Fadlallah Racha, El-Jardali Fadi, Kuchenmüller Tanja, Moat Kaelan, Reinap Marge, Kheirandish Mehrnaz, Bou Karroum Lama, Daher Najla, Kalach Nour, Hishi Lama, Honein-AbouHaidar Gladys
Department of Health Management and Policy, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Glob Health Res Policy. 2025 Aug 20;10(1):35. doi: 10.1186/s41256-025-00440-y.
While calls for promoting evidence-informed policymaking (EIP) have become stronger in recent years, there is a paucity of methods to prioritize issues for knowledge translation (KT) and EIP. As requested by WHO and as part of efforts to address this gap, we conducted a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) to develop a conceptual framework that outlines the features of priority-setting processes and contextual factors influencing the prioritization of issues for KT efforts.
We systematically reviewed the literature and used an interpretive analytic approach-the CIS-to synthesize the results and develop the conceptual framework. We used a "compass" question to create a detailed search strategy and conducted electronic searches to identify papers based on their potential relevance to priority-setting for KT efforts and EIP.
We identified 161 eligible papers. Our findings on key features of the priority-setting process unpacked three 3 levels of constructs: 'pathways' for identifying and prioritizing policy issues for knowledge translation efforts; 'phases' within each pathway; and 'steps' for each phase. There are three main pathways: (1) explicit and systemic priority-setting processes involving policymakers and stakeholders to determine priority topics (collaborative); (2) a policymaker or stakeholder brings an issue forward or asks for evidence on a particular topic (demand-driven); and (3) a need or policy gap is identified by a knowledge translation platform (supply-driven). Within each pathway, four phases emerged: "Preparatory", "prioritization", "knowledge translation" and "scale-up and sustainability". Across these phases, the following steps were identified: establishing a core team, defining a scope, confirming a timeline, sensitizing stakeholders, generating potential issues, gathering contextual information, setting guiding principles, selecting prioritization criteria, applying the method for prioritization, documenting and communicating priorities, validating and revising priorities, selecting venue for decision-making, implementing priorities, monitoring and evaluation, promoting institutionalization, and engaging in peer learning and exchange of experience. We identified engaging stakeholders and strengthening capacity as cross-cutting elements. Our findings on contextual factors unpacked four categories: (1) institutions; (2) ideas; (3) interests; and (4) external factors.
This CIS generated a multi-level conceptual framework for prioritizing issues for KT efforts and laid the foundation for a WHO tool that supports prioritization in practice. The study contributes meaningfully to both the literature and the operationalization of KT and EIP.
近年来，促进循证决策（EIP）的呼声日益强烈，但用于确定知识转化（KT）和循证决策优先事项的方法却很匮乏。应世界卫生组织的要求，并作为弥补这一差距的努力的一部分，我们进行了一项批判性解释性综合研究（CIS），以制定一个概念框架，概述优先事项设定过程的特征以及影响知识转化工作优先事项确定的背景因素。
我们系统地回顾了文献，并采用解释性分析方法——批判性解释性综合研究——来综合研究结果并制定概念框架。我们使用一个 “指南针” 问题来创建详细的搜索策略，并进行电子搜索，以根据论文与知识转化工作和循证决策优先事项设定的潜在相关性来识别论文。
我们确定了161篇符合条件的论文。我们对优先事项设定过程关键特征的研究揭示了三个层次的结构：为知识转化工作确定和优先排序政策问题的 “途径”；每个途径内的 “阶段”；以及每个阶段的 “步骤”。有三种主要途径：（1）涉及政策制定者和利益相关者以确定优先主题的明确和系统的优先事项设定过程（协作式）；（2）政策制定者或利益相关者提出一个问题或要求提供关于特定主题的证据（需求驱动）；（3）知识转化平台识别出一种需求或政策差距（供应驱动）。在每个途径内，出现了四个阶段：“准备阶段”、“优先排序阶段”、“知识转化阶段” 和 “扩大规模与可持续性阶段”。在这些阶段中，确定了以下步骤：组建核心团队、界定范围、确定时间表、提高利益相关者的认识、产生潜在问题、收集背景信息、设定指导原则、选择优先排序标准、应用优先排序方法、记录和传达优先事项、验证和修订优先事项、选择决策场所、实施优先事项、监测和评估、促进制度化以及参与同行学习和经验交流。我们确定让利益相关者参与和加强能力是贯穿各领域的要素。我们对背景因素的研究揭示了四类因素：（1）机构；（2）观念；（3）利益；（4）外部因素。
这项批判性解释性综合研究为确定知识转化工作的优先事项生成了一个多层次的概念框架，并为世界卫生组织在实践中支持优先事项设定的工具奠定了基础。该研究对知识转化和循证决策的文献及实践都做出了有意义的贡献。
