Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Strategies for communicating scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and the population: a scoping review

Health Research Policy and Systems volume 21, Article number: 71 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Health evidence needs to be communicated and disseminated in a manner that is clearly understood by decision-makers. As an inherent component of health knowledge translation, communicating results of scientific studies, effects of interventions and health risk estimates, in addition to understanding key concepts of clinical epidemiology and interpreting evidence, represent a set of essential instruments to reduce the gap between science and practice. The advancement of digital and social media has reshaped the concept of health communication, introducing new, direct and powerful communication platforms and gateways between researchers and the public. The objective of this scoping review was to identify strategies for communicating scientific evidence in healthcare to managers and/or population.

Methods

We searched Cochrane Library, Embase®, MEDLINE® and other six electronic databases, in addition to grey literature, relevant websites from related organizations for studies, documents or reports published from 2000, addressing any strategy for communicating scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and/or population.

Results

Our search identified 24 598 unique records, of which 80 met the inclusion criteria and addressed 78 strategies. Most strategies focused on risk and benefit communication in health, were presented by textual format and had been implemented and somehow evaluated. Among the strategies evaluated and appearing to yield some benefit are (i) risk/benefit communication: natural frequencies instead of percentages, absolute risk instead relative risk and number needed to treat, numerical instead nominal communication, mortality instead survival; negative or loss content appear to be more effective than positive or gain content; (ii) evidence synthesis: plain languages summaries to communicate the results of Cochrane reviews to the community were perceived as more reliable, easier to find and understand, and better to support decisions than the original summaries; (iii) teaching/learning: the Informed Health Choices resources seem to be effective for improving critical thinking skills.

Conclusion

Our findings contribute to both the knowledge translation process by identifying communication strategies with potential for immediate implementation and to future research by recognizing the need to evaluate the clinical and social impact of other strategies to support evidence-informed policies.

Trial registration protocol is prospectively available in MedArxiv (doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.04.21265922).

Peer Review reports

Contributions to the literature

  • Communicating results of scientific studies, effects of interventions and health risk estimates, in addition to understanding key concepts of clinical epidemiology and interpreting evidence, account for a set of essential instruments to bridging the gap between science and practice.

  • There is still a lack of understanding about the exact types of strategies for communicating scientific evidence.

  • The findings of this manuscript, specifically the extensive and detailed list of strategies mapped out to communicate scientific evidence in health to managers and the population, may support the decision-making of stakeholders involved in the process of knowledge translation within the realms of evidence-informed policies.

Introduction

Within the context of evidence-informed policy (EIP), evidence syntheses should provide scientifically based information on health conditions, interventions, procedures, policies and programmes to meet the needs of health professionals, patients and public or private health managers. However, evidence obtained from scientific studies, especially from systematic reviews, other syntheses of multiple studies and clinical trials, is complex and often difficult for the general public to comprehend [1]. Health evidence needs to be communicated and disseminated in a manner that is clearly understood by decision-makers, especially in settings that demand rapid responses.

As an inherent component of health knowledge translation, communicating results of scientific studies, effects of interventions and health risk estimates, in addition to understanding key concepts of clinical epidemiology and interpreting evidence, represent a set of essential instruments to reduce the gap between science and practice. These needs have represented a challenge within the EIP worldwide.

Strategies for communication of evidence in health have the initial goal of increasing the understanding of the results of scientific research and should cover products, actions and approaches aligned to the needs of the manager (facing the demands for healthcare services) and the population (reliable information based on the best scientific evidence available) [2]. Nevertheless, the ultimate expected outcome of any effective communication, addressed to specific audiences, would be its clinical benefit (when considering individual health) and/or positive impact on health systems and organizations (when considering public health).

In this sense, expanding investment and improving skills in communication enables the identification of the best strategies to be used to overcome the barrier between evidence in health and managers and the population. Clear communication and active dissemination of health evidence to all relevant audiences in an understandable and accessible manner are essential to raise awareness of the importance of using scientific evidence, to support individual and population health-related decisions [1], and contribute to adherence to behaviours associated with positive health outcomes.

In the last decade, the advancement of digital and social media has reshaped the concept of health communication, introducing new, direct and powerful communication platforms and gateways between researchers and the public [2,3,4]. Various strategies such as plain language summaries and infographics have been devised and experimented for this purpose.

Some synthesis of strategies for communication of scientific evidence are available in the literature, including overviews of systematic reviews that address knowledge translation and general health communication strategies (for the population, health professionals and managers) [2, 5], systematic reviews restricted to communicating health benefits/risks [6,7,8] or teaching/learning strategies [9], narrative reviews [10, 11] and scoping reviews focused on communicating uncertainties [12]. No in-depth scoping review was identified with the objective of identify strategies for communicating scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and the population.

Thus, a mapping is necessary, through a scoping review, to identify the available strategies for communication of scientific evidence; the characteristics, barriers and facilitators for its implementation; the target audience and the context, as well as the gaps in the literature about its impact on healthcare. The results identified may constitute a valuable instrument for decision-making for sectors involved in promoting the use of scientific knowledge in decision-making processes related to the communication of evidence in the context of EIP.

Methods

Design and setting

This scoping review is a component of the project Apoio à Formulação e Implementação de Políticas Públicas de Saúde Informadas por Evidências (ESPIE), triennium 2021/2023, conducted at the Hospital Sírio-Libanês (São Paulo, Brazil), within the scope of the Programa de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento Institucional do Sistema Único de Saúde (PROADI-SUS), in partnership with the Department of Science and Technology of the Secretariat of Science, Technology, Innovation and Strategic Inputs of the Ministry of Health. This review was planned and conducted according to the recommendations of the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for scoping reviews [13].

The report of the review followed the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses – extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) [14]. The review protocol was planned and prospectively made available in the MedRxiv pre-prints database. [15]

Methods for engaging the community and other stakeholders in the review

Stakeholder consultation was carried out throughout the development of the protocol, with the aim of increasing the applicability of its results and supporting the communication and translation of its results to the community. To this end, the following stakeholders were informally consulted: consumers (managers, health professionals and patients), experts in ‘knowledge translation’ and ‘health communication’ and information specialists.

Criteria for inclusion of studies

The question of interest for this review was structured using the acronym PCC, which then guided the eligibility criteria as follows:

  • P (population, condition): health managers and the general population.

  • C (concept): strategies for communicating scientific evidence to health managers and/or the community. In this review, scientific evidence was considered as information obtained from the results of scientific studies and used to support or refute a health recommendation or the planning of health systems and policies. Thus, strategies were considered as those aiming to translate scientific and/or methodological information in a format/content geared to ensure the understanding of health managers and society of terms, criteria, tools and approaches related to scientific evidence in health. Any strategy focused on the communication of scientific evidence for this target audience was considered, including, for example, communication strategies to support health managers in decision-making, communications used during the organization of services and/or health systems, communication strategies to encourage the use of scientific evidence in the decision-making process, to increase access to health information from the perspective of the population, strategies for adapting the knowledge obtained by evidence to the local context, and so on. Studies on individual professional–patient communication (including diagnosis, communication of bad news and specific recommendations on individual therapy or prevention, among others) or specific to a particular health condition were not considered. Studies addressing the process of knowledge translation were included only when they reported, implemented and/or evaluated strategies for communication of scientific evidence as part of this process. Studies specifically addressing evidence dissemination and implementation strategies were not included.

  • C (context): individual or public health; within public, private or supplementary health systems; at any level of care (health unit, neighbourhood, municipality, state, region or country).

Any primary (descriptive or analytical) or secondary study design was considered.

Searching for studies

A broad and sensitive literature search was conducted using structured search strategies, with relevant descriptors and synonyms, for the following databases on 8 September 2021: Campbell Collaboration, Cochrane Library (via Wiley), Excerpta Medica dataBASE (Embase, via Elsevier), Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde (BVS), Epistemonikos, Health Evidence, Health Systems Evidence, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE, via PubMed) and PDQ-Evidence. A structured electronic search was conducted in the following grey literature bases on 24 February 2022: Opengrey (https://opengrey.eu), Thesis Commons (https://thesiscommons.org/) and Open Access Theses and Dissertations (https://oatd.org/).

Structured electronic searches were conducted on the following repositories of preprints on 24 February 2022: Europe PMC (https://europepmc.org/) and Open Science Preprints (https://osf.io/preprints/).

Additional unstructured searches were conducted on the following sources related to evidence-informed policy or health education on 27 February 2022: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality AHRQ/EUA, Guidelines and Measures (www.guidelines.gov), Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), Service Delivery and Organisation (https://www.york.ac.uk/crd/research/service-delivery/), Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) (https://epoc.cochrane.org/), EPPI-Centre (https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=56), Evidence Informed Policy and Practice in Education in Europe (EIPPEE) (http://www.eippee.eu/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=3179), European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies (https://eurohealthobservatory.who.int/), ECRAN Project. European Communication on Research Awareness Needs (http://www.ecranproject.eu/en), Evidence Informed Policy Networks (EVIPNet) (https://www.who.int/initiatives/evidence-informed-policy-network), Global Evaluation Initiative (https://www.globalevaluationinitiative.org/), Informed Health Choices (https://www.informedhealthchoices.org/), International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS) (https://about.proquest.com/en/products-services/ibss-set-c/), International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) (https://www.3ieimpact.org/), McMaster University's Health Forum (https://www.mcmasterforum.org/), Rx for Change (https://www.cadth.ca/rx-change), Supporting the use of Research Evidence (SURE) (https://epoc.cochrane.org/sites/epoc.cochrane.org/files/public/uploads/SURE-Guides-v2.1/Collectedfiles/sure_guides.html, The Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research (https://ahpsr.who.int/) and What Works Centres (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/what-works-network).

Additional unstructured searches were conducted on the following sources related to health science communication on 24 February 2022: American Medical Writers Association (AMWA, https://www.amwa.org/), European Medical Writers Association (EMWA, https://www.emwa.org/) and International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP, https://www.ismpp.org/). A manual search was performed in reference lists of relevant studies and through contact with experts in the field.

No language filter was applied. The search was restricted to the period from the year 2000 onwards, considering the advances and changes in the digital and social media that have occurred mainly in the last two decades. Full-length publications, abstracts presented at conferences and events, online reports, theses and dissertations were included. The structured search strategies are presented in Additional file 1.

Selecting studies

The study selection process was carried out in two phases using the Rayyan platform [16]. The first phase consisted of reading the titles and abstracts of all references retrieved by the search strategies and categorizing the studies into ‘potentially eligible’ or ‘eliminated’. The second phase consisted of reading in full the ‘potentially eligible’ studies to confirm their eligibility or exclude them in the second phase (the justifications for each exclusion in the second phase are presented). The two phases were conducted by two groups of independent researchers and inconsistencies in decisions to include or exclude studies were solved by a third researcher. The entire selection process is presented using a PRISMA flowchart.

Extracting data

Data on the of strategies identified and included in this review were extracted by two researchers independently and inconsistencies were solved by consulting a third researcher. The following data were collected for each included study: author, year of publication, type of publication (article/report, full text/ abstract), study design, name and description of the communication strategy, institution proposing the strategy and source of funding for the study. The following data were collected, when available, for each strategy identified:

  1. 1.

    Strategy main category and subcategories:

  2. 1.1

    communication of risk/benefit: including the subcategories communication of health risks and benefits under different numerical or nominal formats, health communication with positive (benefits, gains) or negative (losses) words/terms, verbal versus visual communication of the effects of interventions, communicating health risks and benefits with bar charts or bar charts and histograms, strategies for communication of health evidence and strategies for communicating risks and benefits in health with different animated graphical presentations.

  3. 1.2

    communication of uncertainty in health: including the subcategory communication of uncertainties about the effects of interventions on health.

  4. 1.3

    teaching/learning: including the subcategories communication/learning of key concepts related to the effects of health interventions, communication/learning resources from the IHC initiative on key concepts of evidence for health, communication/learning of key concepts of health evidence, educational podcasts from the IHC initiative on key health evidence concepts, training for parliamentarians on scientific health evidence and inclusion of stakeholders in the working group for preparing comparative effectiveness summaries.

  5. 1.4

    evidence synthesis frameworks using plain language: including the subcategories blogshots to communicate the results of systematic reviews, evidence synthesis summary template, plain language abstract, Cochrane plain language summaries, templates for plain language abstracts of systematic reviews, printed newsletters for communicating health evidence and systematic review summaries of evidence templates for policy-makers and health system managers.

  6. 1.5

    guidelines for elaborating/evaluating communication products: including the subcategories guidelines for designing and evaluating health evidence communication products (CDC Clear Communication Index) and tool for evaluating the quality of health texts in plain language.

  7. 1.6

    For this categorization, a new taxonomy was elaborated with an unstructured method, which is detailed in Additional file 2.

  8. 2.

    Target audience: health managers, population, both.

  9. 3.

    Type of strategy: language, content or format of the communication.

  10. 4.

    Health system and level of care for which the strategy was proposed or used (public or private health, primary or specialized care; others).

  11. 5.

    Approach to the strategy: textual communication (printed/online material), visual communication (graphic, illustrative with drawings), verbal communication (videos, podcasts) and others.

  12. 6.

    Strategy length: permanent or temporary.

  13. 7.

    Strategy status: proposed, implemented and not evaluated, or implemented and evaluated.

  14. 8.

    Costs for implementing the strategy (as predicted by the authors of the studies included).

  15. 9.

    Barriers and facilitators for implementing the strategy (as identified by the authors of the studies included).

For the scientific evidence communication strategies that were implemented and evaluated by the included studies, information on the results was collected. These strategies were subsequently classified, at the discretion of the reviewing authors, according to the feasibility of implementation, immediate or after the adoption of actions. This classification was performed considering facilities, costs, need for regulation or local policies, and regardless of the certainty of the available evidence.

The authors of the included studies could be contacted if additional information was needed.

Quality assessment/risk of bias of the included studies

As the aim of this scoping review is to map strategies presented in descriptive studies or to use pieces of analytical studies reporting strategies, no checklists or tools for assessing the methodological quality of the studies were applied, as recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute for scoping reviews [13].

Synthesis and presentation of results

Strategies were classified using the categories determined based on the data described above. A narrative synthesis was presented using graphs and/or tables. Depending on the availability of information, descriptive statistics would be performed using Microsoft Excel® and/or STATA® software, but this was not undertaken due to the format and/or scarcity of the data presented.

Results

Search results

Structured searches in electronic databases resulted in 25 284 references and unstructured searches in additional sources retrieved 58 references, totaling 25 342 references. After removing 744 duplicates, 24 598 references were analyzed through titles and abstracts and 24 467 were eliminated for not meeting the eligibility criteria. Thus, in the second stage of the selection process, the full texts of 131 references were analyzed. Of these, 50 were excluded [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66] and the reasons for exclusion are detailed in Additional file 3. One reference awaits classification because, despite a series of attempts, it was not possible to obtain the full paper and the abstract did not present enough information to allow confirmation of its eligibility [67].

At the end of the selection process, this review included 80 studies or documents (Fig. 1) [1, 2, 6,7,8,9,10,11,12, 68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of the study selection process

Full size image

Characteristics of the included studies

The main characteristics of the included studies/documents are detailed in Additional file 4. Studies with a descriptive design were the most frequent (28.8%), followed by systematic reviews (16.3%) and case studies (13.8%). The studies were funded by governmental institutions or non-governmental initiatives, in the areas of health (research and assistance) and education.

Results of included studies

Seventy-eight strategies were identified in the included studies and are presented in Additional file 5. All of the studies had the ultimate or intermediate goal of improving the comprehension of health information. None of these strategies were proposed for a specific health system or level of healthcare, and they were implemented in different scenarios (including school settings) and on a continual basis. The costs associated with the strategies were not provided by any of the studies.

Table 1 presents the main results of the strategies for communicating scientific evidence that were implemented and, to some extent, evaluated, regardless of the method used to evaluate such results (experimental study, survey, and so on).

Table 1 Main results of the strategies for communicating scientific evidence that were implemented and evaluated
Full size table

Regarding the target audience, 71.8% of the strategies were intended for the general population, 20.5% specifically for managers and 7.7% were applicable to both groups (Additional file 5).

According to the main category, communicating risks/benefits on health represented 29.5% of the strategies and encompassed different forms, nominal (categorical) or numerical (statistical), to communicate attributes or effects of health interventions or exposures. The 17 strategies in the ‘teaching/learning’ category, comprised structural actions in schools (many of them conducted by the IHC initiative), virtual environments (websites), and even in parliament (Table 1).

According to the status, more than half (52.6%) of the identified strategies had already been implemented and evaluated in some degree, 44.9% had already been implemented but not yet evaluated and 2.6% were merely proposed without any sort of implementation or evaluation (Additional file 5).

According to the delivery approach, 88.5% of the strategy had at least one textual component, 6.4% adopted an exclusively verbal approach of communication outreach and 2.6% a exclusively visual approach (Additional file 5).

As depicted in Additional file 5, the main barriers for implementing the proposed strategies are related to stakeholder time availability [73, 92, 107, 110], high speed of publication of new studies/growing volume of information [72, 77], language [76, 99, 104, 105, 121], conflicts of interest [78] and need for continuous update [97]. The main facilitator was online free access or social media access [2, 72, 97, 104, 105].

Discussion

This scoping review was developed to identify the evidence available on the strategies for communicating health scientific evidence to the public or managers, its characteristics and settings of implementation, as well as knowledge gaps. Overall, 80 studies, reports or other forms of information presentation were included which addressed 78 strategies. The most frequent strategies were those communicating risks and benefits in health, presenting textual delivery approach, implemented and, to some extent, evaluated. Although conclusions about effects are not the focus of a scoping review, among the strategies evaluated, those that appear to present some potential benefit are:

  • Risk/benefit communication: greater comprehension with natural frequencies than with percentages; greater comprehension with absolute risk than with relative risks and NNT; greater comprehension and behaviour change with numerical communication than with nominal communication; greater comprehension of mortality than of survival; communications with negative or loss content appear to be more useful for comprehension, satisfaction, and behaviour change than communications with positive or gain content; nominal communication can lead to overestimation of the risk of adverse events and can lead patients to make inappropriate decisions about whether or not to use a medication.

  • Evidence synthesis templates and other plain language documents: plain language summaries to communicate the results of Cochrane systematic reviews to the population were perceived to be more reliable, easier to find and understand, and better to support decisions than the original summaries.

  • Teaching/learning: the IHC initiative’s resources for communication and learning of key health evidence concepts appear to be effective in improving critical thinking skills in health immediately after their use; however, these effects were not observed after 1 year; theoretical–practical training for parliamentarians on scientific evidence in health seems to be a strategy with potential to raise awareness and improve the comprehension of this subgroup of managers on health-related evidence.

The main strengths of this scoping review involve a broad (across multiple sources of information) and sensitive (search strategies including also synonyms and free terms) search. As shown in Fig. 1, 24 598 references were screened in the first phase by reading titles and abstracts. Other features that endow methodological robustness are: the availability of a prospectively developed protocol, the selection and extraction of data in a duplicative and independent mode, and the adoption of methods recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for scoping reviews [13].

One strength was the identification of communication strategies that used structuring learning approaches to continuously and progressively build a more favourable scenario for the population and managers to receive communication products. In this respect, the IHC initiative (https://www.informedhealthchoices.org/) and the ECRAN project (http://ecranproject.eu/) were particularly noteworthy.

For the categorization of communication strategies, different taxonomies have been identified in the literature that could be somewhat adapted for use in this scoping review [1, 99, 139, 140]. These taxonomies covered health communication in a broad sense, including mainly guidance on diagnostic, prophylactic and therapeutic conducts, many of them focusing on the individual and on the professional–patient relationship. Others had as the target audience mainly managers and health professionals, while others involved the whole process of knowledge translation and/or evidence implementation.

The particularities of health communication strategies with a specific focus on scientific evidence difficult reproducible and consistent adaptations from these aforementioned taxonomic tools. Thus, while conducting this scoping review, the authors developed, by means of an unstructured method, a proposal for a particular taxonomy for this scenario (Additional file 2). Although innovative, and having fulfilled its role within this scoping review, the proposed taxonomy has been applied for the first time and has not been formally evaluated, so limitations may be identified throughout its use hereafter.

When planning this review (protocol phase), there was no nominal definition of possible strategies. Along the construction of the search strategies, the term ‘risk communication’ and its synonyms were not used, but instead, less specific terms were used to sensitize the search. However, throughout the study selection process, a considerable number of studies specific to risk communication were identified. Thus, although 29.9% of the communication strategy included were specific to risk communication and health benefits, it is not possible to rule out that studies targeting this approach were not retrieved.

Another concern was that despite a number of different attempts (including messages to the authors, contacting experts and searching international libraries) it was not possible to obtain the full text of one of the identified studies [67]. The reading of the abstract did not allow us to confirm or refute the adequacy to the eligibility criteria and therefore this study remained as ‘awaiting classification’.

Some studies addressed combined strategies and it was not possible to quantify the exact number of different strategies addressed in the 78 strategies identified given a high rate of overlap of their components. To mitigate this shortcoming, we have chosen to present a detailed (and therefore longer than we would have preferred) table describing each strategy (Additional file 5).

Although 52.6% of the identified strategy were implemented and evaluated, much of these evaluations were characterized by opinions and satisfaction surveys. Few were evaluated through comparative studies capable of estimating their efficacy with more certainty and less bias. Additionally, the studies showed that most of the outcomes evaluated were limited to assessing comprehension, persuasion and customer satisfaction; few studies assessed health behaviour change, and none considered clinical outcomes.

Part of the strategies categorized as teaching/learning have been implemented and evaluated in African countries such as Rwanda [94], Uganda [110, 125, 126] and Botswana [78] which allowed us to evaluate the impact of these strategies, customer experience, barriers and facilitators in settings with limited financial and social resources.

As implications for practice, the identification of communication strategies that have been implemented and evaluated (Table 1) can support social, academic, governmental or non-governmental actions. Considering aspects such as feasibility, costs, need for regulation or local policies, regardless of the certainty of the available evidence, this review identified strategies that have already been evaluated in some way and that are potentially implementable in resource-scarce settings.

Strategies for communicating health risks and benefits, including attribute results and effects of interventions and exposures on health outcomes, were evaluated by studies with appropriate designs, with reliable results that could be implemented. An example is the benefit of communication using absolute frequencies and standardized decimal denominators (20 people out of 100 people using this drug might get diarrhea) rather than relative risk or NNT.

The elaboration and dissemination of communication products in parallel with scientific publications, and aimed at different audiences, is a reality (as exemplified by Cochrane’s plain language summary). This approach could be replicated and adopted by other organizations or scientific publishers, using results from reviews such as this one. In the same direction, the Brazilian Ministry of Health, in a recent initiative in partnership with the Escola Nacional de Administração (ENAP, National School of Administration), is producing prototype products for communicating scientific evidence in accessible language using design thinking methodology [141, 142].

As implications for forthcoming research, this scoping review identified a number of knowledge gaps that still need to be addressed by studies with appropriate designs and methods. These gaps include evidence on (i) the efficacy of communication strategies on outcome measures, such as behaviour change and clinical benefits related to the control or prevention of health conditions, (ii) the costs associated with implementing the strategies, (iii) effects of the strategies for low-income, lower sociocultural and/or resource-poor populations, and (iv) effects of the strategies for subgroups such as the elderly, adolescents and children.

Conclusions

This scoping review identified 80 studies, reports or other documents that addressed 78 strategies for communicating scientific health evidence to the population and/or managers. Some of these strategies have been implemented and evaluated, and may have some benefit in improving these audiences’ comprehension of evidence concepts and promoting behaviour change. The findings of this review have important potential for applicability in the area of evidence-informed policy, with direct application or adaptation of identified strategies to improve the communication of scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and the population. Future efforts are needed to evaluate the effects of evidence communication strategies on relevant clinical outcomes, identify the most appropriate strategies for different settings and contexts, and promote the use of those strategies that show benefits for individual or public health and health systems.

Availability of data and materials

All relevant data is presented as supplementary files.

References

  1. McCormack L, Sheridan S, Lewis M, Boudewyns V, Melvin CL, Kistler C, Lux LJ, Cullen K, Lohr KN. Communication and dissemination strategies to facilitate the use of health-related evidence. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2013;213:1–520. https://doi.org/10.23970/ahrqepcerta213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Chapman E, Haby MM, Toma TS, de Bortoli MC, Illanes E, Oliveros MJ, Barreto JOM. Knowledge translation strategies for dissemination with a focus on healthcare recipients: an overview of systematic reviews. Implement Sci. 2020;15(1):14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-020-0974-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Brownell SE, Price JV, Steinman L. Science communication to the general public: why we need to teach undergraduate and graduate students this skill as part of their formal scientific training. J Undergrad Neurosci Educ. 2013;12:E6–10.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Fontaine G, Lavallée A, Maheu-Cadotte MA, Bouix-Picasso J, Bourbonnais A. Health science communication strategies used by researchers with the public in the digital and social media ecosystem: a systematic scoping review protocol. BMJ Open. 2018;8(1): e019833. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019833.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Chapman E, Pantoja T, Kuchenmüller T, Sharma T, Terry RF. Assessing the impact of knowledge communication and dissemination strategies targeted at health policy-makers and managers: an overview of systematic reviews. Health Res Policy Syst. 2021;19(1):140. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-021-00780-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Akl EA, Oxman AD, Herrin J, Vist GE, Terrenato I, Sperati F, Costiniuk C, Blank D, Schünemann H. Framing of health information messages. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;12: CD006777. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006777.pub2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Akl EA, Oxman AD, Herrin J, Vist GE, Terrenato I, Sperati F, Costiniuk C, Blank D, Schünemann H. Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;2011(3): CD006776. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006776.pub2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Büchter RB, Fechtelpeter D, Knelangen M, Ehrlich M, Waltering A. Words or numbers? Communicating risk of adverse effects in written consumer health information: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2014;14:76. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-14-76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Cusack L, Del Mar CB, Chalmers I, Gibson E, Hoffmann TC. Educational interventions to improve people’s understanding of key concepts in assessing the effects of health interventions: a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):68. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0719-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Burkiewicz JS, Vesta KS, Hume AL. Improving effectiveness in communicating risk to patients. Consult Pharm. 2008;23(1):37–43. https://doi.org/10.4140/tcp.n.2008.37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP, Lavis JN, Hill SJ, Squires JE. Knowledge translation of research findings. Implement Sci. 2012;7:50. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Medendorp NM, Stiggelbout AM, Aalfs CM, Han PKJ, Smets EMA, Hillen MA. A scoping review of practice recommendations for clinicians’ communication of uncertainty. Health Expect. 2021;24(4):1025–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13255.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil, H. Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews (2020 version). In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, JBI, 2020. https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL/4687833/11.1+Introduction+to+Scoping+reviews. Acessed 16 Sep 2022.

  14. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, Moher D, Peters MDJ, Horsley T, Weeks L, Hempel S, Akl EA, Chang C, McGowan J, Stewart L, Hartling L, Aldcroft A, Wilson MG, Garritty C, Lewin S, Godfrey CM, Macdonald MT, Langlois EV, Soares-Weiser K, Moriarty J, Clifford T, Tunçalp Ö, Straus SE. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Martimbianco ALC, Pacheco RL, Bagattini AM, Padovez RFCM, Riera R. Strategies for communicating health evidence to health policymakers and the population. Scoping review protocol. medRxiv 2021.11.04.21265922; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.04.21265922. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.04.21265922v1.article-info. Accessed 16 Sep 2022.

  16. Ouzanni M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5:210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Adam T, Moat KA, Ghaffar A, Lavis JN. Towards a better understanding of the nomenclature used in information-packaging efforts to support evidence-informed policymaking in low- and middle-income countries. Implement Sci. 2014;9:67. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-9-67.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. AHRQ. Environmental scan of patient safety education and training programs. (Prepared by American Institutes for Research, under contract HHSA290200600019i). AHRQ Publication No. 13–0051- EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; June 2013. https://www.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/research/findings/final-reports/environmental-scan-programs/envptscan.pdf. Accessed 16 Sep 2022.

  19. Alkhaldi M, Meghari H, Jillson IA, Alkaiyat A, Tanner M. State of research quality and knowledge transfer and translation and capacity strengthening strategies for sound health policy decision-making in Palestine. Int J Public Health. 2021;66: 620425. https://doi.org/10.3389/ijph.2021.620425.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Armstrong R, Waters E, Roberts H, Oliver S, Popay J. The role and theoretical evolution of knowledge translation and exchange in public health. J Public Health (Oxf). 2006;28(4):384–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdl072.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Armstrong R, Waters E, Dobbins M, Anderson L, Moore L, Petticrew M, et al. Knowledge translation strategies to improve the use of evidence in public health decision making in local government: intervention design and implementation plan. Implement Sci. 2013;8:121. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-121.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Ashcraft LE, Quinn DA, Brownson RC. Strategies for effective dissemination of research to United States policymakers: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2020;15(1):89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-020-01046-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Austvoll-Dahlgren A, Nsangi A, Semakula D. Interventions and assessment tools addressing key concepts people need to know to appraise claims about treatment effects: a systematic mapping review. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):215. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0389-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Barac R, Stein S, Bruce B, Barwick M. Scoping review of toolkits as a knowledge translation strategy in health. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2014;14:121. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-014-0121-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Bastian H, Kaiser T, Matschewsky S. Förderung allgemeiner Gesundheits- und Wissenschaftskenntnisse mittels Bürger- und Patienteninformation: Die Rolle des IQWiG [Promotion of general health and scientific literacy via consumer and patient information: the role of the IQWiG]. Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich. 2005;99(6):379–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bastian H. Health literacy and patient information: developing the methodology for a national evidence-based health website. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73(3):551–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2008.08.020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Campbell A, Louie-Poon S, Slater L, Scott SD. Knowledge translation strategies used by healthcare professionals in child health settings: an updated systematic review. J Pediatr Nurs. 2019;47:114–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2019.04.026.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Carman KL, Workman TA. Engaging patients and consumers in research evidence: applying the conceptual model of patient and family engagement. Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100(1):25–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2016.07.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Carvalho IA, Byles J, Aquah C, Amofah G, Biritwum R, Panisset U, et al. Informing evidence-based policies for ageing and health in Ghana. Bull World Health Organ. 2015;93(1):47–51. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.14.136242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Colquhoun HL, Helis E, Lowe D, Belanger D, Hill S, Mayhew A, et al. Development of training for medicines-oriented policymakers to apply evidence. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016;14(1):57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0130-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Crowley M, Scott JTB, Fishbein D. Translating prevention research for evidence-based policymaking: results from the research-to-policy collaboration pilot. Prev Sci. 2018;19(2):260–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-017-0833-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Erismann S, Pesantes MA, Beran D, Leuenberger A, Farnham A, Berger Gonzalez de White M, et al. How to bring research evidence into policy? Synthesizing strategies of five research projects in low-and middle-income countries. Health Res Policy Syst. 2021;19(1):29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-00646-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Evans I, Thornton H, Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avaliação de tratamentos de saúde—identificando evidências científicas para oferecer sempre o melhor para a saúde 2a. ed. – Barueri, SP: Minha Editora, 2016.

  34. FDA-NIH Biomarker Working Group. BEST (Biomarkers, EndpointS, and other Tools) Resource [Internet]. Silver Spring (MD): Food and Drug Administration (US); Co-published by National Institutes of Health (US), Bethesda (MD). 2016. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK326791/. Accessed 16 Sep 2022.

  35. Fadlallah R, El-Jardali F, Nomier M, et al. Using narratives to impact health policy-making: a systematic review. Health Res Policy Syst. 2019;17(1):26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-019-0423-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Fervers B, Leichtnam-Dugarin L, Carretier J, Delavigne V, Hoarau H, Brusco S, et al. The SOR SAVOIR PATIENT project—an evidence-based patient information and education project. Br J Cancer. 2003;89(Suppl 1):S111–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6601093.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Gallagher KM, Updegraff JA. Health message framing effects on attitudes, intentions, and behavior: a meta-analytic review. Ann Behav Med. 2012;43(1):101–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-011-9308-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Genova J. Reintroducing communication as a strategy in printed evidence-based medical materials. Model to assess effectiveness. 2012. doi: https://doi.org/10.20381/ruor-6190. https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/23497. Accessed 16 Sep 2022.

  39. Glenton C, Santesso N, Rosenbaum S, Nilsen ES, Rader T, Ciapponi A, Dilkes H. Presenting the results of cochrane systematic reviews to a consumer audience: a qualitative study. Med Decis Making. 2010;30(5):566–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X10375853.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Gudi SK, Tiwari KK, Panjwani K. Plain-language summaries: an essential component to promote knowledge translation. Int J Clin Pract. 2021;75(6): e14140. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.14140.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Han PK. Conceptual, methodological, and ethical problems in communicating uncertainty in clinical evidence. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70(1 Suppl):14S-36S. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077558712459361.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Hesse BW, Johnson LE, Davis KL. Extending the reach, effectiveness, and efficiency of communication: evidence from the centers of excellence in cancer communication research. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;81(Suppl):S1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2010.11.002.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Hibbard JH. Patient activation and the use of information to support informed health decisions. Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100(1):5–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2016.07.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hupert J. Translating best evidence into best care. J Pediatr. 2017;190(11):287–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.08.050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Jirjis J, Weiss JB, Giuse D, Rosenbloom ST. A framework for clinical communication supporting healthcare delivery. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2005;2005:375–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Kelechi TJ, Naccarato MK. Knowledge translation: summarizing and synthesizing the evidence for WOC best practices. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2010;37(2):132–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/WON.0b013e3181cf886c.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. LaRocca R, Yost J, Dobbins M, Ciliska D, Butt M. The effectiveness of knowledge translation strategies used in public health: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:751. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-751.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Lavis JN, Panisset U. EVIPNet Africa’s first series of policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking. Intern J Technology Assess Health Care. 2010;26:229–32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462310000206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Moat KA, Lavis JN. Supporting the use of research evidence in the Americas through an online “one-stop shop”: the EVIPNet VHL. Cad Saude Publica. 2014;30(12):2697–701. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-311X00110214.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Nair-Bedouelle S. Science journalism needed now, more than ever. 2021. https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/epi-win/1_science-journalism-needed-now_s.-nair-bedouelle.pdf?sfvrsn=eaaae174_4. Accessed 16 Sep 2022.

  51. O’Keefe DJ, Jensen JD. The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors: a meta-analytic review. J Health Commun. 2007;12(7):623–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730701615198.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. O’Keefe DJ, Jensen JD. The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors: a meta-analytic review. J Commun. 2009;59:296–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01417.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. O’Keefe DJ, Wu D. Gain-framed messages do not motivate sun protection: a meta-analytic review of randomized trials comparing gain-framed and loss-framed appeals for promoting skin cancer prevention. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2012;9(6):2121–33. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph9062121.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Oxman M, Habib L, Jamtvedt G, Kalsnes B, Molin M. Using claims in the media to teach essential concepts for evidence-based healthcare. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2021;26(5):234–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111390.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Pettman TL, Armstrong R, Jones K, Waters E, Doyle J. Cochrane update: building capacity in evidence-informed decision-making to improve public health. J Public Health (Oxf). 2013;35(4):624–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdt119.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Rapport F, Clay-Williams R, Churruca K, Shih P, Hogden A, Braithwaite J. The struggle of translating science into action: Foundational concepts of implementation science. J Eval Clin Pract. 2018;24(1):117–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12741.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Sachs L. Kommunikativa problem i den evidensbaserade medicinen [Communication problems in evidence-based medicine]. Lakartidningen. 2002;99(8):757–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Semakula D, Nsangi A, Oxman A, Glenton C, Lewin S, Rosenbaum S, Oxman M, Kaseje M, Austvoll-Dahlgren A, Rose CJ, Fretheim A, Sewankambo N. Informed Health Choices media intervention for improving people’s ability to critically appraise the trustworthiness of claims about treatment effects: a mixed-methods process evaluation of a randomised trial in Uganda. BMJ Open. 2019;9(12): e031510. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031510.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Sim I, Sanders GD, McDonald KM. Evidence-based practice for mere mortals: the role of informatics and health services research. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17(4):302–8. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.10518.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Sofaer S, Hibbard J. Best practices in public reporting no. 2: maximizing consumer understanding of public comparative quality reports: effective use of explanatory information. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; June 2010. AHRQ Publication No. 10–0082–1-EF. https://www.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/professionals/quality-patient-safety/quality-resources/tools/public-reporting/report-2-public-reporting.pdf. Accessed 16 Sep 2022.

  61. Solomon ED, Mozersky J, Wroblewski MP, Baldwin K, Parsons MV, Goodman M, et al. Understanding the use of optimal formatting and plain language when presenting key information in clinical trials. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2022;17(1–2):177–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646211037546.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Teichmann L, Nossek S, Bridgman A, Loewen PJ, Owen T, Ruths D, et al. Public health communication and engagement on social media during the COVID-19 pandemic. Media Ecosystem Observatory. Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy;2020. https://www.mediatechdemocracy.com/work/meo-public-health-communication-and-engagement-on-social-media-during-the-covid-19-pandemic. Accessed 16 Sep 2022.

  63. The SURE Collaboration. SURE guides for preparing and using evidence-based policy briefs: informing and engaging stakeholders. Versão 2.1. The SURE Collaboration, 2011. www.evipnet.org/sure. Accessed 27 Jul 2022.

  64. Thissen P. Developing evaluation capacity: a conversation with the head of Global Evaluation Initiative. 2019. https://www.3ieimpact.org/blogs/developing-evaluation-capacity-conversation-head-global-evaluation-initiative. Accessed 16 Sep 2022.

  65. Yost J, Ganann R, Thompson D, Aloweni F, Newman K, Hazzan A, et al. The effectiveness of knowledge translation interventions for promoting evidence-informed decision-making among nurses in tertiary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Implement Sci. 2015;10:98. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0286-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. YousefiNooraie R, Kwan BM, Cohn E, AuYoung M, Clarke Roberts M, Adsul P, et al. Advancing health equity through CTSA programs: opportunities for interaction between health equity, dissemination and implementation, and translational science. J Clin Transl Sci. 2020;4(3):168–75. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2020.10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Nannini A, Houde SC. Translating evidence from systematic reviews for policy makers. J Gerontol Nurs. 2010;36(6):22–6. https://doi.org/10.3928/00989134-20100504-02.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Antonopoulou V, Chadwick P, McGee O, Sniehotta FF, Lorencatto F, Meyer C, O’Donnell A, Lecouturier J, Kelly M, Michie S. Research engagement with policy makers: a practical guide to writing policy briefs. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) [Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science. 2021. https://research.ncl.ac.uk/behscipru/outputs/guidetowritingpolicybriefs/. Accessed 16 Sep 2022.

  69. Arienti C, Gimigliano F, Ryan-Vig S, Kiekens C, Negrini S. Cochrane rehabilitation blogshots: a modern method to spread cochrane evidence. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2018;54(3):466–8. https://doi.org/10.23736/S1973-9087.18.05313-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Balshem H, Curtis P, Joplin L, Justman RA, Rosenberg AB. Stakeholder involvement in improving comparative effectiveness reviews: AHRQ and the effective health care program (Prepared by the AHRQ Effective Health Care Program Product Development Work Group under Contract No. HHSA 290–2007-10057-I). AHRQ Publication No. 11-EHC079-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. September 2011. https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/stakeholder-engagement_research.pdf. Accessed 16 Sep 2022.

  71. Baur C, Prue C. The CDC clear communication index is a new evidence-based tool to prepare and review health information. Health Promot Pract. 2014;15(5):629–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839914538969.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Bireme. Boletim BIREME n° 50. Mapa de Evidências: traduzindo o conhecimento para aproximar a ciência da gestão em saúd, 5 dezembro, 2020. https://boletin.bireme.org/pt/2020/12/05/mapa-de-evidencias-traduzindo-o-conhecimento-para-aproximar-a-ciencia-da-gestao-em-saude-2/. Accessed 16 Sep 2022.

  73. Büchter RB, Betsch C, Ehrlich M, Fechtelpeter D, Grouven U, Keller S, et al. Communicating uncertainty in written consumer health information to the public: parallel-group, web-based randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(8): e15899. https://doi.org/10.2196/15899.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Busert LK, Mütsch M, Kien C, Flatz A, Griebler U, Wildner M, et al; Cochrane Public Health Europe. Facilitating evidence uptake: development and user testing of a systematic review summary format to inform public health decision-making in German-speaking countries. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0307-z.

  75. Carroll C, Cooke J, Booth A, Beverley C. Bridging the gap: the development of knowledge briefings at the health and social care interface. Health Soc Care Community. 2006;14(6):491–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2524.2006.00637.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Castle JC, Chalmers I, Atkinson P, Badenoch D, Oxman AD, Austvoll-Dahlgren A, et al. Establishing a library of resources to help people understand key concepts in assessing treatment claims—the "Critical thinking and Appraisal Resource Library" (CARL). PLoS One. 2017;12(7):e0178666. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178666.

  77. Chambers D, Wilson PM, Thompson CA, Hanbury A, Farley K, Light K. Maximizing the impact of systematic reviews in health care decision making: a systematic scoping review of knowledge-translation resources. Milbank Q. 2011;89(1):131–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2011.00622.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Cockcroft A, Masisi M, Thabane L, Andersson N. Science communication. Legislators learning to interpret evidence for policy. Science. 2014;345(6202):1244–5. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1256911.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Davidson B. Storytelling and evidence-based policy: lessons from the grey literature. Palgrave Commun. 2017;3:17093. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2017.93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Ebell MH, Siwek J, Weiss BD, Woolf SH, Susman J, Ewigman B, Bowman M. Strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT): a patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the medical literature. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2004;17(1):59–67. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.17.1.59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Ebell MH, Siwek J, Weiss BD, Woolf SH, Susman JL, Ewigman B, Bowman M. Simplifying the language of evidence to improve patient care: Strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT): a patient-centered approach to grading evidence in medical literature. J Fam Pract. 2004;53(2):111–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Edwards A, Elwyn G, Covey J, et al. Presenting risk information—a review of the effects of ‘framing’ and other manipulations on patient outcomes. J Health Commun. 2001;6(1):61–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Epstein RM, Alper BS, Quill TE. Communicating evidence for participatory decision making. JAMA. 2004;291(19):2359–66. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.19.2359.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. European Research Area Network for Environment and Health (ERA-ENVHEALTH). Improving knowledge transfer a checklist for researchers. 2019. https://www.era-learn.eu/network-information/networks/era-envhealth. Accessed 16 Sep 2022.

  85. Fortin JM, Hirota LK, Bond BE, O’Connor AM, Col NF. Identifying patient preferences for communicating risk estimates: a descriptive pilot study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2001;1:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-1-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Freeman A, Kerr J, Recchia G, Ellermann C. Communicating risks and evidence in a public health emergency. WHO EPI-WIN Webinar—Science Communication. 2021. https://www.who.int/news-room/events/detail/2021/09/14/default-calendar/communicating-risks-and-evidence-in-a-public-health-emergency. Accessed 16 Sep 2022.

  87. Freeman A. Trustworthy and useful evidence communication, evidence communication tick-list. Opening panel presentations. WHO global conference on communicating science during health emergencies. https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/epi-win/4_trustworthy-useful-evidence-communication_a-freeman.pdf?sfvrsn=15516667_4. Acessed 27 Jul 2022.

  88. Ghosh AK, Ghosh K. Translating evidence-based information into effective risk communication: current challenges and opportunities. J Lab Clin Med. 2005;145(4):171–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lab.2005.02.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Ghosh K, Crawford BJ, Pruthi S, Williams CI, Neal L, Sandhu NP, Johnson RE, Wahner-Roedler D, Britain MK, Cha SS, Ghosh AK. Frequency format diagram and probability chart for breast cancer risk communication: a prospective, randomized trial. BMC Womens Health. 2008;8:18. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6874-8-18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W, Kurz-Milcke E, et al. Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2007;8(2):53–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Glenton C, Rosenbaum S, Fønhus MS. Checklist and Guidance for disseminating findings from Cochrane intervention reviews. Cochrane, 2019. https://training.cochrane.org/online-learning/knowledge-translation/how-sharecochrane-evidence/dissemination-essentials-checklist. Accessed 16 Sep 2022.

  92. Hartling L, Gates A, Pillay J, Nuspl M, Newton AS. Development and usability testing of EPC evidence review dissemination summaries for health systems decisionmakers. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2018. Report No.: EHC027-EF.

  93. Informed Healthcare Choices Group. Supporting informed healthcare choices in low-income countries—final report. IHC Update 9 January 2018. https://www.informedhealthchoices.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/IHC-Update-9-January-2018.pdf. Accessed 27 Jul 2022.

  94. Ikirezi A. A qualitative study exploring the suitability of Informed Health Choices resources translated into Kinyarwanda for use in primary schools: Case of Remera Protestant Primary School in Kigali city. A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Public Health in the College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Rwanda, 2016. https://www.informedhealthchoices.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/IKIREZI-ALINE_masters-thesis_UofRwanda_2019.pdf. Accessed 16 Sep 2022.

  95. Kerwer M, Chasiotis A, Stricker J, Günther A, Rosman T. Straight from the scientist’s mouth—plain language summaries promote laypeople’s comprehension and knowledge acquisition when reading about individual research findings in Psychology. Collabra: Psychology. 2021;7(1):18898. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.18898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Knapp P, Raynor DK, Berry DC. Comparison of two methods of presenting risk information to patients about the side effects of medicines. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;13(3):176–80. https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.13.3.176.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. Krause LK, Schwartz L, Woloshin S, Oxman A. Interactive tools to teach the public to be critical consumers of information about health care: what’s out there? Abstracts of the 19th Cochrane Colloquium, Madrid, Spain, 2011, 157. https://www.informedhealthchoices.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/4Da-Krause-Interactive-Tools-Poster.pdf. Accessed 16 Sep 2022.

  98. Kristiansen IS, Gyrd-Hansen D, Nexøe J, Nielsen JB. Number needed to treat: easily understood and intuitively meaningful? Theoretical considerations and a randomized trial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55(9):888–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(02)00432-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Lavis JN, Catallo C, Permanand G, Zierler A, BRIDGE Study Team: BRIDGE Summary 1: communicating clearly: enhancing information-packaging mechanism sto support knowledge brokering in European Health Systems. Brussels, Belgium: European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2013. RefT ype: Report. https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/195233/Obs-Policy-Summary-7,-Communicating-clearly.pdf. Accessed 16 Sep 2022.

  100. Lipkus IM. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):696–713.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Logullo P, Torloni MR, Latorraca CdOC, Riera R. The Brazilian Portuguese version of the DISCERN Instrument: translation procedures and psychometric properties. Value Health Reg Issues. 2019;20:172–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2019.09.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Lopez LM, Steiner MJ, Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Strategies for communicating contraceptive effectiveness. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(2):CD006964. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006964.pub2. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;4:CD006964.

  103. Marquez C, Johnson AM, Jassemi S, Park J, Moore JE, Blaine C, et al. Enhancing the uptake of systematic reviews of effects: what is the best format for health care managers and policy-makers? A mixed-methods study. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):84. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0779-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  104. Moberg J, Austvoll-Dahlgren A, Treweek S, Badenoch D, Layfield R, Harbour R, et al. The plain language glossary of evaluation terms for informed treatment choices (GET-IT) at www.getitglossary.org’. Research for All. 2018;2(1):106–121. https://doi.org/10.18546/RFA.02.1.10.

  105. Moretti A, Gimigliano F, Arienti C, Pollet J, Kiekens C, Negrini S. The cochrane rehabilitation eBook: a knowledge translation tool to transfer evidence to different rehabilitation audiences. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2018;54(5):808–10. https://doi.org/10.23736/S1973-9087.18.05406-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Mosconi P, Antes G, Barbareschi G, Burls A, Demotes-Mainard J, Chalmers I, Colombo C, Garattini S, Gluud C, Gyte G, Mcllwain C, Penfold M, Post N, Satolli R, Valetto MR, West B, Wolff S. A European multi-language initiative to make the general population aware of independent clinical research: the European Communication on Research Awareness Need project. Trials. 2016;17:19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-1146-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  107. Mugisha M. Piloting primary school teaching resources for informed health care choices in an urban school in Kigali, Rwanda: a qualitative study. A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Public Health in the College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Rwanda, 2016. https://www.informedhealthchoices.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/IHC_Dissertation_final_Printed_Version_Library_20160728.pdf. Accessed September 16, 2022.

  108. Murthy L, Shepperd S, Clarke MJ, Garner SE, Lavis JN, Perrier L, et al. Interventions to improve the use of systematic reviews in decision-making by health system managers, policy makers and clinicians. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009401.pub2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Nordheim LV, Gundersen MW, Espehaug B, Guttersrud Ø, Flottorp S. Effects of school-based educational interventions for enhancing adolescents abilities in critical appraisal of health claims: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(8): e0161485. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161485.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  110. Nsangi A, Semakula D, Oxman AD, Austvoll-Dahlgren A, Oxman M, Rosenbaum S, Morelli A, Glenton C, Lewin S, Kaseje M, Chalmers I, Fretheim A, Ding Y, Sewankambo NK. Effects of the Informed Health Choices primary school intervention on the ability of children in Uganda to assess the reliability of claims about treatment effects: a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2017;390(10092):374–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31226-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Ongolo-Zogo P, Lavis JN, Tomson G, Sewankambo NK. Initiatives supporting evidence informed health system policymaking in Cameroon and Uganda: a comparative historical case study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:612. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-014-0612-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  112. Oxman AD, Glenton C, Flottorp S, Lewin S, Rosenbaum S, Fretheim A. Development of a checklist for people communicating evidence-based information about the effects of healthcare interventions: a mixed methods study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(7): e036348. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036348.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. Oxman AD, García LM. Comparison of the Informed Health Choices Key Concepts Framework to other frameworks relevant to teaching and learning how to think critically about health claims and choices: a systematic review [version 1; peer review: 3 approved]. FResearch 2020; 9:164. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.21858.1.

  114. Paling J. Strategies to help patients understand risks. BMJ. 2003;327(7417):745–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7417.745.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  115. Parmelli E, Amato L, Saitto C, Davoli M; Gruppo di Lavoro "DECIDE Italia. DECIDE: uno strumento per rendere trasparenti i criteri utilizzati per le decisioni in sanità [DECIDE: developing and evaluating communication strategies to support informed decisions and practice based on evidence]. Recenti Prog Med. 2013;104(10):522–31. doi: https://doi.org/10.1701/1349.14997.

  116. Petkovic J, Welch V, Jacob MH, Yoganathan M, Ayala AP, Cunningham H, et al. The effectiveness of evidence summaries on health policymakers and health system managers use of evidence from systematic reviews: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2016;11:1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Prictor M, Hill S. Cochrane consumers and communication review group: leading the field on health communication evidence. J Evid Based Med. 2013;6(4):216–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12066.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Puljak L. Using social media for knowledge translation, promotion of evidence-based medicine and high-quality information on health. J Evid Based Med. 2016;9(1):4–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12175.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Ringle VA. Developing and testing the effects of an educational podcast to improve critical appraisal of healthcare claims. Doctoral dissertation, University of Miami. 2020. https://www.informedhealthchoices.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/MoraRingleDissertation2020.pdf. Accessed 16 Sep 2022.

  120. Robinson EJ, Kerr CE, Stevens AJ, Lilford RJ, Braunholtz DA, Edwards SJ, Beck SR, Rowley MG. Lay public’s understanding of equipoise and randomisation in randomised controlled trials. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9(8):1–192, iii–iv. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta9080.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Rosenbaum SE, Glenton C, Wiysonge CS, Abalos E, Mignini L, Young T, Althabe F, Ciapponi A, Marti SG, Meng Q, Wang J, la Hoz Bradford AM, Kiwanuka SN, Rutebemberwa E, Pariyo GW, Flottorp S, Oxman AD. Evidence summaries tailored to health policy-makers in low- and middle-income countries. Bull World Health Organ. 2011;89(1):54–61. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.10.075481.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Ryan G, Sfar-Gandoura H. Disseminating research information through Facebook and Twitter (DRIFT): presenting an evidence-based framework. Nurse Res. 2018. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.2018.e1562.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Santesso N, Maxwell L, Tugwell PS, Wells GA, O’connor AM, Judd M, et al. Knowledge transfer to clinicians and consumers by the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group. J Rheumatol. 2006;33(11):2312–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Santesso N, Rader T, Nilsen ES, Glenton C, Rosenbaum S, Ciapponi A, et al. A summary to communicate evidence from systematic reviews to the public improved understanding and accessibility of information: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(2):182–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.04.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Semakula D, Nsangi A, Oxman AD, Oxman M, Austvoll-Dahlgren A, Rosenbaum S, Morelli A, Glenton C, Lewin S, Kaseje M, Chalmers I, Fretheim A, Kristoffersen DT, Sewankambo NK. Effects of the Informed Health Choices podcast on the ability of parents of primary school children in Uganda to assess claims about treatment effects: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2017;390(10092):389–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31225-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Semakula D, Nsangi A, Oxman AD, Oxman M, Austvoll-Dahlgren A, Rosenbaum S, et al. Effects of the Informed Health Choices podcast on the ability of parents of primary school children in Uganda to assess the trustworthiness of claims about treatment effects: one-year follow up of a randomised trial. Trials. 2020;21(1):187. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-4093-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  127. Semakula D, Nsangi A, Oxman M, et al. Development of mass media resources to improve the ability of parents of primary school children in Uganda to assess the trustworthiness of claims about the effects of treatments: a human-centred design approach. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2019;5:155. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-019-0540-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  128. Sheridan SL, Pignone MP, Lewis CL. A randomized comparison of patients’ understanding of number needed to treat and other common risk reduction formats. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18(11):884–92. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.21102.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  129. The SHARE Approach—Communicating numbers to your patients: a reference guide for health care providers. Content last reviewed September 2020. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. https://www.ahrq.gov/health-literacy/professional-training/shared-decision/tool/resource-5.html.

  130. Trevena LJ, Davey HM, Barratt A, Butow P, Caldwell P. A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence. J Eval Clin Pract. 2006;12(1):13–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2005.00596.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. West African Health Organization (WAHO). Regional evidence-based policy making guidance for ECOWAS countries: process of evidence use in policymaking. Bobo Dioulasso: WAHO, 2021.45 p. 10. 31219/osf.io/xtu4v. https://osf.io/xtu4v/. Accessed 16 Sep 2022.

  132. Welch VA, Petticrew M, O’Neill J, Waters E, Armstrong R, Bhutta ZA, et al. Health equity: evidence synthesis and knowledge translation methods. Syst Rev. 2013;2:43. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  133. Wickremasinghe D, Kuruvilla S, Mays N, Avan BI. Taking knowledge users’ knowledge needs into account in health: an evidence synthesis framework. Health Policy Plan. 2016;31(4):527–37. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czv079.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Ellner A. Making sense of risk information on the web. BMJ. 2003;327(7417):695–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7417.695.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  135. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Welch HG. Know your chances. Understanding Health Statistics. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press; 2008. ISBN-13: 978-0-520-25222-6.

  136. Woolf SH, Purnell JQ, Simon SM, Zimmerman EB, Camberos GJ, Haley A, et al. Translating evidence into population health improvement: strategies and barriers. Annu Rev Public Health. 2015;18(36):463–82. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-082214-110901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Witteman HO, Fuhrel-Forbis A, Exe NL, Kahn VC, Dickson M. Animated graphics for comparing two risks: a cautionary tale. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(4): e106. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2030.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  138. Zikmund-Fisher BJ. The right tool is what they need, not what we have: a taxonomy of appropriate levels of precision in patient risk communication. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70(1 Suppl):37S-49S. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077558712458541.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). EPOC Taxonomy; 2015. https://epoc.cochrane.org/epoc-taxonomy. Accessed 27 Jul 2022.

  140. Willis N, Hill S, Kaufman J, Lewin S, Kis-Rigo J, De Castro Freire SB, Bosch-Capblanch X, Glenton C, Lin V, Robinson P, Wiysonge CS. “Communicate to vaccinate”: the development of a taxonomy of communication interventions to improve routine childhood vaccination. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2013;13:23. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-698X-13-23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  141. Escola Nacional de Administração (Enap). Enap ajuda Ministério da Saúde a aperfeiçoar a comunicação de evidências. Notícia publicada em 2 de julho de 2021. https://www.enap.gov.br/pt/acontece/noticias/enap-ajuda-ministerio-da-saude-a-aperfeicoar-a-comunicacao-de-evidencias. Accessed 16 Sep 2022.

  142. Ministério da Saúde (Brasil). Ministério da Saúde conclui projeto de comunicação de evidências científicas Notícia publicada em 5 de julho de 2021. https://www.ismep.com.br/ministerio-da-saude-conclui-projeto-de-comunicacao-de-evidencias-cientificas/. Accessed 16 Sep 2022.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Daniela Fortunato Rêgo, Aurelina Aguiar de Lima, Keitty Regina Cordeiro de Andrade, Luciana Hentzy Moraes, Marina Melo Arruda Marinho, Roberta Borges Silva, Sarah Dos Santos Conceição e Virginia Kagure Wachira from Departamento de Ciência e Tecnologia da Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovação e Insumos Estratégicos (Decit/Sctie), Brazilian Ministry of Health.

Funding

Programa de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento Institucional do Sistema Único de Saúde (PROADI-SUS), Brazilian Ministry of Health.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hospital Sírio-Libanês, Rua Barata Ribeiro, 142, 2O andar, São Paulo, SP, 01308-000, Brazil

    Rachel Riera, Carolina de Oliveira Cruz Latorraca, Roberta Carreira Moreira Padovez, Rafael Leite Pacheco, Davi Mamblona Marques Romão, Jorge Otávio Maia Barreto, Maria Lúcia Teixeira Machado, Romeu Gomes, Silvio Fernandes da Silva & Ana Luiza Cabrera Martimbianco

  2. Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp), São Paulo, Brazil

    Rachel Riera, Carolina de Oliveira Cruz Latorraca & Rafael Leite Pacheco

  3. Instituto Veredas, São Paulo, Brazil

    Davi Mamblona Marques Romão

  4. Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Brasília, Brazil

    Jorge Otávio Maia Barreto & Romeu Gomes

  5. Universidade Metropolitna de Santo (Unimes), Santos, Brazil

    Ana Luiza Cabrera Martimbianco

  6. Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, Brazil

    Maria Lúcia Teixeira Machado

Authors
  1. Rachel Riera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carolina de Oliveira Cruz Latorraca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Roberta Carreira Moreira Padovez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rafael Leite Pacheco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Davi Mamblona Marques Romão
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jorge Otávio Maia Barreto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Maria Lúcia Teixeira Machado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Romeu Gomes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Silvio Fernandes da Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Ana Luiza Cabrera Martimbianco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: RR, ALCM, RLP. Writing – original draft: RLP, COCL, ALCM, RCMP. Writing review and editing: RR, DMMR, JOMB, MLTM, RG, SFS. Supervision: RR, DMMR, JOMB, MLTM, RG, SFS. Project administration: RR, DMMR, JOMB, MLTM, RG, SFS. Final approval: all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rafael Leite Pacheco.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

None.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Strategies of electronic and structured searches.

Additional file 2.

Proposed taxonomy to categorize strategies for communicating scientific evidence in health to the population/managers.

Additional file 3.

Studies/documents excluded and reasons for exclusions after reading the full text (second phase of the selection process).

Additional file 4.

Main characteristics of included studies.

Additional file 5.

Main characteristics of the identified strategies or sets of strategies for communicating scientific evidence.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Riera, R., de Oliveira Cruz Latorraca, C., Padovez, R.C.M. et al. Strategies for communicating scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and the population: a scoping review. Health Res Policy Sys 21, 71 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-01017-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-01017-2

Keywords

Health Research Policy and Systems

ISSN: 1478-4505

Contact us