Skip to main content

Table 4 In-depth evaluation of five policy briefs (PBs)

From: Research dissemination workshops: observations and implications based on an experience in Burkina Faso

  Adapted language Sufficient information Relevant information Recommendations
PB.1 Rapid diagnostic test (RDT) for malaria Content accessible enough, but many technical terms Ambiguous statements and many assertions without supporting data Much of the information could have been removed No clear, comprehensible and action-oriented recommendations
PB.2 Community health workers’ (CHWs) perceptions of their involvement in malaria management Language not adequately adapted, overly technical and variable concepts Insufficient information, title too long and unclear, many ambiguous statements Many unnecessary tables No clear recommendations, but a conclusion
PB.3 Management of children under five by CHWs Target public not specified, making it difficult to assess whether language is adapted Difficult to grasp the objective of the study Difficulties in understanding what message the researchers were trying to convey No clear recommendations, but a conclusion (presented as a question)
PB.4 Rapid diagnostic tests and prescribing practices Language not adapted; long sentences and complex title Insufficient information to understand the objective Graphics difficult to understand; several unnecessary tables Inconsistency between recommendations and study objectives
PB.5 Implementation of the anti-malaria program Technical terms difficult to understand Sufficient information Some information not very relevant for the policy; table and figures improperly positioned in the text No presentation of the key arguments at various points