Skip to main content

Table 4 Participants’ view on policy brief design and production

From: Assessing the usefulness of policy brief and policy dialogue as knowledge translation tools towards contextualizing the accountability framework for routine immunization at a subnational level in Nigeria

No. View about how the policy brief was designed and produced MNR MDR Min–Max
1. The policy brief described the context of the issue being addressed 6.60 7.00 5.00–7.00
2. The policy brief described different features of the problem, including (where possible) how it affects particular groups 6.43 6.50 5.00–7.00
3. The policy brief described at least three options for addressing the problem 6.23 6.00 4.00–7.00
4. The policy brief described what is known, based on synthesized research evidence, about each of the options and where there are gaps in what is known 6.17 6.00 5.00–7.00
5. The policy brief described key implementation considerations 6.37 6.00 6.00–7.00
6. The policy brief employed systematic and transparent methods to identify, select and assess synthesized research evidence 6.37 7.00 4.00–7.00
7. The policy brief took quality considerations into account when discussing the research evidence 6.50 7.00 5.00–7.00
8. The policy brief took local applicability considerations into account when discussing the research evidence 6.47 7.00 5.00–7.00
9. The policy brief took equity considerations into account when discussing the research evidence 6.10 6.00 4.00–7.00
10. The policy brief did not conclude with particular recommendations 5.43 6.00 1.00–7.00
11. The policy brief employed a graded-entry format (e.g. a list of key messages and a full report) 5.89 6.00 3.00–7.00
12. The policy brief included a reference list for those who wanted to read more about a particular systematic review or research study 5.87 6.00 4.00–7.00
13. The policy brief was subjected to a review by at least one policy-maker, at least one stakeholder and at least one researcher (called a “merit” review process to distinguish it from “peer” review, which would typically only involve researchers in the review 6.23 6.00 4.00–7.00
14. 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 discussion 6.39 7.00 4.00–7.00