Table 3 Policy brief evaluation survey
Question | Cameroon (n = 78), percentage responding very helpfula | Nigeria (n = 43), percentage responding very helpful | Zambia (n = 46), percentage responding very helpful |
|---|---|---|---|
(Mean score) | (Mean score) | (Mean score) | |
The policy brief described the context for the issue being addressed | 90% (6.3) | 93% (6.5) | 94% (6.6) |
The policy brief described different features of the problem, including how it affects particular groups | 86% (6.1) | 97% (6.5) | 94% (6.5) |
The policy brief described three options for addressing the problem | 88% (6.0) | 94% (6.5) | 89% (6.3) |
The policy brief described what is known, based on synthesized research evidence, about each of the three options and where there are gaps in what is known | 80% (6.0) | 84% (6.2) | 93% (6.5) |
The policy brief described key implementation considerations | 82% (6.1) | 95% (6.5) | 89% (6.5) |
The policy brief employed systematic and transparent methods to identify, select and assess synthesized research evidence | 77% (6.0) | 87% (6.5) | 82% (6.2) |
The policy brief took quality considerations into account when discussing the research evidence | 83% (6.1) | 91% (6.5) | 78% (6.3) |
The policy brief took local applicability considerations into account when discussing the research evidence | 78% (6.0) | 91% (6.5) | 82% (6.3) |
The policy brief took equity considerations into account when discussing the research evidence | 83% (6.2) | 85% (6.2) | 79% (6.3) |
The policy brief did not conclude with particular recommendations | 50% (5.4) | 54% (5.5) | 56% (5.6) |
The policy brief employed a graded-entry format | 89% (6.4) | 83% (6.2) | 88% (6.5) |
The policy brief included a reference list for those who wanted to read more about a particular systematic review or research study | 90% (6.4) | 93% (6.7) | 94% (6.7) |
The policy brief was subjected to a review by at least one policymaker, one stakeholder and at least one researcher | 88% (6.3) | 86% (6.3) | 86% (6.3) |
The purpose of the policy brief was to present the available research evidence on a high-priority policy issue in order to inform a policy dialogue where research evidence would be just one input to the discussionb | 87% (6.2) | 88% (6.2) |