Commentary: whose views count in evidence synthesis? And when do they count?

Area of Science:

• Health services research
• Evidence-based policy
• Knowledge translation

Background:

• Disagreement exists regarding the optimal timing and methods for involving decision-makers in evidence synthesis.
• Current evidence synthesis processes may not fully align with the broader evidence concepts used by managers and policymakers.

Purpose of the Study:

• To propose distinct roles for researchers and decision-makers across different stages of evidence synthesis.
• To address the integration of diverse evidence conceptions into policy-making frameworks.

Main Methods:

• Commentary based on analysis of recent publications in Healthcare Policy.
• Conceptual framework for decision-maker involvement at various synthesis stages.

Main Results:

• Identifies three distinct stages of evidence synthesis where decision-maker involvement can vary.
• Proposes differential roles for researchers and managers/policymakers at each stage and at the point of decision.
• Highlights the inadequacy of current methods in accommodating broader definitions of evidence.

Conclusions:

• Tailored engagement strategies are needed to effectively involve decision-makers in evidence synthesis.
• Revising synthesis processes is crucial to incorporate the wider range of evidence valued by managers and policymakers.