The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Use of Research Evidence in Public Health Decision Making Processes: Systematic Review
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The use of research evidence to underpin public health policy is strongly promoted. However, its implementation has not been straightforward. The objectives of this systematic review were to synthesise empirical evidence on the use of research evidence by public health decision makers in settings with universal health care systems. METHODS: To locate eligible studies, 13 bibliographic databases were screened, organisational websites were scanned, key informants were contacted and bibliographies of included studies were scrutinised. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Data were synthesised as a narrative review. FINDINGS: 18 studies were included: 15 qualitative studies, and three surveys. Their methodological quality was mixed. They were set in a range of country and decision making settings. Study participants included 1063 public health decision makers, 72 researchers, and 174 with overlapping roles. Decision making processes varied widely between settings, and were viewed differently by key players. A range of research evidence was accessed. However, there was no reliable evidence on the extent of its use. Its impact was often indirect, competing with other influences. Barriers to the use of research evidence included: decision makers' perceptions of research evidence; the gulf between researchers and decision makers; the culture of decision making; competing influences on decision making; and practical constraints. Suggested (but largely untested) ways of overcoming these barriers included: research targeted at the needs of decision makers; research clearly highlighting key messages; and capacity building. There was little evidence on the role of research evidence in decision making to reduce inequalities. CONCLUSIONS: To more effectively implement research informed public health policy, action is required by decision makers and researchers to address the barriers identified in this systematic review. There is an urgent need for evidence to support the use of research evidence to inform public health decision making to reduce inequalities.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research
Mays, N. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7226.50 · Cited by 3,742
Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog?
Barbour, R. S. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115 · Cited by 2,613
Methodolatry and Qualitative Health Research
Chamberlain, K. (2000) · Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1177/135910530000500306 · Cited by 257
ASTHANA, S., & HALLIDAY, J. (2006) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2006.00459.x · Cited by 45 · cited 3×
“In two studies it was believed that changing the culture within which policy makers work (in terms of structures, rewards and training) so that more value is placed on the use of research evidence for decisions might encourage its use [23,38].”
BackgroundEvidence-Based Medicine as an Instrument for Rational Health Policy
Biller-Andorno, N., Lie, R. K., & ter Meulen, R. (2002) · Health Care Analysis · doi:10.1023/a:1022947707243 · Cited by 44
Cited by
Haby, M. M., Chapman, E., Clark, R., Barreto, J., Reveiz, L., & Lavis, J. N. (2016) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0155-7 · Cited by 409
Brownson, R. C., Fielding, J. E., & Green, L. W. (2018) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-014746 · Cited by 396
Public mental health: required actions to address implementation failure in the context of COVID-19
Campion, J., Javed, A., Lund, C., Sartorius, N., Saxena, S., Marmot, M., Allan, J., & Udomratn, P. (2022) · The Lancet Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(21)00199-1 · Cited by 177
O’Connor, A. M., Tsafnat, G., Thomas, J., Glasziou, P., Gilbert, S. B., & Hutton, B. (2019) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-019-1062-0 · Cited by 167
Artificial intelligence for diabetes care: current and future prospects
Sheng, B., Pushpanathan, K., Guan, Z., Lim, Q. H., Lim, Z. W., Yew, S. M. E., Goh, J. H. L., Bee, Y. M., Sabanayagam, C., Sevdalis, N., et al. (2024) · The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology · doi:10.1016/s2213-8587(24)00154-2 · Cited by 106
Metadata
- Authors
- Orton, L., Lloyd-Williams, F., Taylor-Robinson, D., O'Flaherty, M., & Capewell, S.
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2011-07-26
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- e21704
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2091527106
- Cited by
- 599
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 4.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Use of Research Evidence in Public Health Decision Making Processes: Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0021704
- The paper
- Orton, L., Lloyd-Williams, F., Taylor-Robinson, D., O'Flaherty, M., & Capewell, S. (2011). The Use of Research Evidence in Public Health Decision Making Processes: Systematic Review. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021704
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.