Scholarlink

Objective <p>This scoping review aims to provide an overview of documents describing the preparation of policy briefs from academic health science researchers for policy-making.</p> Introduction <p>Not considering research evidence sufficiently may engender inefficient resource allocation and an inadequate response to public issues. Policy briefs are aimed at bridging this gap and assisting policy-makers in making evidence-informed decisions, yet they lack standardization.</p> Methods <p>A scoping review following JBI methodology was conducted. We aimed at summarizing recommendations and guidelines for policy briefs from health science academia, focusing on formal criteria and contextual considerations. We included documents describing the preparation of policy briefs from academia to policy-making, as well as those that are usable for various addressees. Documents needed to be published in German, English, French, or Spanish and available in full text. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, LIVIVO (SOMED), and additional sources up to December 01, 2025, resulting in 67 included records out of 1395 scientific publications and 81 grey literature sources.</p> Results <p>The structure of policy briefs varied, with layout and language being the only consistent elements. Guidelines exhibited diversity in length, target groups, references, and timing, with discernible tendencies. Contextual considerations also varied across articles, indicating inconsistency in definitions and frequencies.</p> Conclusion <p>Variability in policy brief design guidance poses challenges for both researchers and end-users, potentially hindering effective evidence communication. Enhanced efforts of co-creation, shared minimum standards, and evaluation may mitigate these challenges. Still, complete standardization may be unattainable, necessitating flexibility to cater to diverse audience needs, priorities, and perspectives. Transparent acknowledgement of such situations is crucial.</p> Systematic review registration <p><a href="https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/HTJMW">https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/HTJMW</a></p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Guidelines and recommendations for preparing policy briefs from research into policy-making in health sciences: a scoping review

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月9日

查看全文
  • Marie Derstroff,
  • Luisa Schmidt,
  • Tim Mathes,
  • Eni Shehu,
  • Charlotte Kugler,
  • Martin Bujard,
  • Helena Ludwig-Walz,
  • Dawid Pieper

摘要

Objective

This scoping review aims to provide an overview of documents describing the preparation of policy briefs from academic health science researchers for policy-making.

Introduction

Not considering research evidence sufficiently may engender inefficient resource allocation and an inadequate response to public issues. Policy briefs are aimed at bridging this gap and assisting policy-makers in making evidence-informed decisions, yet they lack standardization.

Methods

A scoping review following JBI methodology was conducted. We aimed at summarizing recommendations and guidelines for policy briefs from health science academia, focusing on formal criteria and contextual considerations. We included documents describing the preparation of policy briefs from academia to policy-making, as well as those that are usable for various addressees. Documents needed to be published in German, English, French, or Spanish and available in full text. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, LIVIVO (SOMED), and additional sources up to December 01, 2025, resulting in 67 included records out of 1395 scientific publications and 81 grey literature sources.

Results

The structure of policy briefs varied, with layout and language being the only consistent elements. Guidelines exhibited diversity in length, target groups, references, and timing, with discernible tendencies. Contextual considerations also varied across articles, indicating inconsistency in definitions and frequencies.

Conclusion

Variability in policy brief design guidance poses challenges for both researchers and end-users, potentially hindering effective evidence communication. Enhanced efforts of co-creation, shared minimum standards, and evaluation may mitigate these challenges. Still, complete standardization may be unattainable, necessitating flexibility to cater to diverse audience needs, priorities, and perspectives. Transparent acknowledgement of such situations is crucial.

Systematic review registration

https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/HTJMW