Promoting inclusive evidence-informed decision-making: health policymakers’ views and experiences of knowledge translation approaches – a qualitative evidence synthesis
1
Health Systems Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa
2
Accelerators Research Hub, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
3
Centre for Epidemic Response and Innovation, School for Data Science and Computational Thinking, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa
4
Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, University for Continuing Education Krems, Krems, Austria
5
Strengthening Oncology Services Research Unit, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
6
Cochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa
7
School of Public Health, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
8
Department of Global Health, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa
9
Centre for Health Research Methodology, School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland
Popul. Med. 2026;8(Supplement Supplement 1):A3677
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND:
Promoting inclusive evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) in public health requires that policymakers engage with multiple sources of information, including research evidence1. Knowledge translation (KT) approaches seek to support the use of research evidence in policy decision-making; however, understanding how these approaches work in practice requires insight into policymakers' experiences and perspectives2,3. This qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) explores health policymakers' views and experiences of KT approaches to inform EIDM.
METHODS:
We followed Cochrane methods and searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, and grey literature sources without language or date restrictions. We included studies that applied qualitative data collection and analysis. Two or more reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed methodological limitations using CASP. We used thematic analysis and GRADE-CERQual to assess confidence in review findings.
RESULTS:
We identified three analytical themes: 1) Trust acts as a gatekeeper for evidence use and is mediated by both relational trust in messengers and epistemic authority of sources. Policymakers value credible logos and rigorous methods, but building long-term partnerships proves essential to overcome inherent scepticism; 2) KT initiatives must balance local adaptation with sustainability. While customisation to specific policy contexts increases usability through capacity-building and interactive engagement, institutionalisation of tools and processes ensures sustained impact despite high staff turnover and resource constraints; 3) Policymakers request concise, jargon-free summaries with clear recommendations, as time constraints and competing priorities limit engagement with lengthy and technical materials. In high-pressure environments, actionable evidence packaging becomes critical for rapid decision-making.
CONCLUSIONS:
Effective KT approaches must simultaneously address trust-building through sustained partnerships, balance customisation to specific contexts with institutional capacity development, and package evidence for rapid decision-making. Promoting inclusive engagement with diverse evidence sources and addressing barriers that limit policymaker participation in EIDM can inform development of KT approaches aligned with policymakers' needs and strengthen evidence-informed public health policy and practice.
Promoting inclusive evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) in public health requires that policymakers engage with multiple sources of information, including research evidence1. Knowledge translation (KT) approaches seek to support the use of research evidence in policy decision-making; however, understanding how these approaches work in practice requires insight into policymakers' experiences and perspectives2,3. This qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) explores health policymakers' views and experiences of KT approaches to inform EIDM.
METHODS:
We followed Cochrane methods and searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, and grey literature sources without language or date restrictions. We included studies that applied qualitative data collection and analysis. Two or more reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed methodological limitations using CASP. We used thematic analysis and GRADE-CERQual to assess confidence in review findings.
RESULTS:
We identified three analytical themes: 1) Trust acts as a gatekeeper for evidence use and is mediated by both relational trust in messengers and epistemic authority of sources. Policymakers value credible logos and rigorous methods, but building long-term partnerships proves essential to overcome inherent scepticism; 2) KT initiatives must balance local adaptation with sustainability. While customisation to specific policy contexts increases usability through capacity-building and interactive engagement, institutionalisation of tools and processes ensures sustained impact despite high staff turnover and resource constraints; 3) Policymakers request concise, jargon-free summaries with clear recommendations, as time constraints and competing priorities limit engagement with lengthy and technical materials. In high-pressure environments, actionable evidence packaging becomes critical for rapid decision-making.
CONCLUSIONS:
Effective KT approaches must simultaneously address trust-building through sustained partnerships, balance customisation to specific contexts with institutional capacity development, and package evidence for rapid decision-making. Promoting inclusive engagement with diverse evidence sources and addressing barriers that limit policymaker participation in EIDM can inform development of KT approaches aligned with policymakers' needs and strengthen evidence-informed public health policy and practice.
| eISSN: | 2654-1459 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
