SynthesisBMC public health2026
Barriers and facilitators to knowledge translation at the science-policy interface during the COVID-19 pandemic public health emergency: a rapid review and theoretical analysis to inform development of a logic model.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic necessitated the rapid production, synthesis, and translation of best available evidence to inform public health policy and practice decisions. This presents a unique learning opportunity to understand the interventions and strategies used to promote evidence-informed decision-making at the science-policy interface during this public health emergency and to explore what hindered or facilitated these processes.
objectivesTo describe the interventions at the science-policy interface used to support knowledge translation during the COVID-19 pandemic, explore the barriers and facilitators to such interventions, and apply findings to formal knowledge translation principles to inform the development of a logic model.
methodsA systematic literature search of Medline via OVID, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted. Studies were assessed for eligibility and critically appraised. A narrative synthesis was conducted. Knowledge translation models and frameworks were identified via Google Scholar and analysed for their applicability to a public health emergency context.
resultsWe included 18 articles. The most common interventions at the science-policy interface were advisory committees, knowledge translation platforms and hubs, knowledge translation activities (knowledge brokering, priority-setting, workshops) and products (data visualisation and summaries). Barriers included: data availability and accessibility, time constraints, underrepresentation in advisory committees, political influence, and lack of transparency. Facilitators included: research coordination, interdisciplinary collaboration, transparency in research methods, and actionable and accessible evidence. We identified 11 knowledge translation models that contributed to the logic model.
conclusionsOur findings, developed from empirical findings and theoretical principles, offer valuable insights into how knowledge translation infrastructures and processes could be strengthened in preparation for future public health emergencies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.