Health Research Policy and Systems

BioMed Central

Introduction Open Access

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health
Policymaking (STP)
John N Lavis*1, Andrew D Oxman2, Simon Lewin3 and Atle Fretheim4

Address: 1Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Department of Political
Science, McMaster University, 1200 Main St. West, HSC-2D3, Hamilton, ON, Canada, L8N 3Z5, 2Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health
Services, P.O. Box 7004, St. Olavs plass, N-0130 Oslo, Norway, 3Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, P.O. Box 7004, St. Olavs
plass, N-0130 Oslo, Norway; Health Systems Research Unit, Medical Research Council of South Africa and 4Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the
Health Services, P.O. Box 7004, St. Olavs plass, N-0130 Oslo, Norway; Section for International Health, Institute of General Practice and
Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Norway
Email: John N Lavis* - [email protected]; Andrew D Oxman - [email protected]; Simon Lewin - [email protected];
Atle Fretheim - [email protected]
* Corresponding author

Published: 16 December 2009

<supplement>
SUPPORT
tems
www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1478-4505-7-S1-info.pdf</url>
Research,
project,
<title>
and which
the<p>SUPPORT
Milbank
was supported
Memorial
Tools
byFund
for
the evidence-informed
provided
Europeanadditional
Commission's
health
funding.
</supplement>
6th
Policymaking
None
Framework
of the
(STP)</p>
INCO
fundersprogramme,
had
</title>
a role
<editor>Andy
incontract
drafting,031939.
revising
Oxman The
orand
approving
Norwegian
Stephanthe
Hanney</editor>
Agency
content
forofDevelopment
this <sponsor>
series.</note>
Cooperation
<note>This
</sponsor>
(Norad),
series
<note>Guides</note>
ofthe
articles
Alliance
wasfor
prepared
Health
<url>http://
Policy
as partand
of the
Sys-

Health Research Policy and Systems 2009, 7(Suppl 1):I1 doi:10.1186/1478-4505-7-S1-I1

This article is available from: http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/7/S1/I1
© 2009 Lavis et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract
This article is the Introduction to a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health
policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers.
Knowing how to find and use research evidence can help policymakers and those who support
them to do their jobs better and more efficiently. Each article in this series presents a proposed
tool that can be used by those involved in finding and using research evidence to support evidence-
informed health policymaking. The series addresses four broad areas: 1. Supporting evidence-
informed policymaking 2. Identifying needs for research evidence in relation to three steps in
policymaking processes, namely problem clarification, options framing, and implementation
planning 3. Finding and assessing both systematic reviews and other types of evidence to inform
these steps, and 4. Going from research evidence to decisions. Each article begins with between
one and three typical scenarios relating to the topic. These scenarios are designed to help readers
decide on the level of detail relevant to them when applying the tools described. Most articles in
this series are structured using a set of questions that guide readers through the proposed tools
and show how to undertake activities to support evidence-informed policymaking efficiently and
effectively. These activities include, for example, using research evidence to clarify problems,
assessing the applicability of the findings of a systematic review about the effects of options selected
to address problems, organising and using policy dialogues to support evidence-informed
policymaking, and planning policy monitoring and evaluation. In several articles, the set of questions
presented offers more general guidance on how to support evidence-informed policymaking.
Additional information resources are listed and described in every article. The evaluation of ways
to support evidence-informed health policymaking is a developing field and feedback about how to
improve the series is welcome.

Page 1 of 7
(page number not for citation purposes)
Health Research Policy and Systems 2009, 7(Suppl 1):I1 http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/7/S1/I1

About STP Those who support policymakers are equally diverse and
This article is the Introduction to a series written for people may include individuals within government (e.g. junior
responsible for making decisions about health policies and pro- civil servants such as policy analysts, or the political staff
grammes and for those who support these decision makers. The of an elected official or high-level political appointee),
series is intended to help such people to ensure that their deci- and individuals working in independent units that pro-
sions are well-informed by the best available research evidence. vide support for the use of research evidence in policy-
The series describes a set of tools that have been developed by making. But their role in informing the decisions made by
the SUPporting POlicy relevant Reviews and Trials (SUP- policymakers is common to all. This, despite the fact that
PORT) project, an international collaboration funded by the they may differ is in their degree of independence from
European Commission’s 6th Framework (http://www.support- policymakers (e.g. a semi-autonomous government
collaboration.org). This Introduction describes the SUPPORT agency, or a health systems research unit that is independ-
tools and the ways in which they can be used. A glossary for the ent of government but supports the use of research evi-
entire series is attached to each article (see additional File 1). dence in policymaking) and their affiliation with other
Links to translations of this series into Spanish, Portuguese, institutions (e.g. non-governmental organisations, uni-
French and Chinese can be found on the SUPPORT website versities).
(http://www.support-collaboration.org). Feedback about how
to improve this series is welcome, and should be sent to: The SUPPORT tools are also relevant to health system
[email protected]. stakeholders. This group may include non-governmental
organisations and civil society groups that play a diverse
Background range of roles. They may, for example, seek to influence
Policymakers and those supporting them often find them- decisions made by policymakers. Or else they work in
selves in situations in which better knowledge about ways areas not normally addressed by policymakers, or in areas
to find and use research evidence would help them to do where authority has been delegated to them by policy-
their jobs more effectively and efficiently. In this series, we makers themselves. We recognise, though, that some of
describe how more systematic processes can be used to the language and examples used in this series may reso-
support evidence-informed policymaking, identify needs nate more with policymakers and those who support
for research evidence, find and assess evidence to address them.
these needs, and go from research evidence to decisions.
Here in this introduction to the series, we describe the tar- The SUPPORT tools have been written for settings that
get audiences for the SUPPORT tools, the proposed tools range from low- and middle-income countries such as
and how they can be used, what the tools do not do, and Uganda and Chile, to high-income countries such as Can-
how we plan to support their further development. ada and Norway. Wherever possible, examples have been
drawn from disparate settings. As described below, many
The target audiences for the SUPPORT tools of the issues and opportunities encountered in supporting
The SUPPORT tools presented in this series have been evidence-informed policymaking are remarkably similar
developed primarily for policymakers and those who sup- across settings.
port them.
Each article begins with between one and three typical sce-
Policymakers are a diverse group that includes cabinet narios designed to encourage readers to use the tools
members (e.g. Ministers of Health or Finance), elected described and to help them to decide on the relevant level
officials (e.g. chairs of legislative committees), senior civil of detail they require. Some scenarios describe senior civil
servants (e.g. directors of primary healthcare pro- servants who simply need a general sense of the expecta-
grammes), and high-level political appointees (e.g. heads tions required for their staff – this information can be
of government agencies). Policymakers may differ signifi- quickly gained by them by scanning through the article.
cantly on the basis of their authority or role in different Other scenarios, for example, relate to junior policy ana-
political systems but what all have in common is the lysts and directors of an applied health systems research
authority to make or influence decisions directly. In some units. They will require more specific guidance on how to
countries, cabinet members may be elected, whereas the undertake new activities and should therefore read the rel-
senior civil servants who advise them may be neutral advi- evant article in more detail when asked to undertake such
sors with no affiliations to the governing party. In other tasks. The article will also be useful to them as a reference.
countries, all positions carrying decision-making author-
ity may be appointed by the governing party. Policymak- The SUPPORT tools and how they can be used
ers may also differ by sector (e.g. health or economy) or In each article in this series, we propose a tool that can be
operational level (e.g. local or national). used by those involved in finding and using research evi-
dence to support evidence-informed health policymak-

Page 2 of 7
(page number not for citation purposes)
Health Research Policy and Systems 2009, 7(Suppl 1):I1 http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/7/S1/I1

ing. The series addresses four broad areas of interest [4], assessing the applicability of the findings of a system-
related to policymaking: 1. Supporting evidence-informed atic review about the effects of a policy or programme
policymaking (Articles 1-3 [1-3]) 2. Identifying needs for option to address a problem (Article 9) [9], organising
research evidence in relation to three steps in policymak- and using policy dialogues to support evidence-informed
ing processes, namely clarifying problems, framing policymaking (Article 14) [14], and planning the moni-
options and planning implementation (Articles 4-6 [4-6]) toring and evaluation of policies (Article 18) [18].
3. Finding and assessing evidence to inform each of these
steps (Articles 7-10 [7-10] focus on systematic reviews and Those who wish to learn about the different types of
Articles 11-12 [11,12] on other types of evidence) 4. research evidence needed in policymaking processes
Going from research evidence to decisions (Articles 13-15 should ideally start with Articles 4-6 [4-6]. These three
[13-15] focus on engaging stakeholders in evidence- articles correspond to three steps policymaking processes,
informed policymaking. Articles 16-18 [16-18] address namely problem clarification, option framing and imple-
how to use research evidence in decisions). Figure 1 pro- mentation planning. These articles in the series help to
vides an overview of the series, with the numbers shown identify needs for research evidence in relation to each of
referring to the relevant article. Additional resources and these steps. While policymaking processes rarely involve a
website links are provided in each article. clear sequence of steps, even highly dynamic processes
can benefit from a systematic method of clarifying a prob-
In the articles on supporting evidence-informed policy- lem, framing options to address it, and defining how an
making (the first of the four key areas covered in this option will be implemented. Article 13 [13] – which we
series), the principal focus of each is a set of questions that return to below – describes how to bring these steps
can be used to guide ways to support evidence-informed together in policy briefs which are used to support the use
policymaking. Policymakers and those who support them of research evidence in policymaking.
may wish to know more about what evidence-informed
policymaking is (Article 1) [1], how to improve the ways Those familiar with how to identify needs for research evi-
that their organisation supports evidence-informed poli- dence in relation to each step in a policymaking process,
cymaking (Article 2) [2] or how to set priorities for sup- as well as those needing to undertake a more focused
porting evidence-informed policymaking (Article 3) [3]. activity related to finding and assessing evidence, may
These articles can help to guide those striving to under- want to move directly to one or more of Articles 7-12 [7-
stand and to shape the context for evidence-informed pol- 12]. Within these articles, there are two sub-series of arti-
icymaking. cles. The first addresses the following issues related to sys-
tematic reviews:
In the other three broad areas (see Figure 1), the main
focus of each article is a set of questions that can guide • How to find systematic reviews (Article 7) [7]. Poli-
how an activity that supports evidence-informed policy- cymakers and those who support them will need to
making can be undertaken. Such activities might include understand the rationale for seeing systematic reviews
using research evidence to clarify a problem (Article 4) as a ‘first place to look’ and how to find them effi-
ciently

ó CTM`U_QbUPQZOQ#UZR[^YQP\[XUOeYMWUZS+
?a\\[^`UZSQbUPQZOQ# ô 5Y\^[bUZST[ce[a^[^SMZU_M`U[Z_a\\[^`_QbUPQZOQ#UZR[^YQP\[XUOeYMWUZS • How much confidence can be placed in a systematic
UZR[^YQP\[XUOeYMWUZS õ ?Q``UZS\^U[^U`UQ_R[^_a\\[^`UZSQbUPQZOQ#UZR[^YQP\[XUOeYMWUZS


review (Article 8) [8]. Like any type of research, a sys-
tematic review can be conducted and reported well or
`UReUZS ZQQ
5PQZ`UReUZSZQQP_ ö A_UZS^Q_QM^OTQbUPQZOQ`[OXM^UReM\^[NXQY poorly. Policymakers will want to know the reliability
÷ A_UZS^Q_QM^OTQbUPQZOQ`[R^MYQ[\`U[Z_`[MPP^Q__M\^[NXQY
R[^^Q_QM^OTQbUPQZOQ ø A_UZS^Q_QM^OTQbUPQZOQ`[MPP^Q__T[cMZ[\`U[ZcUXXNQUY\XQYQZ`QP of a review that supports an option that they will be
endorsing
?E?@19-@5/>1B51C? ;@41>@E<1?;21B501:/1
ù 2UZPUZS_e_`QYM`UO^QbUQc_ óó 2UZPUZSMZPa_UZS^Q_QM^OTQbUPQZOQ
PU P
2UZPUZSMZP ú 0QOUPUZST[cYaOTO[ZRUPQZOQ`[
 \XMOQUZM_e_`QYM`UO^QbUQc
 MN[a`X[OMXO[ZPU`U[Z_
óô 2UZPUZSMZPa_UZS^Q_QM^OTQbUPQZOQ
• How to assess the applicability of the findings of a
M__Q__UZSQbUPQZOQ û -__Q__UZS`TQM\\XUOMNUXU`e[R`TQ
 RUZPUZS_[RM_e_`QYM`UO^QbUQc
 MN[a`^Q_[a^OQa_QMZPO[_`_
systematic review (Article 9) [9]. Those who support
óò @MWUZSQ]aU`eUZ`[O[Z_UPQ^M`U[Z
policymakers will need to assess whether the findings
1:3-35:3?@-714;801>? A?5:31B501:/15:01/5?5;:? of a review of studies conducted in very different set-
R^[Y ^Q_Q
3[UZSR^[Y^Q_QM^OT óõ <^Q\M^UZSMZPa_UZS\[XUOeN^UQR_ óø .MXMZOUZS`TQ\^[_MZPO[Z_[R\[XUOUQ_
tings, do actually apply in their own setting
óö ;^SMZUfUZSMZPa_UZS\[XUOe óù 0QMXUZScU`TUZ_aRRUOUQZ`^Q_QM^OT
QbUPQZOQ`[PQOU_U[Z_  PUMX[SaQ_  QbUPQZOQ
ó÷ 1ZSMSUZS`TQ\aNXUO óú <XMZZUZSY[ZU`[^UZSMZPQbMXaM`U[Z

• How to take equity into consideration when assess-

Figure 1 of the series
Overview ing the findings of a systematic review (Article 10)
Overview of the series [10]. Many policymakers will wish to consider the

Page 3 of 7
(page number not for citation purposes)
Health Research Policy and Systems 2009, 7(Suppl 1):I1 http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/7/S1/I1

potential impacts of an option on disadvantaged Some issues, such as equity, are a recurring theme in many
groups or settings. of the articles even if they are the primary focus of only
one article (Article 10) [10].
Article 7 [7] emphasises the merits of systematic reviews,
while the three articles that follow, grapple with the chal- What the SUPPORT tools do not do
lenges of using reviews in policymaking. Articles 11 and The SUPPORT tools have been developed giving due con-
12 together complete a second sub-series about finding sideration to other features of the policymaking process.
and using research evidence about local conditions (Arti- For example, the article about using research evidence to
cle 11) [11] and resource use and costs (Article 12) [12]. clarify a problem (Article 4) [4] notes the importance of
watching for windows of opportunity that may arise due
Once research evidence has been found and assessed, a to political events, such as a shifts or changes in the bal-
variety of opportunities and issues may arise when going ance of organised political forces or the appointment of a
from research evidence to a decision. This issue is the new health minister. Article 9 [9] examines how to assess
focus of Articles 13-18 [13-18]. These articles contain two the applicability of the findings of a systematic review and
additional sub-series of three articles each. The first exam- notes the importance of evaluating whether the studies
ines ways to engage stakeholders to support evidence- included in a systematic review were conducted in settings
informed policymaking. Two introduce new innovations: with largely similar perspectives and political influence
amongst health system stakeholders, compared to the set-
• Policy briefs that package research evidence so as to tings to which policy decisions may be applied.
inform deliberations among policymakers and stake-
holders (Article 13) [13] The SUPPORT tools do not, however, address efforts to
support health policymaking in general. As the titles indi-
• Policy dialogues that allow research evidence to be cate, the focus of each tool is on supporting the use of
considered together with the views, experiences and research evidence in health policymaking. This does not
tacit knowledge of those who will be involved in, or mean that other forms of support could not complement
affected by, future decisions about a high-priority these tools. Policymakers, for example, also need to know
issue (Article 14) [14] how to assess and influence stakeholder dynamics (inde-
pendent of the implications of such dynamics for the
Research evidence is only one factor that can influence the applicability of the findings of a systematic review). Such
policymaking process. Policy dialogues provide an oppor- dynamics, including power relations among stakeholders
tunity to discuss research evidence as well as the many and the interests of these different groups, are a key factor
other factors that can exert influence. The third article influencing the policymaking process. Values are another
focuses on how to engage the public in evidence-informed domain where tools to support their systematic and
policymaking (Article 15) [15]. explicit consideration in health policymaking could be
useful for policymakers and those who support them.
The second and final sub-series addresses issues related to
using research evidence in decisions. These are: By focusing on how to support the use of research evi-
dence in health policymaking, the SUPPORT tools are
• Using research evidence in balancing the pros and meant to aid the use of the best research evidence availa-
cons of policies (Article 16) [16] ble at the time that it is needed and in the time available
to compile such evidence. Research evidence may be lack-
• Dealing with insufficient research evidence (Article ing, incomplete, imperfect and even contradictory. But
17) [17], and policymakers still need to make decisions. Proceeding on
the basis of available research evidence, with an awareness
• Planning the monitoring and evaluation of policies of its strengths and limitations, would be seen by many
(Article 18) [18] stakeholders as an indication that the work of policymak-
ers was appropriate and constructive. Monitoring how
The last article in this series could also be read in conjunc- options are implemented, evaluating their impacts, and
tion with the articles about problem clarification (Article later making adjustments as better research evidence
4) [4], options framing (Article 5) [5] and implementa- becomes available, would further this impression.
tion planning (Article 6) [6]. Planning monitoring and
evaluation is arguably a fourth step in policymaking proc- Further development of the SUPPORT tools
esses. Some of the activities and broader efforts to support evi-
dence-informed policymaking that are addressed in the
SUPPORT tools have received considerable attention in

Page 4 of 7
(page number not for citation purposes)
Health Research Policy and Systems 2009, 7(Suppl 1):I1 http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/7/S1/I1

research. For example, the SUPPORT tool that is used for ence 2008, 3:53: http://
finding and using research evidence about resource use www.implementationscience.com/content/3/1/53 –
and costs (Article 12) [12] draws on relevant aspects of the Source of insights from organisations actively engaged
economic evaluation literature. Further, some of the SUP- in supporting the use of research evidence in policy-
PORT tools have already been used extensively in the field making, particularly policymaking in low- and mid-
and adapted iteratively based on these experiences. For dle-income countries
example, successive iterations of the SUPPORT tool for
using research evidence to frame options to address a - Sutcliffe S, Court J. A Toolkit for Progressive Policy-
problem (Article 5) [5] have been used in workshops for makers in Developing Countries. London, UK: Over-
policymakers, stakeholders and researchers from more seas Development Institute, 2006: http://
than ten countries in Africa, four countries in Asia, and www.odi.org.uk/resources/download/154.pdf –
seven countries in the Americas. For us, this field testing Source of additional tools that can be used by those
has reinforced the fact that many of the issues and oppor- supporting policymaking, particularly policymaking
tunities encountered in supporting evidence-informed in low- and middle-income countries
policymaking are remarkably similar across settings.
- Ciliska D, Thomas H, Buffett C. Introduction to Evi-
Other activities and support efforts have received less dence-Informed Public Health and a Compendium of
attention. For example, SUPPORT tools such as those that Critical Appraisal Tools for Public Health Practice.
address how to improve the ways that an organisation Hamilton, Canada: National Collaborating Centre for
supports evidence-informed policymaking (Article 2) [2], Methods and Tools, 2008: http://www.nccmt.ca/
how an organisation sets priorities for supporting evi- pubs/2008_07_IntroEIPH_compendiumENG.pdf -
dence-informed policymaking (Article 3) [3], how to pre- Source of additional tools that can be used by those
pare and use policy briefs (Article 13) [13], and how to supporting the use of research evidence in policymak-
organise and use policy dialogues (Article 14) [14] would ing, particularly related to public health
all benefit from the development of a more rigorous evi-
dence base. These tools have also been subjected to less - Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade MO, Cook DJ (Editors).
field-testing thus far. We are disseminating the full set of Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for
tools in anticipation that wider use and application will Evidence-Based Clinical Practice. Second Edition. New
inform further adaptation. Feedback on how to improve York, USA: McGraw Hill Medical, 2008 – Source of
the tools is welcome. We would also welcome feedback additional tools that can be used by those supporting
about what tools need to be added to the series. the use of research evidence in policymaking, particu-
larly in policymaking related to clinical care
Conclusion
The SUPPORT tools in this series have been designed to - Research Matters. Knowledge Translation: A
help policymakers and those who support them to do one ‘Research Matters’ Toolkit. Ottawa, Canada: Interna-
aspect of their job better or more efficiently – namely to tional Development Research Centre: http://
find and use research evidence to support health policy- www.idrc.ca/research-matters/ev-128908-201-1-
making. The tools are also relevant to health system stake- DO_TOPIC.html – Source of additional tools that can
holders, such as non-governmental organisations and be used by those supporting the use of research evi-
civil society groups. Different readers will use the tools in dence in policymaking, particularly by researchers
different ways. Policymakers may skim the articles to get
ideas on how they should be adjusting the expectations Links to websites
they set for their staff. Those who support policymakers - SUPporting POlicy relevant Reviews and Trials (SUP-
may choose to read a particular article to help them with PORT) Collaboration: http://www.support-collabora
undertaking a new activity, and then use the article later as tion.org – Source of translations of this series into
a reference guide or as a way of refining their skills. We Spanish, Portuguese, French and Chinese.
hope that policymakers and those who support them will
help us to develop and improve what is presented here. Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Resources
Useful documents and further reading Authors’ contributions
- Lavis JN, Oxman AD, Moynihan R, Paulsen E. Evi- JNL prepared the first draft of this article. ADO, SL and AF
dence-informed health policy:1. Synthesis of findings contributed to drafting and revising it.
from a multi-method study of organizations that sup-
port the use of research evidence. Implementation Sci-

Page 5 of 7
(page number not for citation purposes)
Health Research Policy and Systems 2009, 7(Suppl 1):I1 http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/7/S1/I1

Additional material References

1. Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Lewin S, Fretheim A: SUPPORT Tools for
evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP). 1. What is
Additional file 1 evidence-informed policymaking. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009,
7(Suppl 1):S1.
2. Oxman AD, Vandvik PO, Lavis JN, Fretheim A, Lewin S: SUPPORT
Glossary Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP). 2.
Click here for file Improving how your organisation supports the use of
[http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/supplementary/1478- research evidence to inform policymaking. Health Res Policy
4505-7-S1-I1-S1.doc] Syst. 2009, 7(Suppl 1):S2.
3. Lavis JN, Oxman AD, Lewin S, Fretheim A: SUPPORT Tools for
evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP). 3. Setting
priorities for supporting evidence-informed policymaking.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2009, 7(Suppl 1):S3.
4. Lavis JN, Wilson MG, Oxman AD, Lewin S, Fretheim A: SUPPORT
Acknowledgements Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP). 4.
This series of articles was prepared as part of the SUPPORT project, which Using research evidence to clarify a problem. Health Res Policy
was supported by the European Commission’s 6th Framework INCO pro- Syst. 2009, 7(Suppl 1):S4.
5. Lavis JN, Wilson MG, Oxman AD, Grimshaw J, Lewin S, Fretheim A:
gramme, contract 031939. The Norwegian Agency for Development
SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymak-
Cooperation (Norad), the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, ing (STP). 5. Using research evidence to frame options to
and the Milbank Memorial Fund funded a peer review meeting where an address a problem. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009, 7(Suppl 1):S5.
earlier version of the series was discussed. John Lavis receives salary sup- 6. Fretheim A, Munabi-Babigumira S, Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Lewin S:
port as the Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Transfer and Exchange. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymak-
ing (STP). 6. Using research evidence to address how an
None of the funders had a role in drafting, revising or approving the content option will be implemented. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009,
of this series. Simon Goudie copy-edited the series. Sarah Rosenbaum pre- 7(Suppl 1):S6.
pared the figures included in the series. Kjetil Olsen assisted with technical 7. Lavis JN, Oxman AD, Grimshaw J, Johansen M, Boyko JA, Lewin S,
editing, the management of the peer review process and preparation of the Fretheim A: SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health
Policymaking (STP). 7. Finding systematic reviews. Health Res
manuscripts for submission. We would like to thank the following people Policy Syst. 2009, 7(Suppl 1):S7.
for their participation in the peer review meeting: Bocar Kouyate (Centre 8. Lewin S, Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Fretheim A: SUPPORT Tools for
national de Recherche et de Formation sur le Paludisme, Ouagadougou, evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP). 8. Deciding
Burkina Faso), Christina Zarowsky (School of Public Health, University of how much confidence to place in a systematic review. Health
Res Policy Syst. 2009, 7(Suppl 1):S8.
the Western Cape, Bellville, South Africa), Donald Simeon (Caribbean
9. Lavis JN, Oxman AD, Souza NM, Lewin S, Gruen RL, Fretheim A:
Health Research Council, St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago), John Mark SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymak-
Gibson (Center for Evidence-based Policy, Oregon Health and Science Uni- ing (STP). 9. Assessing the applicability of the findings of a
versity, Portland, Oregon, USA), Joseph Kasonde (Zambia Forum for systematic review. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009, 7(Suppl 1):S9.
10. Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Lewin S, Fretheim A: SUPPORT Tools for
Health Research, Lusaka, Zambia), Knut-Inge Klepp (Division of Public
evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP). 10. Taking
Health and Welfare, Norwegian Directorate of Health, Oslo, Norway), Li equity into consideration when assessing the findings of a
Youping (Chinese Cochrane/EBM Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan systematic review. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009, 7(Suppl 1):S10.
University, Chengdu, Sichuan P.R. China), Lucy Gilson (UCT Oliver Tambo 11. Lewin S, Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Fretheim A, García Martí S, Munabi-
Fellowship Programme and Professor, Health Policy and Systems, Univer- Babigumira S: SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health
Policymaking (STP). 11. Finding and using research evidence
sity of Cape Town and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, about local conditions. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009, 7(Suppl
Cape Town, South Africa and London, UK), Martin McKee (London School 1):S11.
of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK), Michael Kent Ranson (Alli- 12. Oxman AD, Fretheim A, Lavis JN, Lewin S: SUPPORT Tools for
ance for Health Policy and Systems Research, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland), evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP). 12. Finding
and using research evidence about resource use and costs.
Muir Gray (NHS National Knowledge Service, Oxford, UK), Nick Mays Health Res Policy Syst. 2009, 7(Suppl 1):S12.
(Health Services Research Unit, Department of Public Health and Policy, 13. Lavis JN, Permanand G, Oxman AD, Lewin S, Fretheim A: SUP-
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK), Ray Moyni- PORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking
han (University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia), Robert S Nakagawa (STP). 13. Preparing and using policy briefs to support evi-
dence-informed policymaking. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009,
(BC Ministry of Health Services, Victoria, BC, Canada), Steve Hanney
7(Suppl 1):S13.
(Health Economics Research Group (HERG), Brunel University, Uxbridge, 14. Lavis JN, Boyko J, Oxman AD, Lewin S, Fretheim A: SUPPORT
UK). We would also like to thank the following people who provided feed- Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP). 14.
back on a significant number of articles in the series: Duff Montgomerie Organising and using policy dialogues to support evidence-
(Nova Scotia Department of Health Promotion and Protection, Halifax, informed policymaking. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009, 7(Suppl
1):S14.
Canada), Pierre Ongolo-Zogo (Centre for the Development of Best Prac- 15. Oxman AD, Lewin S, Lavis JN, Fretheim A: SUPPORT Tools for
tices in Health, Yaoundé Central Hospital and Faculty of Medicine and Bio- evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP). 15. Engaging
medical Sciences, University of Yaoundé, Yaoundé, Cameroon), Susan the public in evidence-informed policymaking. Health Res Pol-
Munabi Babigumira (Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, icy Syst. 2009, 7(Suppl 1):S15.
16. Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Fretheim A, Lewin S: SUPPORT Tools for
Oslo, Norway), and Esperanca Sevene, Alda Mariano and Julie Cliff (Edu- evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP). 16. Using
ardo Mondlane University, Maputo, Mozambique). research evidence in balancing the pros and cons of policies.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2009, 7(Suppl 1):S16.
This article has been published as part of Health Research Policy and Systems 17. Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Fretheim A, Lewin S: SUPPORT Tools for
evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP). 17. Dealing
Volume 7 Supplement 1, 2009: SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed
with insufficient research evidence. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009,
health Policymaking (STP). The full contents of the supplement are available 7(Suppl 1):S17.
online at http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/7/S1. 18. Fretheim A, Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Lewin S: SUPPORT Tools for
evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP). 18. Planning

Page 6 of 7
(page number not for citation purposes)
Health Research Policy and Systems 2009, 7(Suppl 1):I1 http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/7/S1/I1

monitoring and evaluation of policies. Health Res Policy Syst.

2009, 7(Suppl 1):S18.

Publish with Bio Med Central and every

scientist can read your work free of charge
"BioMed Central will be the most significant development for
disseminating the results of biomedical researc h in our lifetime."
Sir Paul Nurse, Cancer Research UK

Your research papers will be:

available free of charge to the entire biomedical community
peer reviewed and published immediately upon acceptance
cited in PubMed and archived on PubMed Central
yours — you keep the copyright

Submit your manuscript here: BioMedcentral

http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/publishing_adv.asp

Page 7 of 7
(page number not for citation purposes)