Chukwu, Emelda E. and Woolaston, Katie and Kaufer, Ricardo and Bortolus, Alejandro and Hewitt, Chad L. and Schwindt, Evangelina and Sogbanmu, Temitope O. and Schwenkenbecher, Anne and Rubin, Hannah and Slanickova, Helena and Schneider, Mike D. and Heesen, Remco and Mitova, Veli (2024) Examining Self-Described Policy-Relevant Evidence Base for Policymaking: An Evidence Map of COVID-19 Literature. BMJ Public Health, 2 (2). e000694. ISSN 2753-4294
![[img]](https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/style/images/fileicons/text.png) |
Text
Chukwu et al 2024 Examining Self-Described Policy-Relevant Evidence An Evidence Map of COVID-19 Literature (BMJ Public Health).pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial. Download (1MB) |
Abstract
BACKGROUND Evidence-based policymaking is a paradigm aimed at increasing the use of evidence by actors involved in policymaking processes. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted a heavy reliance on emerging evidence for policymaking during emergencies. OBJECTIVE This study describes the focus and types of evidence in journal articles self-described as relevant to policymaking using the COVID-19 pandemic as a case study, identifying gaps in evidence and highlighting author stated perceived biases specifically in evidence-based policy making. DESIGN Evidence mapping. DATA SOURCES We systematically searched SCOPUS, Pub Med and Lexis Nexis for literature identifying policy-relevant evidence available on the COVID-19 pandemic. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA The study included only peer-reviewed literature identified as ‘article’, ‘book chapter’, ‘review’ covering the period from January 2020 to December 2022. Inclusion criteria required that articles have an abstract, authorship attribution and are written in English. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS A minimum of two authors independently extracted and coded for every level and final outputs were compared for consistency. RESULTS A total of 213 articles met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed in this study. Lead authorship affiliations were from 50 countries with 70% of the outputs from developed economies including USA (20.2%), UK (18.3%) and Australia (7.5%). The most common purpose of the articles was the presentation of research findings the authors considered of relevance to policy (60.1%), followed by work that examined the impact of policy (28.6%) or highlighted or supported a policy need (22.5%), while some papers had multiple stated purposes. The most common challenges in policymaking identified by the authors of the reviewed papers were process failures and poor evidence utilisation during policymaking. CONCLUSIONS The evidence map identified the need for an interdisciplinary policy approach involving relevant stakeholders and driven by quality research as a progressive step towards prevention of future public health crises/pandemics.
| Export/Citation: | EndNote | BibTeX | Dublin Core | ASCII/Text Citation (Chicago) | HTML Citation | OpenURL |
| Social Networking: |
Monthly Views for the past 3 years
Monthly Downloads for the past 3 years
Plum Analytics
Altmetric.com
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
![[feed]](http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/style/images/feed-icon-32x32.png){kind=icon}