IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/10.2105-ajph.2013.301400_0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving utility of evidence synthesis for healthy public policy: The three Rs (relevance, rigor, and readability [and resources])

Author

Listed:
  • Thomson, H.

Abstract

Systematic reviews have the potential to promote knowledge exchange between researchers and decision-makers. Review planning requires engagement with evidence users to ensure preparation of relevant reviews, and well-conducted reviews should provide accessible and reliable synthesis to support decision-making. Yet, systematic reviews are not routinely referred to by decision-makers, and innovative approaches to improve the utility of reviews is needed. Evidence synthesis for healthy public policy is typically complex and methodologically challenging. Although not lessening the value of reviews, these challenges can be overwhelming and threaten their utility. Using the interrelated principles of relevance, rigor, and readability, and in light of available resources, this article considers how utility of evidence synthesis for healthy public policy might be improved. © 2013 American Journal of Public Health.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomson, H., 2013. "Improving utility of evidence synthesis for healthy public policy: The three Rs (relevance, rigor, and readability [and resources])," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 103(8), pages 17-23.
    • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2013.301400_0
    DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301400
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301400
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301400?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kathryn Oliver & Paul Cairney, 2019. "The dos and don’ts of influencing policy: a systematic review of advice to academics," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-11, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2013.301400_0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.