Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41566491›Full record

ReviewHealth research policy and systems2026

Facilitating collaboration between public health researchers and policymakers: a scoping review of global practices, barriers and facilitators.

Alaa Hussain Subahe, Philip Baker, Remco Polman

Abstract readScoping ReviewReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health research policy and systems, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Alaa Hussain SubaheSchool of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Rd, Kelvin Grove, QLD, 4059, Australia. Alaahussaina.subahe@hdr.qut.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4089-0047
Philip BakerAustralian Centre for Health Law Research and School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Rd, Kelvin Grove, QLD, 4059, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0802-2349
Remco PolmanSchool of Exercise and Nutrition Science, Department of Health and PE, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2951-0904

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEffective collaboration between public health researchers and policymakers is critical for translating evidence into actionable policies. However, such collaboration is often undermined by misaligned priorities, structural barriers, and fragmented systems. This scoping review synthesizes global evidence on the strategies, facilitators and barriers shaping these collaborations, with a focus on how they enhance the uptake and use of research in policymaking.

methodsA scoping review was conducted using a systematic search across four electronic databases (SCOPUS, Embase, Web of Science and Medline via PubMed), targeting studies published between 2019 and 2024. Eligible studies discussed strategies, barriers and facilitators for collaboration between researchers and policymakers in public health. Data were extracted on study context, collaboration mechanisms, enabling conditions and reported impacts.

resultsA total of 24 studies were included, revealing four interdependent strategies for effective collaboration. Most notably, co-production of knowledge emerged in two distinct forms: as a deliberately structured intervention and as an emergent outcome of sustained engagement over time. This dual nature of co-production offers a critical lens for understanding how collaboration evolves in practice. Other key strategies included capacity building at both individual and organizational levels, the use of structured communication and feedback mechanisms to align research with policy needs, and the establishment of governance frameworks to institutionalize research-policy partnerships. Collaborations that were formalized, embedded within institutions, and maintained through iterative engagement were more likely to result in increased research uptake and enduring policy impact.

conclusionsThese findings underscore that structured collaboration, particularly when supported by institutional mechanisms, ongoing capacity building and iterative engagement, plays a critical role in increasing the use of research in public health policymaking. By distinguishing co-production as both a deliberate strategy and an emergent outcome, this review offers new insight into how collaborative models can be designed or evolved to strengthen evidence-informed decision-making.

Indexed as

Administrative PersonnelCooperative BehaviorHealth PolicyPolicy MakingPublic HealthResearch PersonnelCapacity BuildingHumansTranslational Research, BiomedicalCapacity buildingCo-production of knowledgeEvidence-informed decision-makingKnowledge translationPublic health policyResearch-policy collaboration

Identifiers

PMID41566491
PMCPMC12908259

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.