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

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