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

Abstract

BackgroundThe 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsThis 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.

The effectiveness of evidence summaries on health policymakers and health system managers use of evidence from systematic reviews: a systematic review

“…Other examples include Cochrane Summaries (http://www.cochrane.org/evidence), Communicate to vaccinate (COMMVAC) (http://www.commvac.com), and Rx for change (https://www.cadth.ca/rx-change). A document analysis conducted by Adam et al identified 16 organizations involved in the production of summaries for policymakers in LMICs [7]. These summaries are identified using many different terms including evidence summaries, policy briefs, briefing papers, briefing notes, evidence briefs, abstracts, summary of findings, and plain language summaries [7] but often contain summarized evidence from systematic reviews.…”

“…A document analysis conducted by Adam et al identified 16 organizations involved in the production of summaries for policymakers in LMICs [7]. These summaries are identified using many different terms including evidence summaries, policy briefs, briefing papers, briefing notes, evidence briefs, abstracts, summary of findings, and plain language summaries [7] but often contain summarized evidence from systematic reviews. They are intended to assist decision makers in understanding the evidence and encourage its use in their decision-making.…”

“…The various products have some differences. For example, abstracts, evidence summaries, and summary of findings tables summarize evidence from a single systematic review while policy briefs utilize evidence from one or more systematic reviews and may use additional sources to provide contextual or economic information [7]. …”

Enhancing the Capacity of Policy-Makers to Develop Evidence-Informed Policy Brief on Infectious Diseases of Poverty in Nigeria

“…[16][17][18] In a recent review article, Adenowo and colleagues 19 noted that schistosomiasis is the second most common neglected tropical disease after hookworm in SubSaharan Africa and accounts for 93% (192 million) of the world estimated 207 million cases of schistosomiasis with the highest prevalence of the infection seen in Nigeria (29 million). Adam and colleagues 20 observed that there is the growing recognition of the importance of developing concise materials and tools to communicate various types of information to policy-makers and those supporting them. They cited several reports where this recognition has led to the development of a plethora of information-packaging efforts, which aim to support action based on the messages arising from research and other policy-relevant information.…”

“…[21][22][23] There are numerous reports which have shown that the availability of timely, suitably packaged and policy relevant research evidence is important in supporting increased use of research evidence in the policy processes in LMICs. [20][21][22][23] A number of studies have shown that effective techniques for communicating research findings to decision-makers include presenting readily understandable; timely data in visually compelling formats; using illustrative anecdotes where appropriate; sending clear key messages about the meaning of data; suggesting ways to use research findings for answering important policy questions; and establishing relationships of trust and credibility with policy-makers. [24][25][26][27] In a report on preparing and using evidence-informed policy briefs to support EIP, Lavis and colleagues, 28 noted that policy brief is an effective evidence-packaging mechanism and a new approach to improving the policy-making process by supporting evidence-informed policy-making.…”