced this process. METHOD: We used a multiple-case study design based on Kingdon's agenda-setting model to investigate the DGISS and CT-FBR policymaking processes. Data were collected from interviews with key informants (n = 28), published literature, policy documents (including two strategic and 230 action plans), and 55 legal/regulatory texts. Interviews were analysed using thematic qualitative analysis. Data from the documentary analysis were triangulated with the qualitative interview data. RESULTS: Key factors influencing the policymaking processes associated with the two units involved the 'problem' (problem identification), 'policy' (formation of policy proposals), and 'politics' (political climate/change) streams, which came together in a way that resulted in proposals being placed on the decision agenda. A number of problems with Burkina Faso's health information and financing systems were identified. Policy proposals for the DGISS and CT-FBR units were developed in response to these problems, emerging from several sources including development partners. Changes in political and public service administrations (specifically the 2008 appointment of a new Minister of Health and the establishment of a new budget allocation system), with corresponding changes in the actors and interests involved, appeared key in elevating the proposals to the decision agenda. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to improve performance on health indicators and strengthen responsiveness to health-related challenges need focus on the need for a compelling problem, a viable policy, and conducive politics in order to make it to the decision agenda.

Developing and refining the methods for a 'one-stop shop' for research evidence about health systems.

BACKGROUND: Policymakers, stakeholders and researchers have not been able to find research evidence about health systems using an easily understood taxonomy of topics, know when they have conducted a comprehensive search of the many types of research evidence relevant to them, or rapidly identify decision-relevant information in their search results. METHODS: To address these gaps, we developed an approach to building a 'one-stop shop' for research evidence about health systems. We developed a taxonomy of health system topics and iteratively refined it by drawing on existing categorization schemes and by using it to categorize progressively larger bundles of research evidence. We identified systematic reviews, systematic review protocols, and review-derived products through searches of Medline, hand searches of several databases indexing systematic reviews, hand searches of journals, and continuous scanning of listservs and websites. We developed an approach to providing 'added value' to existing content (e.g., coding systematic reviews according to the countries in which included studies were conducted) and to expanding the types of evidence eligible for inclusion (e.g., economic evaluations and health system descriptions). Lastly, we developed an approach to continuously updating the online one-stop shop in seven supported languages. RESULTS: The taxonomy is organized by governance, financial, and delivery arrangements and by implementation strategies. The 'one-stop shop', called Health Systems Evidence, contains a comprehensive inventory of evidence briefs, overviews of systematic reviews, systematic reviews, systematic review protocols, registered systematic review titles, economic evaluations and costing studies, health reform descriptions and health system descriptions, and many types of added-value coding. It is continuously updated and new content is regularly translated into Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. CONCLUSIONS: Policymakers and stakeholders can now easily access and use a wide variety of types of research evidence about health systems to inform decision-making and advocacy. Researchers and research funding agencies can use Health Systems Evidence to identify gaps in the current stock of research evidence and domains that could benefit from primary research, systematic reviews, and review overviews.

Processes, contexts, and rationale for disinvestment: a protocol for a critical interpretive synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Practical solutions are needed to support the appropriate use of available health system resources as countries are continually pressured to 'do more with less' in health care. Increasingly, health systems and organizations are exploring the reassessment of possibly obsolete, inefficient, or ineffective health system resources and potentially redirecting funds to those that are more effective and efficient. Such processes are often referred to as 'disinvestment'. Our objective is to gain further understanding about: 1) whether how and under what conditions health systems decide to pursue disinvestment; 2) how health systems have chosen to undertake disinvestment; and 3) how health systems have implemented their disinvestment approach. METHODS/DESIGN: We will use a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) approach, to develop a theoretical framework based on insights drawn from a range of relevant sources. We will conduct systematic searches of databases as well as purposive searches to identify literature to fill conceptual gaps that may emerge during our inductive process of synthesis and analysis. Two independent reviewers will assess search results for relevance and conceptually map included references. We will include all empirical and non-empirical articles that focus on disinvestment at a system level. We will then extract key findings from a purposive sample of articles using frameworks related to government agendas, policy development and implementation, and health system contextual factors and then synthesize and integrate the findings to develop a framework about our core areas of interest. Lastly, we will convene a stakeholder dialogue with Canadian and international policymakers and other stakeholders to solicit targeted feedback about the framework (e.g., by identifying any gaps in the literature that we may want to revisit before finalizing it) and deliberating about barriers for developing and implementing approaches to disinvestment, strategies to address these barriers and about next steps that could be taken by different constituencies. DISCUSSION: Disinvestment is an emerging field and there is a need for evidence to inform the prioritization, development, and implementation of strategies in different contexts. Our CIS and the framework developed through it will support the actions of those involved in the prioritization, development, and implementation of disinvestment initiatives. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014013204.

Towards a better understanding of the nomenclature used in information-packaging efforts to support evidence-informed policymaking in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: The growing recognition of the importance of concisely communicating research evidence and other policy-relevant information to policymakers has underpinned the development of several information-packaging efforts over the past decade. This has led to a wide variability in the types of documents produced, which is at best confusing and at worst discouraging for those they intend to reach. This paper has two main objectives: to develop a better understanding of the range of documents and document names used by the organizations preparing them; and to assess whether there are any consistencies in the characteristics of sampled documents across the names employed to label (in the title) or describe (in the document or website) them. METHODS: We undertook a documentary analysis of web-published document series that are prepared by a variety of organizations with the primary intention of providing information to health systems policymakers and stakeholders, and addressing questions related to health policy and health systems with a focus on low- and middle-income countries. No time limit was set. RESULTS: In total, 109 individual documents from 24 series produced by 16 different organizations were included. The name 'policy brief/briefing' was the most frequently used (39%) to label or describe a document, and was used in all eight broad content areas that we identified, even though they did not have obviously common traits among them. In terms of document characteristics, most documents (90%) used skimmable formats that are easy to read, with understandable, jargon-free, language (80%). Availability of information on the methods (47%) or the quality of the presented evidence (27%) was less common. One-third (32%) chose the topic based on an explicit process to assess the demand for information from policy makers and even fewer (19%) engaged with policymakers to discuss the content of these documents such as through merit review. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the need for organizations embarking on future information-packaging efforts to be more thoughtful when deciding how to name these documents and the need for greater transparency in describing their content, purpose and intended audience.

Capturing lessons learned from evidence-to-policy initiatives through structured reflection.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge translation platforms (KTPs), which are partnerships between policymakers, stakeholders, and researchers, are being established in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to enhance evidence-informed health policymaking (EIHP). This study aims to gain a better understanding of the i) activities conducted by KTPs, ii) the way in which KTP leaders, policymakers, and stakeholders perceive these activities and their outputs, iii) facilitators that support KTP work and challenges, and the lessons learned for overcoming such challenges, and iv) factors that can help to ensure the sustainability of KTPs. METHODS: This paper triangulated qualitative data from: i) 17 semi-structured interviews with 47 key informants including KTP leaders, policymakers, and stakeholders from 10 KTPs; ii) document reviews, and iii) observation of deliberations at the International Forum on EIHP in LMICs held in Addis Ababa in August 2012. Purposive sampling was used and data were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Deliberative dialogues informed by evidence briefs were identified as the most commendable tools by interviewees for enhancing EIHP. KTPs reported that they have contributed to increased awareness of the importance of EIHP and strengthened relationships among policymakers, stakeholders, and researchers. Support from policymakers and international funders facilitated KTP activities, while the lack of skilled human resources to conduct EIHP activities impeded KTPs. Ensuring the sustainability of EIHP initiatives after the end of funding was a major challenge for KTPs. KTPs reported that institutionalization within the government has helped to retain human resources and secure funding, whereas KTPs hosted by universities highlighted the advantage of autonomy from political interests. CONCLUSIONS: The establishment of KTPs is a promising development in supporting EIHP. Real-time lesson drawing from the experiences of KTPs can support improvements in the functioning of KTPs in the short term, while making the case for sustaining their work in the long term. Lessons learned can help to promote similar EIHP initiatives in other countries.

Evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues: perceptions and intentions to act on what was learnt.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and implement a method for the evaluation of "evidence briefs" and "deliberative dialogues" that could be applied to comparative studies of similar strategies used in the support of evidence-informed policy-making. METHODS: Participants who read evidence briefs and attended deliberative dialogues in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Uganda and Zambia were surveyed before the start of the dialogues - to collect their views on pre-circulated evidence briefs - and at the end of the dialogues - to collect their views on the dialogues. The respondents' assessments of the briefs and dialogues and the respondents' intentions to act on what they had learned were then investigated in descriptive statistical analyses and regression models. FINDINGS: Of the 530 individuals who read the evidence briefs and attended dialogues, 304 (57%) and 303 (57%) completed questionnaires about the briefs and dialogues, respectively. Respondents viewed the evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues - as well as each of their key features - very favourably, regardless of the country, issue or group involved. Overall, "not concluding with recommendations" and "not aiming for a consensus" were identified as the least helpful features of the briefs and dialogues, respectively. Respondents generally reported strong intentions to act on what they had learnt. CONCLUSION: Although some aspects of their design may need to be improved or, at least, explained and justified to policy-makers and stakeholders, evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues appear to be highly regarded and to lead to intentions to act.

How contexts and issues influence the use of policy-relevant research syntheses: a critical interpretive synthesis.

CONTEXT: Evidence briefs have emerged as a promising approach to synthesizing the best available research evidence for health system policymakers and stakeholders. An evidence brief may draw on systematic reviews and many other types of policy-relevant information, including local data and studies, to describe a problem, options for addressing it, and key implementation considerations. We conducted a systematic review to examine the ways in which context- and issue-related factors influence the perceived usefulness of evidence briefs among their intended users. METHODS: We used a critical interpretive synthesis approach to review both empirical and nonempirical literature and to develop a model that explains how context and issues influence policymakers' and stakeholders' views of the utility of evidence briefs prepared for priority policy issues. We used a "compass" question to create a detailed search strategy and conducted electronic searches in CINAHL, EMBASE, HealthSTAR, IPSA, MEDLINE, OAIster (gray literature), ProQuest A&I Theses, ProQuest (Sociological Abstracts, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Worldwide Political Science Abstracts, International Bibliography of Social Sciences, PAIS, Political Science), PsychInfo, Web of Science, and WilsonWeb (Social Science Abstracts). Finally, we used a grounded and interpretive analytic approach to synthesize the results. FINDINGS: Of the 4,461 papers retrieved, 3,908 were excluded and 553 were assessed for "relevance," with 137 included in the initial sample of papers to be analyzed and an additional 23 purposively sampled to fill conceptual gaps. Several themes emerged: (1) many established types of "evidence" are viewed as useful content in an evidence brief, along with several promising formatting features; (2) contextual factors, particularly the institutions, interests, and values of a given context, can influence views of evidence briefs; (3) whether an issue is polarizing and whether it is salient (or not) and familiar (or not) to actors in the policy arena can influence views of evidence briefs prepared for that issue; (4) influential factors can emerge in several ways (as context driven, issue driven, or a result of issue-context resonance); (5) these factors work through two primary pathways, affecting either the users or the producers of briefs; and (6) these factors influence views of evidence briefs through a variety of mechanisms. CONCLUSIONS: Those persons funding and preparing evidence briefs need to consider a variety of context- and issue-related factors when deciding how to make them most useful in policymaking.

The global stock of research evidence relevant to health systems policymaking.

BACKGROUND: Policymakers and stakeholders need immediate access to many types of research evidence to make informed decisions about the full range of questions that may arise regarding health systems. METHODS: We examined all types of research evidence about governance, financial and delivery arrangements, and implementation strategies within health systems contained in Health Systems Evidence (HSE) (http://www.healthsystemsevidence.org). The research evidence types include evidence briefs for policy, overviews of systematic reviews, systematic reviews of effects, systematic reviews addressing other questions, systematic reviews in progress, systematic reviews being planned, economic evaluations, and health reform and health system descriptions. Specifically, we describe their distribution across health system topics and domains, trends in their production over time, availability of supplemental content in various languages, and the extent to which they focus on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), as well as (for systematic reviews) their methodological quality and the availability of user-friendly summaries. RESULTS: As of July 2013, HSE contained 2,629 systematic reviews of effects (of which 501 are Cochrane reviews), 614 systematic reviews addressing other questions, 283 systematic reviews in progress, 186 systematic reviews being planned, 140 review-derived products (evidence briefs and overviews of systematic reviews), 1,669 economic evaluations, 1,092 health reform descriptions, and 209 health system descriptions. Most systematic reviews address topics related to delivery arrangements (n = 2,663) or implementation strategies (n = 1,653) with far fewer addressing financial (n = 241) or governance arrangements (n = 231). In addition, 2,928 systematic reviews have been quality appraised with moderate AMSTAR ratings found for reviews addressing governance (5.6/11), financial (5.9/11), and delivery (6.3/11) arrangements and implementation strategies (6.5/11); 1,075 systematic reviews have no independently produced user-friendly summary and only 737 systematic reviews have an LMIC focus. Literature searches for half of the systematic reviews (n = 1,584, 49%) were conducted within the last five years. CONCLUSIONS: Greater effort needs to focus on assessing whether the current distribution of systematic reviews corresponds to policymakers' and stakeholders' priorities, updating systematic reviews, increasing the quality of systematic reviews, and focusing on LMICs.

Rol de la evidencia científica en las decisiones políticas relacionadas con los sistemas de salud / The role of research-based evidence in health system policy decision-making

RESUMEN Existen diferentes modelos para explicar cómo la evidencia de la investigación se utiliza en los procesos de formulación de políticas sobre los sistemas de salud. En este artículo argumentamos que los modelos que se desarrollaron desde el contexto clínico, como el de políticas basadas en la evidencia, pueden ser útiles en algunas decisiones políticas. Sin embargo, debido a su "silencio" sobre el contexto político, estos modelos son incompatibles con las decisiones relacionadas con la modificación de los arreglos de los sistemas de salud. Otros modelos, generados desde las ciencias políticas, son más útiles para entender que la investigación es uno solo de los factores que afecta la toma de decisiones y que diferentes tipos de evidencia científica pueden ser utilizados de manera instrumental, conceptual o estratégica en diferentes etapas del proceso de formulación de políticas.

ABSTRACT Different models may be used for explaining how research-based evidence is used in healthcare system policy-making. It is argued that models arising from a clinical setting (i.e. evidence-based policy-making model) could be useful regarding some types of healthcare system decision-making. However, such models are "silent" concerning the influence of political contextual factors on healthcare policy-making and are thus inconsistent with decision-making regarding the modification of healthcare system arrangements. Other political science-based models would seem to be more useful for understanding that research is just one factor affecting decision-making and that different types of research-based evidence can be used instrumentally, conceptual or strategically during different policy-making stages.

Twelve myths about systematic reviews for health system policymaking rebutted.

Systematic reviews are increasingly being viewed as important sources of information for policymakers who need to make decisions on different aspects of the health system, often under tight time constraints and with many factors competing for their attention. Unfortunately, a number of misconceptions, or 'myths', stand in the way of promoting their use. The belief that systematic review topics are not relevant to health systems policymaking, that they cannot be found quickly, and that they are not available in formats that are useful for policymakers are but three examples of such myths. This paper uses evidence drawn mainly from Health Systems Evidence, a continuously updated repository of syntheses of health systems research, to counter these and nine other common myths, with the aim of changing the constraining beliefs associated with them, while improving the prospects for the use of systematic reviews in health system policymaking.

[The role of research-based evidence in health system policy decision-making]. / Rol de la evidencia científica en las decisiones políticas relacionadas con los sistemas de salud.

Different models may be used for explaining how research-based evidence is used in healthcare system policy-making. It is argued that models arising from a clinical setting (i.e. evidence-based policy-making model) could be useful regarding some types of healthcare system decision-making. However, such models are "silent" concerning the influence of political contextual factors on healthcare policy-making and are thus inconsistent with decision-making regarding the modification of healthcare system arrangements. Other political science-based models would seem to be more useful for understanding that research is just one factor affecting decision-making and that different types of research-based evidence can be used instrumentally, conceptual or strategically during different policy-making stages.