Strategies for communicating health evidence to health policymakers and the population. Scoping review protocol.
Martimbianco, A. L. C.; Pacheco, R. L.; Bagattini, A. M.; Moreira, R. F. C.; Riera, R.
Show abstract
Evidence-based health information is provided by evidence synthesis and health technology assessments. Nevertheless, this information is complex for public understanding, pointing to the need to disseminate clearly. This scoping review aims to identify different strategies for communicating health evidence to policymakers and the general population. A scoping review will be conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Scoping Reviews. This comprehensive mapping will contribute to identifying the literature on health evidence-based information, identify the most appropriate approaches for each audience, and the literature gaps to guide future studies.
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Evidence of integrated health service delivery during COVID-19 in low- and middle-income countries: protocol for a scoping review 95%
- Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions 94%
- The use of the positive deviance approach for healthcare system service improvement: A scoping review protocol 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Knowledge mobilisation of rapid evidence reviews to inform health and social care policy and practice in a public health emergency: appraisal of the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre processes and impact, 2021-23 94%
- Mapping the quality of Norwegian health information - Does it facilitate informed choices? 93%
- Modelling the impact of behavioural interventions during pandemics: A systematic review 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Citation tracking for systematic literature searching: a scoping review 95%
- Development of a search filter to retrieve reports of interrupted time series studies from MEDLINE and PubMed 94%
- Evaluation of the replicability of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of the effects of health interventions 94%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for network meta-analysis: a scoping review 94%
- Large language models for conducting systematic reviews: on the rise, but not yet ready for use – a scoping review 93%
- Characteristics and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews of prevalence studies in adult populations: a meta-epidemiological study 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.