John N. Lavis, MD, PhD Professor and Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Transfer and Exchange McMaster University Program in Policy Decision-Making McMaster University 29 October 2009 Policy Briefs Workshop: Preparing Policy Briefs EVIPNet Policy Briefs Workshop Santiago, Chile

2 To become familiarized a list of questions to consider when preparing a policy brief Objectives for This Session

3 Policy briefs are a new approach to packaging research evidence for policymakers and stakeholders A policy issue is taken as the starting point rather than the research evidence that has been produced or identified Once an issue is prioritized, the focus then turns to finding and distilling the full range of research evidence relevant to the various features of the issue Drawing on available systematic reviews makes the process feasible Policy Briefs

4 1.Does the policy brief address a high-priority issue and describe the context in which the issue is being (or will be) addressed? 2.Does the policy brief describe the problem, costs and consequences of options to address the problem, as well as key implementation considerations? 3.Does the policy brief employ systematic and transparent methods to identify, select, and assess synthesised research evidence? 4.Does the policy brief take quality, local applicability, and equity considerations into account when discussing the synthesised research evidence? 5.Does the policy brief employ a graded-entry format? 6.Was the policy brief reviewed for both scientific quality and system relevance? Questions

5 Does the policy brief address a high-priority issue and describe the context in which the issue is being (or will be) addressed? Issue has to be on the governmental agenda and be widely perceived by many, if not all, stakeholders as a priority Context has to be described o Relevant legislation, strategic plans, etc. o Relevant features of the health system Q1: Priority and Context

6 Does the policy brief describe the problem, costs and consequences of options to address the problem, as well as key implementation considerations? Problem has to be described, drawing on o Indicators, comparators and alternative framings o Analysis of the problem’s causes and its impacts on particular groups o Local data o Research evidence from (a search of MedLine for) community surveys, administrative data analyses, and qualitative studies about stakeholders’ views and experiences Q2: Problem, Options, and Implementation

7 Does the policy brief describe the problem, costs and consequences of options to address the problem, as well as key implementation considerations? (2) Two or more options have to be described, drawing on o Framework for the specific domain (if possible) o Benefits of each option (or each element within an option)  (Reviews of) Effectiveness studies o Harms of each option  (Reviews of) Effectiveness or observational studies o Costs / cost-effectiveness of each option  Local costs and, if possible, local cost-effectiveness analyses o How and why the option works  (Reviews of) Process evaluations (qualitative studies) o Stakeholders’ views and experiences  (Reviews of) Qualitative studies Q2: Problem, Options, and Implementation (2)

8 Does the policy brief describe the problem, costs and consequences of options to address the problem, as well as key implementation considerations? (3) Implementation considerations have to be described, drawing on o Analysis of the barriers to implementing each option o Identification of strategies to address these barriers o Benefits, harms and costs of each strategy  (Reviews of) Effectiveness studies Policy brief does not conclude with recommendations Q2: Problem, Options, and Implementation (3)

9 Does the policy brief employ systematic and transparent methods to identify, select, and assess synthesised research evidence? Methods have to be described, either in a ‘box’ or in an appendix, including o Details of databases searched o Reference to quality, local applicability, and other ‘checklists’ used to assess  Systematic reviews  Local data Q3: Methods

10 Does the policy brief take quality, local applicability, and equity considerations into account when discussing the synthesised research evidence? Reviews have to be described, including o Key messages o Quality, local applicability, and equity assessments Local data have to be described, including o Key messages o Quality, local applicability, and equity assessments Gaps in research evidence that could be filled with monitoring and evaluation Q4: Quality, Local Applicability and Equity

11 Does the policy brief employ a graded-entry format? Policy brief has to have one of o Two-level format (e.g., 1:12, which means 1 page of key messages and a 12-page report) o Three-level format (e.g., 1:3:25, which means 1 page of key messages, a 3-page executive summary, and a 25-page report) Policy brief has to have a reference list for those who want to read more (possibly using a common format, which could be described in an EVIPNet Americas Publication Policy) Q5: Graded-Entry Format

12 Was the policy brief reviewed for both scientific quality and system relevance? Internal review o At least one local policymaker o At least one local stakeholder o At least one local researcher External review o At least one policymaker from another EVIPNet country o At least one researcher from outside the country (typically a member of the EVIPNet Americas resource group) Policy brief has to meet a minimum standard before being finalized and posted on the EVIPNet portal Q6: Review Process

13 Engaging title for the policy brief Statement about the brief’s target audience (e.g., policymakers and stakeholders at the national level) Acknowledgments Authors and their affiliations Steering Committee members and their affiliations (if applicable) Funders Reviewers (unless they elect to be anonymous) Formative evaluation Survey needs to be adapted so that the questions match the design features of each policy brief Core team will check in with you periodically to assist with this Other Considerations