- Research
- Open access
- Published:
An evidence-informed policymaking (EIPM) competency profile for the Brazilian Health System developed through consensus: process and outcomes
Health Research Policy and Systems volume 21, Article number: 105 (2023)
Abstract
Background
Evidence-informed policymaking (EIPM) requires a set of individual and organizational knowledge, skills and attitudes that should be articulated with background factors and needs. In this regard, the development of an EIPM competency profile is important to support the diagnosis, planning and implementation of EIPM.
Purpose
To present the process and outcomes of the development of an EIPM competency profile by an expert committee, to be applied in different contexts of the Brazilian Health System.
Methods
A committee of experts in EIPM shared different views, experiences and opinions to develop an EIPM competency profile for Brazil. In six consensus workshops mediated by facilitators, the committee defined from macro problems to key actions and performances essential for the competency profile. The development steps consisted of: (1) Constitution of the committee, including researchers, professionals with practical experience, managers, and educators; (2) Development of a rapid review on EIPM competency profiles; (3) Agreement on commitments and responsibilities in the processes; (4) Identification and definition of macro problems relating to the scope of the competency profile; and (5) Outlining of general and specific capacities, to be incorporated into the competency profile, categorized by key actions.
Results
The development of the EIPM competency profile was guided by the following macro problems: (1) lack of systematic and transparent decision-making processes in health policy management; (2) underdeveloped institutional capacity for knowledge management and translation; and (3) incipient use of scientific evidence in the formulation and implementation of health policies. A general framework of key actions and performances of the EIPM Competency Profile for Brazil was developed, including 42 specific and general key actions distributed by area of activity (Health Management, Scientific Research, Civil Society, Knowledge Translation, and Cross-sectional areas).
Conclusions
The competency profile presented in this article can be used in different contexts as a key tool for the institutionalization of EIPM.
Background
Evidence-informed policymaking (EIPM) is the result of systematic and transparent processes to use different types of evidence, including scientific evidence, to inform decision-making in the formulation and implementation of policies and systems in health and other social areas. It takes place through effective communication and collaboration between producers and users of scientific knowledge, including a range of interested social groups [1, 2]. For evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) to be part of the institutional processes of organizations responsible for health policies and systems, evidence should be used in conjunction with contextual factors, including public opinion, equity, feasibility of implementation, affordability, sustainability, and acceptability to stakeholders [3].
Knowledge translation—a foundation of EIPM applied to the public health field—is a dynamic and interactive process of synthesis, dissemination, exchange and ethically sound application of knowledge to improve population health, provide more effective health services and products, and strengthen the health system [3, 4]. Knowledge translation platforms articulate producers, intermediaries and users of scientific knowledge in a complex system of interactions [5], and for their implementation, individual and institutional capacities need to be available and used effectively. These capacities include, for example, implementing structured and replicable research methods, mapping contextual factors that influence a priority public health problem, and choosing, planning, and implementing interventions to address it [6,7,8].
This set of capacities constitutes a competency profile, including knowledge, skills and attitudes (KSA) integrated for a competent practice, considering cognitive, psychomotor and attitudinal attributes [9,10,11,12,13,14], which are represented by key actions and typical performances. Key actions delineate activities of a position or function, while performances indicate how the actions should be taken [12, 14]. Thus, competency, based on a constructivist and holistic approach, includes the mobilization of different resources and attributes to address, with relevance and success, complex real-world challenges facing organizations [12, 14].
In the present article, a competency profile essential for practice in EIPM in the Brazilian context was defined. The definition of a set of competency elements required for a professional or social performance is key for identifying capacity gaps in knowledge translation platforms and in organizations working in this field, as well as for defining curricula and structuring courses, favouring the standardization of professional qualifications related to EIPM. In addition, this competency profile contributes to the discussion about the institutionalization of EIPM in Brazil and in the world.
Based on the identification of needs and gaps in the context of institutionalization of EIPM in Brazil, the Brazilian Ministry of Health has commissioned the development of a competency profile for professional practice in EIPM in different areas of the health system. This article aims to describe the processes and outcomes of this competency profile development, which used a constructivist approach and consensus techniques based on previously systematized information, since specific evidence on the Brazilian context was not available. It also addresses how this profile can be used as a tool to support the institutionalization of EIPM, its situational diagnosis, strategic planning, and effective implementation.
Methods
This study was carried out in accordance with a protocol that included terms of reference developed jointly by the project's coordination team and the Brazilian Ministry of Health. The terms of reference for the constitution of the expert committee, activities and products are available (in Portuguese) in the Additional file 1: Appendix S1.
The steps of the competency profile development consisted of: (1) Constitution of the expert committee, including researchers, professionals with practical experience, managers, and educators; (2) Development of a rapid review on EIPM competency profiles; (3) Identification and delineation of macro problems relating to the scope of the competency profile; and (4) Outlining of general and specific capacities, categorized by key actions.
Constitution of the expert committee and meetings
The expert committee consisted of 14 experienced professionals in training and practice in EIPM in the Brazilian context: two professionals (KRCA and RBS) appointed by the Ministry of Health; two (RG and SFS) from Hospital Sírio-Libanês—the institution responsible for this study; and 10 Brazilian professionals who are expert in some relevant step for EIPM implementation (DAM, JA, LSB, LP, NMS, PL, SMVLO, SECM, TSD, and TST), selected through purposive sampling by those responsible for this study. The initial sample consisted of 13 experts, evenly distributed by gender and geographical region of Brazil, with the following professional profiles: (1) decision-makers with expertise in EIPM; (2) researchers from universities/research institutes who apply knowledge translation to policy; (3) healthcare workers who use evidence; (4) members of organized civil society or the private sector with expertise in EIPM; and (5) science communication professionals. Three out of the 13 experts declined to participate due to busy schedules. The committee members were invited to contribute as authors of the competency profile, and therefore as part of the research team.
In addition to the experts invited and indicated, the committee included the participation of four facilitators with experience in EIPM and deliberative processes (JOMB, DMMR, CS and MLTM), who were also part of the project's coordination team. This group of facilitators was responsible for: planning, conducting and mediating, recording and producing systematic syntheses and products of the workshops and asynchronous activities; and consolidating the final version of the EIPM competency profile.
The committee attended six online workshops. Each workshop had a specific objective, including defining macro problems, and outlining key actions and performances essential for the EIPM competency profile in the Brazilian context. Individual committee members’ participation in the workshops and asynchronous activities was not anonymous (all participants identified themselves).
A rapid review [14] was used as a starting point for discussion, which synthesized the global reference on the theme, considering that EIPM is a multiprofessional and multidisciplinary field, and a specific regulation for practice in EIPM is not required in Brazil. The rapid review, the macro problems, and the general and specific capacities are detailed below.
Rapid review on EIPM competency profiles
The rapid review [14] was conducted to address the question: What are the general and specific elements of competency (KSA) for professional training and practice in EIPM? A total of 37 elements of competency were identified, eight categorized as knowledge, 19 as skills, and 10 as attitudes. These elements were aggregated into four competency profiles predetermined by the authors: researcher, health professional and manager, and citizen.
The results of this review were used by the committee members in two ways: (1) an individual prioritization process; and (2) as a starting point for discussion to identify and categorize key actions and performances.
Outlining the macro problems relating to the scope of the competency profile
Considering macro problems as key elements of a context where changes are required, a competency profile should address them if it is expected to bring significant changes that can represent advances and improvements. Therefore, the guidelines to the development of the EIPM competency profile were defined based on macro problems related to public health policies in Brazil, which were identified previously during the planning phase of this study, and then discussed and validated by the expert committee.
Outlining general and specific capacities—online workshops and preparation of intermediate documents
Six online workshops (Table 1), using the Zoom Meeting Platform, were held to outline the specific and general key actions and performances that constitute the EIPM competency profile for Brazil. The workshops were held between August and December 2021, in Portuguese, and lasted two hours each; instructional materials were previously sent to support the discussions. They were mediated by three facilitators (JOMB, DMMR and MLTM), and recorded and documented with the assistance of another facilitator (CS). Synthetic reports of the deliberations were prepared and shared with the expert committee members after each workshop, generating a consistent and accessible record for all members.
After workshop 1, a prioritization process was carried out asynchronously, using the results of the rapid review on EIPM competency profiles [14]. The competency elements were arranged in an online form (Google Forms) and sent via e-mail to the committee members. They individually assigned a value for each competency element, considering an ascending scale of 1 (least important) to 5 (most important), for the four areas of activity in EIPM initially defined: research, management and work in health, and organized civil society. In the online form, it was possible to include suggestions for the writing of the competency elements as well as additional elements. Reminder emails were sent out to ensure that all committee members would contribute to the prioritization.
The results of this survey were systematized by the facilitators (JOMB, DMMR, CS and MLTM), and presented to the committee in the workshop 2. They were instrumental in the discussions that followed, ensuring the efficiency of the consolidation process of the EIPM competency profile.
In the course of the committee’s discussions, the four areas of activity in EIPM initially defined were changed to five related areas: (1) health management; (2) scientific research; (3) knowledge translation; (4) organized civil society; and (5) cross-sectional areas. The description of the boundaries adopted by the committee for each of these areas is presented in the results section of this article. These categories were used by the facilitators (JOMB, DMMR and MLTM) in the systematization of consolidated tables of the competency profile, at each stage of development, considering the results of the initial prioritization as well as the contributions from the committee during the online workshops and the asynchronous activities.
The online workshops were supported by preparatory materials distributed by email in advance, and conducted following procedures designed to promote equitable and effective participation by the committee members, alternating between discussions in four small groups of members from different sectors, and plenaries with the full committee. The small group discussions focused on outlining and writing the key actions and related performances for the different areas that would constitute the EIPM competency profile. The plenary focused on providing inputs to the discussions, analysing the results of the small group discussions and the state of the art of the competency profile consolidated in each workshop. All discussions were mediated by the group of facilitators in accordance with a planning that was shared in advance. Table 1 provides a summary of the online workshops of the committee.
Results
The online workshops were held according to a prior planning. There was an average attendance of at least 80% of the expert committee members at each meeting, and all members attended at least four workshops and contributed to the asynchronous activities (e.g., prioritization of the competency elements). There were no withdrawals, or losses for other reasons, in the course of the expert committee’s discussions, taking into consideration the average individual attendance at the online workshops and asynchronous activities.
The expert committee validated the following macro problems in the context of EIPM in Brazil: (1) lack of systematic and transparent decision-making processes in health policy management; (2) underdeveloped institutional capacity for knowledge management and translation; and (3) incipient use of scientific evidence in the formulation and implementation of health policies. The deliberations on the elements of the EIPM competency profile were based on these macro problems.
Categorization of the EIPM competency profile
The different key actions and performances of the EIPM competency profile were grouped into the prevalent areas of activity. The areas of activity in EIPM were defined by the expert committee as presented in Table 2.
Subsequently, the key actions and performances were also categorized according to their level of coverage in relation to EIPM: ‘specific’ when these elements would be essential for the development of activities specific to EIPM; and ‘general’ when they would be related to EIPM but also integrating a broader set of knowledge, skills and attitudes for competent practice, according to each area. An ‘area’ was considered an environment including different themes and correlated or similar dynamics. For example, the key action ‘Use evidence’ is classified as specific, because it is typical of work in EIPM. The key action ‘Know the fundamentals of scientific research’ is classified as general, since it is relevant to EIPM, but it also constitutes the profile of several positions and functions.
Furthermore, a classification based on the KSA acronym (for Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes) was applied to the key actions and performances, considering the following definitions [15]:
-
Knowledge: a set of information, facts, theories, practices, and principles necessary to exercise an occupation or to obtain a professional qualification.
-
Skills: ability to apply knowledge and use acquired resources to complete tasks and solve problems. It can be cognitive, practical, physical, psychomotor, or sensory.
-
Attitudes: ability to develop tasks and solve problems with varying degrees of autonomy and responsibility. These are individual attributes that can influence performance at work. They are organized into four categories: work under supervision; autonomy in one’s own work; supervision of others' work; and evaluation of work or activity.
The distinction between knowledge, skills and attitudes was not always seen as clear or unambiguous by the expert committee. It was understood that performances imply, at different levels, knowledge, skills and attitudes. Therefore, the classification indicated the elements predominant in each performance, i.e., a performance classified as a skill could also include related knowledge and attitudes, and vice versa. The notation adopted in the classification of the key actions and performances based on KSA used capital letters (‘K’ for Knowledge, ‘S’ for Skills, and ‘A’ for Attitudes), in the competency profile table.
Key actions and performances of the EIPM competency profile
A total of 42 key actions relevant to the practice in EIPM were identified, defined, and distributed in five areas of activity (Table 3), and their attributes and respective performances are detailed in the EIPM competency profile (Table 4).
Discussion
This article described an evidence-informed policymaking (EIPM) competency profile for Brazil that can be considered for application in different local and national contexts. The elements of competency essential for EIPM consist of an integrated and interactive set of individual capacities that interacts with the organizational environment, constituting a professional profile with different areas of activity.
The competency profile is a tool to support the diagnosis and planning of actions for the institutionalization of EIPM, and the effective incorporation of scientific evidence into decision-making in health policies and systems. The participatory process reported in this study was aimed at identifying the essential elements for a EIPM competency profile in Brazil.
Many studies address theoretical and operational elements of competency related to EIPM [16,17,18,19,20,21], but the contextualization process conducted by the expert committee made it possible to re-signify these elements for the Brazilian national context, since all the process strongly considered the experience and knowledge of the committee participants. This contextualization of the process can also be considered in perspective, to confront and interpret the results presented here in the face of other initiatives for categorization of competence elements for different contexts. In this respect, the competence profile presented here is similar to the set of scientific publications that addressed this topic, with the advantage of providing a comprehensive view and covering different profiles that work in EIDM.
At the same time, synthetic definitions applicable to institutional processes at different levels of organizational complexity were formulated. The practical application of the competency profile developed should consider the local needs of each individual or institution. The use of this tool to support the advancement of EIPM institutionalization should be based on situational diagnosis and strategic planning focused on enhancing the use of evidence in health policies and systems, so that the contextualization process can enable the adaptation of the competency profile to each situation and context.
In the scope of EIPM, the importance of strengthening its institutionalization within governments, civil society organizations, and academic institutions is recognized worldwide [22,23,24], but many barriers still need to be addressed in a structured way [25]. It is expected that with the competency profile presented here the EIPM ecosystem will be better equipped to identify the elements of competency that need to be developed in these institutionalization processes.
Application of the EIPM competency profile
In the course of the expert committee’s discussions, it became clear that this competency profile should not be interpreted as the profile of a single professional. The range of performances described in this study constitutes a set of knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary for competent institutional practice in EIPM. In other words, it is not reasonable to expect that a single person possesses all the attributes described above, but that a group of professionals, working as a team or in partnership, can have the necessary profile.
Similarly, this competency profile does not relate to a specific institution or area of activity, but it is aimed at organizing performances relevant to the practice in EIPM in various contexts. Therefore, the first step in applying this profile should be to analyse which key actions are relevant to the concrete application context so as to have a customized profile. For example, a health department may not need to include the key action ‘Advocating for EIPM’ in its competency profile, while a university may not include the key action ‘Implementing EIPM’.
The selection of the key actions relevant to each context can also be accompanied by a second classification in terms of ‘depth’, ‘frequency’, and ‘importance’. This classification makes it possible to prioritize performances according to different levels of occupation. Thus, even though ‘Conducting scientific research’ may be a key action to both a health manager and a researcher, the frequency and importance of this skill will be different for both.
Therefore, this competency profile should be used as an initial matrix for defining specific profiles. These profiles can modulate, prioritize and change the general profile, adding or removing performances, in order to make it suitable for the concrete organizational needs. Based on these adaptations, it will be possible to design a profile for specific positions and functions, as well as competency profiles for training activities.
Conclusions
This article presented the process and outcomes of the development of a EIPM competency profile for Brazil. These outcomes have the potential to contribute to the institutionalization of the systematic and transparent use of scientific evidence to inform decision-making in health policies and systems. The competency profile presented here delineate performances and key actions, in different areas, to advance EIPM in Brazil.
Finally, taking as a reference the advancement of EIPM in Brazil and in other parts of the world, aspects or parts of the competency profile can contribute to the development of curricula for courses at different levels, selection of professionals, evaluation of professional performance, career advancement plan, and guidelines for the formation of learning communities in institutional environments.
Availability of data and materials
Available in Additional file 1: Appendix S1.
Abbreviations
- EIDM:
-
Evidence-informed decision making
- EIPM:
-
Evidence-informed policymaking
- ESPIE:
-
Project “Support for the Formulation and Implementation of Evidence-Informed Public Health Policy”
- KSA:
-
Knowledge, skills and attitudes
References
Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Lewin S, et al. SUPPORT tools for evidence-informed health policymaking (STP) 1: what is evidence-informed policymaking? Health Res Policy Sys. 2009;7:S1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-7-S1-S1.
Lavis JN, Røttingen JA, Bosch-Capblanch X, Atun R, El-Jardali F, Gilson L, Lewin S, Oliver S, Ongolo-Zogo P, Haines A. Guidance for evidence-informed policies about health systems: linking guidance development to policy development. PLoS Med. 2012;9(3): e1001186. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001186.
World Health Organization. Evidence, policy, impact. WHO guide for evidence-informed decision-making. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021.
Straus SE, Tetroe J, Graham I. Defining knowledge translation. CMAJ. 2009;181(3–4):165–8. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.081229.
Partridge ACR, Mansilla C, Randhawa H, et al. Lessons learned from descriptions and evaluations of knowledge translation platforms supporting evidence-informed policymaking-making in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Health Res Policy Sys. 2020;18:127. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-00626-5.
Mallidou AA, Atherton P, Chan L, et al. Core knowledge translation competencies: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18:502. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3314-4.
Tait H, Williamson A. A literature review of knowledge translation and partnership research training programs for health researchers. Health Res Policy Syst. 2019;17(1):98. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-019-0497-z.
Edwards A, Zweigenthal V, Olivier J. Evidence map of knowledge translation strategies, outcomes, facilitators and barriers in African health systems. Health Res Policy Syst. 2019;17(1):16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-019-0419-0.
Chouhan VS, Srivastava S. Understanding competencies and competency modelling—a literature survey. IOSR J Bus Manag. 2014;16(1):14–22. https://doi.org/10.9790/487X-16111422.
Won SC. Competency definitions, development and assessment: a brief review. Int J Acad Res Prog Educ Dev. 2020;9(3):95–114. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v9-i3/8223.
Frank JR, Mungroo R, Ahmad Y, Wang M, De Rossi S, Horsley T. Toward a definition of competency-based education in medicine: a systematic review of published definitions. Med Teach. 2010;32(8):631–7. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2010.500898.
Lima VV, Ribeiro EC, Padilha RQ, Gomes R. Processo de construção de perfil de competência de profissionais. São Paulo: Instituto Sírio-Libanês de Ensino e Pesquisa; 2014.
Huang X, Li Z, Wang J, Cao E, Zhuang G, Xiao F, Zheng C, Zhang X, Chen M, Gao L, Guo P, Lin P, Zheng S, Xin G. A KSA system for competency-based assessment of clinicians’ professional development in China and quality gap analysis. Med Educ Online. 2022;27(1):2037401. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2022.2037401.
Barreto JOM, Romão DMM, Setti C, et al. Competency profiles for evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM): a rapid review. Health Res Policy Sys. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-00964-0.
Baartman LK, De Bruijn E. Integrating knowledge, skills and attitudes: conceptualising learning processes towards vocational competence. Educ Res Rev. 2011;6(2):125–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.03.001.
Kakemam E, Liang Z, Janati A, et al. Leadership and management competencies for hospital managers: a systematic review and best-fit framework synthesis. J Healthc Leadersh. 2020;12:59–68. https://doi.org/10.2147/JHL.S265825.
Tait H, Williamson A. A literature review of knowledge translation and partnership research training programs for health researchers. Health Res Policy Syst. 2019;17:98. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-019-0497-z.
van Dijk N, Hooft L, Wieringa-de WM. What are the barriers to residents’ practicing evidence-based medicine? A systematic review. Acad Med. 2010;85(7):1163–70. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181d4152f.
Albarqouni L, Hoffmann T, Glasziou P. Evidence-based practice educational intervention studies: a systematic review of what is taught and how it is measured. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18:177. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1284-1.
Oxman AD, García LM. Comparison of the informed health choices key concepts framework to other frameworks relevant to teaching and learning how to think critically about health claims and choices: a systematic review. F1000Res. 2020;9:164. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.21858.1.
Thompson MR, Schwartz BD. The role of the nurse scientist as a knowledge broker. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2019;51(1):26–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12439.
Global Commission on Evidence to Address Societal Challenges. The evidence commission report: a wake-up call and path forward for decision makers, evidence intermediaries, and impact-oriented evidence producers. Hamilton: McMaster Health Forum; 2022.
World Health Organization. Together on the road to evidence-informed decision-making for health in the post-pandemic era: a call for action. 2021. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/350883/WHO-SCI-RFH-2021.08-eng.pdf. Accessed on 30 July 2021.
Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane convenes: preparing for and responding to global health emergencies. What have we learnt from COVID-19? Reflections and recommendations from the evidence synthesis community. London: Cochrane; 2022.
Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, et al. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-2.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Composition of the expert committee on the EIPM Competency Profile for Brazil
Daienne Amaral Machado, Codeplan (Federal District Planning Company), Brasília, Brazil.
João Abreu, Impulso Gov, São Paulo, Brazil.
Keitty Regina Cordeiro de Andrade, Ministry of Health, Brasília, Brazil.
Laura dos Santos Boeira, Veredas Institute, São Paulo, Brazil.
Letícia Pozza, ODD Studio.
Nathan Mendes Souza, UFMG (Federal University of Minas Gerais), Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Patrícia Logullo, UK EQUATOR Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Roberta Borges Silva, Ministry of Health, Brasília, Brazil.
Sandra Leone, Fiocruz (Oswaldo Cruz Foundation), Mato Grosso do Sul State, Brazil.
Sara Emanuela de Carvalho Mota, Ministry of Health, Salvador, Brazil.
Tamille Sales Dias, Brazilian National School of Public Administration, Brasília, Brazil.
Tereza Setsuko Toma, Health Institute, São Paulo State Health Secretariat, São Paulo, Brazil.
Romeu Gomes, Hospital Sírio-Libanês, São Paulo, Brazil.
Silvio Fernandes da Silva, Hospital Sírio-Libanês, São Paulo, Brazil.
Funding
This study was funded by resources from the Support for the Formulation and Implementation of Evidence-Informed Public Health Policy – ESPIE Project, developed by Hospital Sírio-Libanês, within the scope of the Support Program for Institutional Development of the Brazilian Unified Health System (PROADI-SUS in Portuguese), in partnership with the Department of Science and Technology of the Secretariat of Science, Technology, Innovation and Health Complex of the Ministry of Health of Brazil (DECIT/SECTICS/MS in Portuguese).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
JOMB: Study design; data collection, analysis and interpretation; writing of the first manuscript draft; approval of the final manuscript draft. DMMR: Data collection, analysis and interpretation; writing of the manuscript; approval of the final manuscript draft. CS: Data collection, analysis and interpretation; writing of the manuscript; approval of the final manuscript draft. MLTM: Data interpretation; writing of the manuscript; approval of the final manuscript draft. RR: Data interpretation; writing of the manuscript; approval of the final manuscript draft. RG: Study design; data interpretation; writing of the manuscript; approval of the final manuscript draft. SFS: Study design; data interpretation; writing of the manuscript; approval of the final manuscript draft. DAM, JA, KRCA, LSB, LP, NMS, PL, RBS, SMVLO, SECM, TSD and TST: participation in the expert committee; writing of the manuscript; approval of the final manuscript draft.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable, but all precepts of ethical conduct and integrity in research were rigorously observed in this study.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
Some of the authors (JOMB, DMMR, CS, MLTM, RR, RG, and SFS) have received payment from Hospital Sírio-Libanês for the development of this study. The other members of the expert committee (DAM, JA, KRCA, LSB, LP, NMS, PL, RBS, SMVLO, SECM, TSD and TST) have not received payment for it. The authors declare that they have no financial conflict of interest, and there was no influence from the funding institution on the development of the study or its results.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Additional file 1: Appendix S1
Terms of reference for the expert committee and workshops (only in Portuguese)
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
About this article
Cite this article
Barreto, J.O.M., Romão, D.M.M., Setti, C. et al. An evidence-informed policymaking (EIPM) competency profile for the Brazilian Health System developed through consensus: process and outcomes. Health Res Policy Sys 21, 105 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-01052-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-01052-z