No abstract

U.S. policymakers are making greater use of findings from systematic reviews, the principal product of the discipline of research synthesis. This paper summarizes the methodology and availability of systematic reviews and the brief history of their introduction to policymakers in the public and private sectors and health professionals in the United States. Then, as a case study, the paper describes how officials in a consortium of states are using systematic reviews to inform decisions about coverage for pharmaceuticals. Finally, it explores the prospects for wider use of systematic reviews by policymakers.

Systematic reviews are generating valuable scientific knowledge about the impact of public health laws, but this knowledge is not readily accessible to policy makers. We identified 65 systematic reviews of studies on the effectiveness of 52 public health laws: 27 of those laws were found effective, 23 had insufficient evidence to judge effectiveness, 1 was harmful, and 1 was found to be ineffective. This is a valuable, scientific foundation-that uses the highest relevant standard of evidence-for the role of law as a public health tool. Additional primary studies and systematic reviews are needed to address significant gaps in knowledge about the laws' public health impact, as are energetic, sustained initiatives to make the findings available to public policy makers.

Objective: Review the limitations in cross-sectoral health outcomes research and suggest a future research agenda. Data Sources, Study Design, Data Collection: Literature review and workshop discussion. Principal Findings: The research evidence that would aid public and private policy makers in answering the question the title poses is quite limited. Conclusions: Much more evidence from diverse disciplines is needed, and key areas are suggested. Criteria for progress by 2010 are proposed.

No abstract