ReviewNature medicine2025
Maximizing researcher-policymaker engagement in global public health.
Review in Nature medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Elevating sleep to a global health priority: The One Sleep Health framework.Cell reports. Medicine · 2026Review
- Using implementation science for WHO noncommunicable disease technical packages in low-and middle-income countries: a scoping review.Frontiers in health services · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A common misconception that prevails within some research communities postulates that research results 'speak for themselves' and are thus sufficient to influence policy. Yet, high-fidelity uptake of research is rarely a passive process; more often, researchers need to actively engage with policymakers. This process of policy engagement strives towards producing robust science that contributes to the betterment of our societies-but it is a process for which many researchers are not adequately trained. If publicly funded research fails to influence policy, many would regard it as falling short of fulfilling its potential value to society. Herein, we provide a framework for research-policymaker engagement, framed around the questions of why, on what, with whom, when, where and how clinical and public-health researchers can and should undertake engagement with policymakers. The views presented in this Perspective are a synthesis of the diverse, collective experience of the authors across global health contexts, supported by real-world illustrative case studies. We provide tangible recommendations for researchers, funders and policymakers to facilitate bridging the gap between evidence and policy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41214346What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.