Table 2 Characteristics of included systematic reviews
Authors (year) | Objectives | Country | Study design | Included papers (n) | Analysis | Databases searched | Population | Interventions/phenomena of interest | Comparison/Context | Outcomes | Funding organization | Main results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Innvaer et al. (2002) [45] | To summarize the evidence from interview studies regarding facilitators of and barriers to the use of research evidence by health policy-makers | Norway | A systematic review | 24 | Descriptive and qualitative | MEDLINE, Embase, SocioŽ le, PsychLit, PAIS, IBSS, IPSA and HealthStar | Health policy-makers | Health policy-makers’ perceptions of their use of evidence | International | Use of research evidence | NR | Interview studies with health policy-makers provide only limited support for commonly held beliefs about facilitators of and barriers to their use of evidence, and raise questions about common-sense proposals for improving the use of research for policy decisions. Two-way personal communication, the most common suggestion, may improve the appropriate use of research evidence, but it might also promote selective (inappropriate) use of research evidence |
Uneke et al. (2017) [14] | To assess the efforts and various initiatives that have been undertaken to deliberately engage policy-makers and other stakeholders in the health sector in Nigeria for the promotion of EIPM | Nigeria | A systematic review | 11 | Descriptive | MEDLINE (PubMed) | Researchers and policy-makers | Workshops | Health sector in Nigeria | An assessment of policy-makers’ engagement in initiatives to promote EIPM | International Development Research Centre Canada | All the studies indicated positive outcomes and impacts in relation to quantifiable improvement in policy-makers' knowledge and competence in evidence-to-policy process |