Front. Commun. Frontiers in Communication Front. Commun. 2297-900X Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/fcomm.2025.1632305 Communication Systematic Review Scientific evidence and public policy: a systematic review of barriers and enablers for evidence-informed decision-making Suazo-Galdames Iván Claudio 1 † Saracostti Mahia 2 † Chaple-Gil Alain Manuel 3 * † 1UNESCO Chair Scientific Education for Citizenship, Universidad Autónoma de Chile, Santiago, Chile 2Departamento de Trabajo Social, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile 3Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Autónoma de Chile, Santiago, Chile

Edited by: Ataharul Chowdhury, University of Guelph, Canada

Reviewed by: Natalia Pasternak Taschner, Columbia University, United States

German Andres Alarcon Garavito, Universidad de los Andes, Colombia

 *Correspondence: Alain Manuel Chaple-Gil, alain.chaple@uautonoma.cl

†ORCID: Iván Claudio Suazo-Galdames, orcid.org/0000-0002-1689-1632

Mahia Saracostti, orcid.org/0000-0002-9673-5727

Alain Manuel Chaple-Gil, orcid.org/0000-0002-8571-4429

 30 07 2025 2025 10 1632305 21 05 2025 14 07 2025 Copyright © 2025 Suazo-Galdames, Saracostti and Chaple-Gil. 2025 Suazo-Galdames, Saracostti and Chaple-Gil

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

 Introduction

This systematic review synthesizes empirical research on the integration of scientific evidence into public policy formulation across diverse governance contexts. While global support for evidence-informed policymaking is increasing, persistent institutional barriers, political resistance, and limited science-policy interaction continue to constrain the effective use of research in decision-making.

 Methods

Guided by the PRISMA 2020 framework, the review identified 119 peer-reviewed articles from Scopus and Web of Science databases. Eligible studies included empirical analyses on the mobilization, translation, and institutionalization of scientific knowledge in policy processes. A thematic synthesis was conducted, classifying studies into six categories: science-policy participation, institutional capacity, political dynamics, trust and legitimacy, political support, and international collaboration.

 Results

Major barriers included fragmented advisory systems, limited data infrastructures, and weak communication between researchers and policymakers. Key enabling factors comprised dedicated scientific advisory bodies, knowledge brokerage mechanisms, international cooperation, and co-production of knowledge. Most studies focused on the health policy sector, with a geographic concentration in high-income countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada.

 Discussion

Findings highlight the urgent need to institutionalize scientific evidence in policy formulation through formal governance frameworks, sustained stakeholder engagement, and robust science-policy interfaces. Advancing transparent, inclusive, and evidence-based governance will require cross-sector collaboration, epistemic trust, and political leadership committed to bridging the gap between research and public policy.

 evidence-informed policymaking scientific knowledge transfer policy formulation institutional barriers knowledge brokerage public governance political will international networks ANID/FONDECYT Regular 1250064 project Chilean Agency for Research and Development section-at-acceptance Science and Environmental Communication Introduction

In a global context shaped by intersecting crises such as climate change, public health emergencies, growing inequalities, and the erosion of public trust in institutions policymaking increasingly demands robust, reliable, and context-sensitive evidence. Scientific evidence plays a critical role in public policy formulation by providing a foundation for informed decision-making. The integration of scientific data into political processes can enhance both the effectiveness and efficiency of policies, particularly in domains such as public health, safety, and environmental regulation. Nevertheless, the application of scientific evidence in policymaking is inherently complex, requiring careful consideration of various factors, including the hierarchies of evidence, stakeholder engagement, and the balance between scientific rigor and practical applicability.

Scientific evidence contributes to the effective identification and resolution of public problems, as illustrated by the formulation of child road safety policies in Panama, which involved collaboration between scientists, civil society, and policymakers (Núñez-Samudio and Landires, 2020). Ensuring that policies are grounded in reliable data is essential, as demonstrated by the use of national basic indicators in policy decisions at the state level in the United States (Moseley et al., 2013).

Despite its importance, a persistent gap often exists between the production of scientific evidence and its application in policy processes, prompting the need for frameworks that can bridge this divide (Straf et al., 2012). Moreover, normative objectives may influence the hierarchy of evidence that is considered relevant, as seen in the regulation of chemicals and pharmaceuticals, where different evidentiary standards are applied depending on the perceived stakes involved (Luján, 2023). The imperative to adopt evidence-based policies can, at times, lead to a paralysis in political processes, underscoring the importance of finding an appropriate balance between evidence-informed and value-driven approaches (Willemsen, 2018).

Several practical examples highlight the potential of evidence-informed policymaking. The Netherlands exemplifies the successful implementation of public health policies grounded in scientific evidence, demonstrating how evidence can support effective political decision-making (Willemsen, 2018). Furthermore, the use of randomized controlled trials in economic policy, recognized by the 2019 Nobel Prize in Economics, emphasizes the significance of rigorous scientific methodologies in evaluating public policies (Luján, 2023).

While scientific evidence is a fundamental component of policymaking, it is not the sole determinant. Policymakers must also account for ethical, social, and economic factors, and remain aware of the limitations inherent in scientific data. The integration of diverse perspectives and methodological approaches can ultimately strengthen both the robustness and societal acceptance of public policy decisions.

Beyond normative assertions, empirical research highlights a range of institutional, political, and cultural conditions that either facilitate or hinder the systematic integration of scientific knowledge into policymaking. Studies have identified how the presence of dedicated advisory bodies, robust data infrastructures, and structured procedures can foster an environment conducive to evidence-informed decision-making (Makkar et al., 2018; Nutley et al., 2002). Conversely, the absence of such institutional mechanisms especially in settings with limited resources can severely restrict the use of relevant and timely scientific information (El-Jardali et al., 2015; Orem et al., 2014).

Political ideologies and strategic interests often mediate the reception of evidence. In some cases, scientific data are selectively interpreted or marginalized when incongruent with prevailing political agendas, thereby undermining the role of evidence as a neutral input (Bozeman and Bozeman, 2022; Bromme et al., 2014). These patterns underscore the importance of political will and epistemic trust in ensuring the legitimacy and uptake of scientific contributions to policy.

In parallel, engagement in international networks and participation in transnational knowledge-sharing platforms have proven valuable in enhancing domestic capacities and aligning national strategies with global evidence standards. Such collaboration not only facilitates methodological innovation but also nurtures a culture of accountability and mutual learning among policymakers and researchers (Lester et al., 2020; Van Kammen et al., 2006).

In addition to these structural and contextual considerations, recent scholarship has emphasized the relevance of science-policy interfaces and knowledge brokerage as crucial mechanisms to bridge the gap between research production and its practical application. Rather than advocating for specific outcomes, knowledge brokers operate at the intersection of scientific communities and policymakers, facilitating mutual understanding, framing policy-relevant questions, and clarifying uncertainties to inform deliberation and action. This function is inherently dialogical, requiring both epistemic humility and political acuity to navigate the dynamic tension between evidence provision and normative decision-making processes (Gluckman et al., 2022).

Institutional frameworks that support brokerage such as chief science advisors, science advisory councils, or dedicated boundary organizations have emerged as effective structures to operationalize these functions. These bodies not only synthesize evidence across disciplines but also act as mediators to support trust, legitimacy, and timely access to decision-making processes (Gluckman et al., 2022). For example, Gluckman (2014) in 2014 argued that science advisors should act as “honest brokers” rather than policy advocates, maintaining independence while ensuring evidence-informed options are made available to political authorities.

Moreover, successful integration of scientific advice into governance systems depends on sustained engagement, clear communication strategies, and institutional independence to protect the integrity of the advice process. Cairney and Oliver (2020) further highlight that impactful academic engagement in policymaking is often contingent on relational strategies and iterative interactions, rather than the mere dissemination of evidence. The European Commission’s recent development of an evaluation framework for national science-for-policy ecosystems also reinforces the importance of structural and cultural factors such as inclusivity, reflexivity, and access to policy windows in determining the functionality and credibility of advisory systems (Gluckman, 2014).

Against this backdrop, the present study undertakes a comprehensive synthesis of the academic and applied literature to explore the multiple factors that shape the incorporation of scientific evidence into public policy formulation. By systematically reviewing a wide array of international sources, this work seeks to identify the most commonly reported barriers and enabling conditions that affect evidence use in the policy process. Particular attention is paid to how institutional architectures, political cultures, and contextual variables influence the uptake, adaptation, or rejection of scientific knowledge within governmental decision-making. In doing so, the study contributes to a deeper understanding of the mechanisms through which research informs or fails to inform public policies, and highlights pathways to foster more responsive, inclusive, and knowledge-based governance.

 Materials and methods

A systematic review approach was employed to explore how scientific evidence is incorporated into public policymaking. The review process adhered to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines (Page et al., 2021), ensuring methodological rigor and transparency during the identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and inclusion of studies. Although the protocol was not prospectively registered, it was developed prior to data analysis and it’s publicly available on Mendeley Data (DOI: https://doi.org/10.17632/b73wm9852j.2). This allows readers to assess the review process and analytical decisions in a transparent manner.

Adapted PICO framework

Population (P): Public sector institutions, government agencies, policy decision-makers, and science-policy interfaces at national or international levels.

Intervention (I): Use or promotion of scientific evidence in the formulation of public policy.

Comparison (C): Not applicable (no comparison group required; the study focuses on identifying conditions, barriers, and enablers).

Outcome (O): Identification of barriers, facilitators, and knowledge transfer mechanisms affecting the integration of scientific evidence into policymaking.

Type of Study (TS): Empirical studies (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods), case studies, and policy reports with analytic frameworks published in peer-reviewed academic or institutional sources.

 Inclusion criteria

Studies were eligible for inclusion if they presented empirical evidence whether qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods focused on the use of scientific evidence in public policy formulation. Research conducted in national, regional, or international public governance contexts was considered, provided it addressed how scientific findings were mobilized, translated, or institutionalized in policymaking. The review included studies that explicitly identified barriers, enabling factors, or knowledge transfer strategies between the scientific and policy spheres. Moreover, eligible publications were those that engaged with institutional, cultural, or political conditions influencing the science-policy relationship. Only peer-reviewed academic articles, official policy documents, or research reports produced by recognized organizations were included. “Recognized organizations” was considered as those affiliated with national or international government agencies, multilateral institutions, or academic centers known for policy-relevant research.

The review was limited to sources published between 1990 and 2025 to ensure both historical perspective and contemporary relevance.

 Exclusion criteria

Documents were excluded if they were theoretical essays, editorial commentaries, or conceptual frameworks that did not incorporate empirical analysis or application. Studies focused solely on clinical decision-making or biomedical evidence without reference to broader policy processes were also excluded. Additionally, literature addressing knowledge production or evidence dissemination within academic communities without connection to public policy formulation was not considered. “Public policy formulation” was defined as the process that includes agenda setting, evidence integration, consultation, and drafting of official documents leading to policy decisions, excluding implementation and evaluation stages.

Also were excluded, publications that were inaccessible in full text or lacked sufficient methodological transparency were removed from consideration. Duplicate entries and early-stage presentations of research that were later published in more complete formats were also excluded to avoid redundancy and preserve analytical rigor.

 Search strategy and data sources

Systematic searches were conducted using two major bibliographic databases: Scopus and Web of Science. Search queries were formulated to retrieve literature situated at the intersection of public policy processes and the use of scientific evidence (Table 1). The search strategy incorporated a wide range of terms related to evidence-based decision-making, knowledge translation, research utilization, and science-policy interfaces. Filters were applied to include only peer-reviewed journal articles. The complete search strategies for each database were documented to ensure reproducibility.

Queries in search strategy for each database used.

Database Formulation Filters
Scopus TITLE-ABS-KEY (“public policy” OR “policy making” OR “policy process” OR “policy development” OR “policy formulation” OR “policy implementation” OR “policy decision-making” OR “policy planning” OR “policy adoption” OR governance OR “government policy” OR “public administration” OR “government decision-making” OR “public sector management” OR “political decision-making” OR “policy design” OR “evidence-informed policy-making” OR “evidence-based policy-making”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“evidence-based” OR “evidence-informed” OR “evidence-based decision-making” OR “evidence use” OR “research evidence” OR “scientific evidence” OR “knowledge transfer” OR “knowledge translation” OR “knowledge mobilization” OR “knowledge exchange” OR “knowledge uptake” OR “research-to-policy” OR “science-policy interface” OR “science-policy relationship” OR “evidence-policy interface” OR “research utilization” OR “research impact” OR “science communication” OR “knowledge dissemination” OR “evidence synthesis” OR “evidence integration”) AND [LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”)]
WoS TS = (“public policy” OR “policy making” OR “policy process” OR “policy development” OR “policy formulation” OR “policy implementation” OR “policy decision-making” OR “policy planning” OR “policy adoption” OR governance OR “government policy” OR “public administration” OR “government decision-making” OR “public sector management” OR “political decision-making” OR “policy design” OR “evidence-informed policy-making” OR “evidence-based policy-making”) AND TS = (“evidence-based” OR “evidence-informed” OR “evidence-based decision-making” OR “evidence use” OR “research evidence” OR “scientific evidence” OR “knowledge transfer” OR “knowledge translation” OR “knowledge mobilization” OR “knowledge exchange” OR “knowledge uptake” OR “research-to-policy” OR “science-policy interface” OR “science-policy relationship” OR “evidence-policy interface” OR “research utilization” OR “research impact” OR “science communication” OR “knowledge dissemination” OR “evidence synthesis” OR “evidence integration”) Refined by: document types: article

Scopus, Web of Science were selected due to their interdisciplinary coverage and accessibility to both academic and policy-related literature. Additional other databases were considered but not included due to indexing overlap and limited relevance for capturing grey literature on global policy mechanisms. Databases such as PubMed and Embase, although highly reputable, were excluded as they are primarily focused on biomedical literature and were considered less suitable for identifying studies related to evidence-informed policymaking across diverse sectors.

 Screening and eligibility criteria

The selection process involved multiple stages. After duplicate records were removed and initial irrelevant items were excluded using built-in filtering tools, titles and abstracts of the remaining studies were manually screened based on predefined inclusion criteria. Full-text reports were subsequently retrieved and assessed for eligibility. Studies were included if they explicitly addressed evidence-informed policymaking processes, either through empirical analysis, policy evaluation, or conceptual development.

Screening was conducted independently by two reviewers (ACG & ISG) at both the title/abstract and full-text levels. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion, and when necessary, a third reviewer (MS) was consulted. Studies were excluded if full-text access was unavailable, if methodological detail was insufficient, or if there was a lack of relevance to science-policy linkages. Specifically, studies were excluded for insufficient methodological transparency when they lacked clear descriptions of their study design, data sources, or analytical strategies, thereby limiting the ability to assess their credibility and validity.

During the full-text screening phase, a structured assessment was conducted to determine whether each study provided sufficient methodological detail to enable interpretability, appraisal of quality, and replication. This process involved evaluating the presence and clarity of key elements such as the study’s design, data sources, sampling strategies, analytical procedures, and theoretical or conceptual frameworks. Studies that failed to report these components in a coherent or traceable manner were excluded. Reviewers independently applied a checklist to identify omissions or inconsistencies in methodological reporting, and disagreements were resolved through consensus. The decision to exclude a study was made only when the available information did not allow for a reliable understanding of how results were generated or interpreted.

 Analytical framework

A thematic analysis was carried out to categorize the included studies according to their primary conceptual contributions. Six thematic categories were established based on the literature’s focus and theoretical framing:

Structured Science-Policy Participation: This category included studies analyzing mechanisms for formal engagement between researchers and policymakers, such as advisory bodies, science-policy dialogues, and knowledge co-production models.

Institutional Deficit and Limited Access to Evidence: Articles in this group addressed systemic barriers within public institutions, including poor data infrastructures, fragmented policy processes, and limited research capacity.

Political Conflicts and Resistance to the Use of Evidence: This theme captured studies discussing how political ideologies, administrative turnover, and selective use of research undermine consistent evidence use in policy decisions.

Trust, Knowledge Creation, and Legitimacy: These studies examined trust-building processes between scientific and political actors, emphasizing participatory research, deliberative engagement, and local relevance of evidence.

Political Support and Institutionalization of Counseling: Studies in this category explored the presence or absence of political will, formal mandates for scientific advice, and the institutionalization of expert consultation in policy systems.

International Networks and Collaborative Platforms: This theme encompassed research on transnational policy learning, participation in international evidence-sharing platforms, and the influence of global best practices on national policy development.

This framework enabled a comparative synthesis of the different approaches, contexts, and enabling conditions under which scientific evidence was translated into policy.

Each study was classified based on the primary government sector it addressed. The classification included six predefined ministries: Health, Education, Environment, Economy, Interior or Governance, and Other/Undetermined. This allowed the identification of sector-specific patterns in the integration of evidence into policymaking. Studies were also geographically mapped according to the country of origin of the policy initiative or research setting, enabling a comparative view across national contexts.

In some cases, ministries were explicitly referenced in the texts; in others, thematic alignment was used to determine the relevant sector. The geographic distribution highlighted the prevalence of research output from high-income countries and pointed to disparities in documentation of evidence-informed policymaking in different world regions.

 Data extraction

Data extraction was conducted systematically using a structured Excel spreadsheet developed for this review. For each included study, the following variables were recorded: Auth_Year (first author and year of publication), authors (full author list), year (publication year), title (article title), and DOI (Digital Object Identifier). Additionally, contextual and content-related variables were documented, including language of publication, country where the study was conducted or focused, and the methodology employed (e.g., qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods approaches).

Each study was also categorized by its branch of science relevant to the policy domain it addressed. Thematic variables were extracted to capture the presence of barriers and opportunities (or facilitators) for evidence-informed policymaking. Furthermore, the review recorded the transfer mechanisms used to facilitate science-policy interaction, the political context within which the initiative took place, and the institution involved in leading or supporting the work.

Each entry included a summary of recommendations derived from the study and the outcome of the initiative, where applicable.

 Justification for not conducting a risk of bias assessment

A formal risk of bias assessment was not conducted in this study due to its descriptive and exploratory nature. The primary objective was to map and synthesize existing literature on the barriers and facilitators influencing the integration of scientific evidence into public policy formulation. The majority of included sources did not consist of primary studies with experimental or quasi-experimental designs, but rather comprised policy reports, qualitative inquiries, narrative reviews, and conceptual essays. As such, the use of conventional bias assessment tools (such as ROB 2, ROBINS-I, or CASP) was neither methodologically appropriate nor applicable.

Furthermore, the methodological and conceptual heterogeneity of the included studies would have impeded the consistent application of bias assessment criteria and may have led to misleading or artificial evaluations. Instead, a critical appraisal approach was employed, focusing on methodological transparency and thematic relevance to ensure the robustness of the synthesis.

 Data analysis

When applicable, both qualitative and quantitative data analyses were conducted to examine patterns, distributions, and thematic relationships across the included studies. Qualitative data, such as narratives related to barriers, opportunities, recommendations, and institutional roles, were analyzed through thematic coding and categorization. This process allowed the identification of recurrent concepts and their classification under predefined analytical dimensions relevant to science-policy interaction.

Quantitative variables such as year of publication, country of origin, and frequency of specific transfer mechanisms or methodological approaches were analyzed using descriptive statistics to generate summary metrics and visualize trends over time and across geographic regions.

All analyses and visualizations were carried out using RStudio® 2024.12.1 Build 563, which served as the primary environment for data processing, statistical summarization, and the creation of representative figures. Graphs and tables were produced to support the interpretation of key findings and enhance the clarity of the results section.

All extracted data were cross verified by two reviewers to ensure consistency and accuracy. The complete-detailed dataset is publicly available in the Mendeley Data repository (https://doi.org/10.17632/b73wm9852j.2).

 Results

The study selection process was carried out in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, focusing exclusively on sources retrieved from bibliographic databases and registers. Initially, a total of 17,890 records were identified through systematic searches conducted in Scopus (n = 10,883) and Web of Science (n = 7,007). Prior to the screening phase, several records were excluded due to various factors: 5,406 duplicate records were removed, 11,949 records were marked as ineligible by automated tools, and 170 were excluded for other reasons not specified in the report.

Following this initial refinement, 365 records remained and were subjected to title and abstract screening. From these, 170 records were excluded for not meeting the eligibility criteria based on preliminary information. Subsequently, 195 full-text reports were sought for retrieval. However, 24 of these could not be retrieved despite exhaustive efforts, and thus were not considered in the eligibility assessment.

A total of 171 full-text reports were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 76 were excluded for the following reasons: 59 did not meet the predefined inclusion criteria, 12 had no full-text version available, and 5 presented missing data critical for analysis. After this thorough selection process, a final set of 119 studies was included in the systematic review, constituting the basis for the synthesis of evidence presented (Figure 1).

PRISMA flowchart in selection of articles to include in the research.

Flowchart illustrating the identification of studies via databases and registers. Initially, 17,890 records were identified, comprising 10,883 from Scopus and 7,007 from WoS. During screening, duplicate and ineligible records reduced the number to 365. After screening, 170 records were excluded, 24 reports were not retrieved, and from the 171 assessed for eligibility, 76 were excluded for various reasons. Ultimately, 119 studies were included in the review.

Although the review protocol allowed for the inclusion of studies published in any language, the final set of included articles consisted predominantly of publications in English. Two studies were published in Portuguese (Scavuzzi et al., 2023; Gaiotto et al., 2023), and one study was published in German (Bromme et al., 2014). No studies published in Spanish met the inclusion criteria. All non-English articles were analyzed using reliable translation tools to ensure accurate interpretation and extraction of data.

The publication years of the studies included in the review ranged from 1999 to the most recent available at the time of the search.

A thematic analysis was conducted to classify scientific articles addressing the intersection of science and public policy. The literature was grouped into five major themes according to their conceptual focus and relevance.

For instance, studies classified under Political Support and Institutionalization of Counseling commonly focused on the establishment of CSA offices, the formalization of expert committees, and the creation of institutional platforms such as “what works” centers or evidence-use units within ministries. Several also explored partnerships with non-governmental organizations to facilitate science-policy dialogue. In Structured Science-Policy Participation, the literature highlighted initiatives like science-policy dialogues, co-production processes, and participatory foresight exercises. Meanwhile, studies grouped under Institutional Deficit and Limited Access to Evidence frequently addressed issues such as fragmented information systems, low data interoperability, and the lack of technical capacity to produce or interpret evidence. These illustrative patterns provide a more nuanced understanding of how each thematic category is operationalized across contexts.

The first theme encompassed the structural and participatory dimensions of science-policy engagement. It included 19 studies that examined mechanisms through which scientific evidence was integrated or failed to be integrated into political decision-making processes.

The second theme addressed institutional deficits and limited access to scientific knowledge, gathering 33 articles. These studies emphasized systemic barriers, including capacity limitations and inequities in knowledge distribution, that hindered evidence-informed policymaking.

The third theme explored political conflicts and resistance to scientific evidence. A total of 24 articles in this group analyzed how political ideologies, power dynamics, and stakeholder interests shaped the acceptance or rejection of scientific input in policy agendas.

The fourth theme focused on trust, knowledge co-production, and the role of networks in shaping policy impact. This theme included 14 articles that highlighted how interpersonal and institutional trust, along with collaborative research practices, influenced the perceived legitimacy of scientific advice.

The fifth and final theme examined political support and the institutionalization of evidence-informed policymaking. Comprised of 18 articles, this group investigated how political will, formal frameworks, and long-term strategies contributed to the sustained integration of research into governance structures.

This thematic classification provided a comprehensive overview of the scholarly discourse on the challenges and enablers of science-policy interfaces across different socio-political contexts (Table 2).

Thematic clustering of scientific articles on science-policy interfaces.

Thematic Number of articles Author, year
Structured science-policy participation 19 (Behague et al., 2009; Bozeman and Bozeman, 2022; Dagenais, 2021; Ellen et al., 2014; Erismann et al., 2021; Fisher and Milliken, 2022; Fobé et al., 2013; Gabbay et al., 2020; La Brooy et al., 2017; Lester et al., 2020; Mbachu et al., 2024; Meyerson et al., 2018; Reddel et al., 2022; Reddy and Sahay, 2016; Schepelmann et al., 2021; Wahabi et al., 2011; Walker et al., 2019; Wan et al., 2020; Webster et al., 2022)
Institutional deficit and limited access to evidence 33 (Adam et al., 2018; Aro et al., 2016; Braganza et al., 2022; El-Jardali et al., 2015; Godfrey et al., 2010; Hamalainen et al., 2015; Harding, 2003; Jack et al., 2010; Larned et al., 2022; Makkar et al., 2018; Manyuchi and Mugabe, 2018; Marchevska, 2024; Mathews et al., 2019; Mavoa et al., 2012; Meijers et al., 2022; Moat et al., 2014; Moura et al., 2023; Namdarian and Khedmatgozar, 2024; Nutley et al., 2002; Orem et al., 2014; Oronje et al., 2019; Parks et al., 2023; Purtle et al., 2022; Saric et al., 2022; Siyanbola et al., 2016; Uneke et al., 2011; Uneke et al., 2022; Vesely et al., 2018; Waqa et al., 2013; Waqa et al., 2013; Williamson et al., 2019; Wilson et al., 2007; Woodson and Boutilier, 2022)
Political conflicts and resistance to the use of evidence 24 (Arinder and Arinder, 2016; Barton, 2016; Bedregal and Ferlie, 2001; Biau et al., 2021; Botterill and Hindmoor, 2012; Bromme et al., 2014; Gaiotto et al., 2023; Hong et al., 2019; Ibarra et al., 2018; Jing and Hu, 2020; Knight, 2019; Koga et al., 2021; MacAulay et al., 2023; Munnich et al., 2017; Ongolo-Zogo et al., 2018; Persson et al., 2018; Saleh and Gamar, 2024; Sarkki et al., 2025; Shim and Shin, 2022; Stadelmaier et al., 2022; Turnpenny et al., 2009; Urcuqui-Bustamante et al., 2023; Weldon and Parkhurst, 2022; Wolf et al., 2017)
Trust, knowledge creation and legitimacy 14 (Bäumle et al., 2023; Broström and McKelvey, 2018; Brown, 2014; Byrne et al., 2018; Carpenter and Carpenter, 2016; Filograna et al., 2023; Gerber et al., 2020; Kleine, 2009; Langeveld et al., 2016; Mendell and Richardson, 2021; Sarkki et al., 2020; Silva et al., 2019; Siow et al., 2015; Whicher, 2021)
Political support and institutionalization of counseling 18 (Bax et al., 2010; Bullock et al., 2024; Ferlie et al., 2009; Koga et al., 2022; Lecesne et al., 2025; Lewis, 2011; Lim et al., 2021; Linke et al., 2014; Lu et al., 2018; Niño-Sandoval et al., 2023; Nutley and Davies, 1999; Pellegrini and Vivanet, 2021; Reed et al., 2023; Spiel et al., 2018; Strehlenert et al., 2015; Van Kammen et al., 2006; Wilcox, 2003; Yan et al., 2014)
International networks and collaborative platforms 11 (Angelou et al., 2024; Calnan et al., 2023; Lévesque et al., 2024; Mikton et al., 2013; Paing et al., 2021; Quinn et al., 2015; Rahai and Hosseinpoor, 2024; Rhodes et al., 2022; Sajadi et al., 2021; Scavuzzi et al., 2023; Tachino and Tachino, 2012)

The analysis revealed a strong thematic concentration of studies in the health sector. Out of the total corpus, 66 articles (approximately 58%) were thematically aligned with the Ministry of Health, indicating a predominant focus on evidence-informed policymaking within the health domain. This was followed by the Ministry of the Environment, which accounted for 18 articles (around 16%), and the Ministry of the Interior or Governance with 15 contributions (13%).

The Ministry of Education was associated with 10 studies (9%), while the Ministry of Economy was represented in 4 articles (4%). Finally, 6 articles (5%) could not be clearly classified and were grouped under “Other/Undetermined.” These findings suggested that most research efforts have concentrated on the health and environmental sectors, potentially reflecting global policy priorities or stronger institutional mechanisms for integrating evidence into decision-making in these fields (Table 3).

Classification of evidence-informed policy studies by relevant ministry sector.

Ministry Number of articles Authors, year
Ministry of Economy 4 (Harding, 2003; Reddel et al., 2022; Shim and Shin, 2022; Siyanbola et al., 2016)
Ministry of Education 10 (Bäumle et al., 2023; Bromme et al., 2014; Broström and McKelvey, 2018; Brown, 2014; Lewis, 2011; Moura et al., 2023; Niño-Sandoval et al., 2023; Pellegrini and Vivanet, 2021; Saleh and Gamar, 2024; Spiel et al., 2018)
Ministry of the Environment 18 (Godfrey et al., 2010; Kleine, 2009; Knight, 2019; Larned et al., 2022; Lévesque et al., 2024; Linke et al., 2014; Marchevska, 2024; Persson et al., 2018; Rahai and Hosseinpoor, 2024; Reed et al., 2023; Rhodes et al., 2022; Sarkki et al., 2020; Sarkki et al., 2025; Schepelmann et al., 2021; Siow et al., 2015; Urcuqui-Bustamante et al., 2023; Vesely et al., 2018; Wilson et al., 2007)
Ministry of Health 66 (Aro et al., 2016; Barton, 2016; Bedregal and Ferlie, 2001; Behague et al., 2009; Biau et al., 2021; Botterill and Hindmoor, 2012; Bozeman and Bozeman, 2022; Braganza et al., 2022; Bullock et al., 2024; Byrne et al., 2018; Calnan et al., 2023; Dagenais, 2021; El-Jardali et al., 2015; Ellen et al., 2014; Erismann et al., 2021; Ferlie et al., 2009; Gabbay et al., 2020; Gaiotto et al., 2023; Hamalainen et al., 2015; Ibarra et al., 2018; Jack et al., 2010; Jing and Hu, 2020; La Brooy et al., 2017; Langeveld et al., 2016; Lecesne et al., 2025; Lester et al., 2020; Lim et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2018; MacAulay et al., 2023; Makkar et al., 2018; Mathews et al., 2019; Mavoa et al., 2012; Mbachu et al., 2024; Meijers et al., 2022; Mendell and Richardson, 2021; Meyerson et al., 2018; Mikton et al., 2013; Moat et al., 2014; Munnich et al., 2017; Nutley and Davies, 1999; Nutley et al., 2002; Ongolo-Zogo et al., 2018; Orem et al., 2014; Oronje et al., 2019; Paing et al., 2021; Parks et al., 2023; Purtle et al., 2022; Quinn et al., 2015; Reddy and Sahay, 2016; Sajadi et al., 2021; Saric et al., 2022; Scavuzzi et al., 2023; Stadelmaier et al., 2022; Strehlenert et al., 2015; Turnpenny et al., 2009; Uneke et al., 2011; Uneke et al., 2022; Van Kammen et al., 2006; Wahabi et al., 2011; Wan et al., 2020; Waqa et al., 2013; Waqa et al., 2013; Webster et al., 2022; Weldon and Parkhurst, 2022; Williamson et al., 2019; Yan et al., 2014)
Ministry of the Interior or Governance 15 (Adam et al., 2018; Angelou et al., 2024; Arinder and Arinder, 2016; Filograna et al., 2023; Fisher and Milliken, 2022; Fobé et al., 2013; Koga et al., 2021; Koga et al., 2022; Manyuchi and Mugabe, 2018; Namdarian and Khedmatgozar, 2024; Walker et al., 2019; Whicher, 2021; Wilcox, 2003; Wolf et al., 2017; Woodson and Boutilier, 2022)
Other/Undetermined 6 (Bax et al., 2010; Carpenter and Carpenter, 2016; Gerber et al., 2020; Hong et al., 2019; Silva et al., 2019; Tachino and Tachino, 2012)

The studies were analyzed to extract recurrent barriers and facilitators related to the integration of evidence into policymaking. Barriers included institutional fragmentation, limited access to actionable data, political resistance to scientific inputs, and lack of incentives for researcher engagement. On the other hand, key facilitators identified included the presence of structured advisory mechanisms, stakeholder participation, political leadership, international collaboration, and the institutionalization of science-policy interfaces. These findings were organized according to the six thematic categories to support a deeper understanding of systemic challenges and opportunities across contexts.

A range of barriers and facilitators to evidence-informed policymaking were identified across the reviewed studies. Institutional and governance limitations were frequently reported, including the absence of formal frameworks, weak incentives, and fragmented structures that hindered intersectoral coordination. Political and ideological resistance also emerged, with evidence being selectively used or disregarded due to misalignment with prevailing agendas. Significant challenges were noted regarding access to relevant, timely, and actionable scientific evidence, exacerbated by inadequate data infrastructures and limited communication between researchers and policymakers. Furthermore, resource constraints and a lack of institutional or individual incentives were commonly cited as impediments to sustained science-policy integration.

In the area of structured science-policy participation, several studies reported fragmented advisory mechanisms and a lack of institutionalized policy analysis units. For instance, in Malawi and South Africa, the absence of dedicated analytical units, weak inter-ministerial coordination, and over-reliance on donor funding were repeatedly noted as structural shortcomings that hindered systematic evidence use. Similarly, one study highlighted how entrenched conflicting frames between government and civil society led to the instrumental use of evidence to delegitimize opposition voices and delay consultation processes.

Conversely, several facilitators were documented that helped promote the integration of scientific knowledge into policy. For example, partnerships with community organizations, access to localized data, and policy learning from peer municipalities enabled some governments to overcome knowledge gaps and align interventions with public needs. In Saudi Arabia, the presence of national support institutions, structured knowledge translation frameworks, and motivated participants trained in evidence-based medicine were seen to enhance the institutional capacity for policy uptake. Another study described how strong inter-professional relationships and trust-based environments allowed for the successful implementation of micro-level strategies that proved more effective than centralized directives.

These examples show that facilitators were not merely theoretical constructs such as “knowledge brokers” or “science advisors,” but were embedded in concrete contexts that included academic partnerships, clinical opinion leadership, and community pressure each playing a distinct role in bridging the science-policy divide (Table 4).

Thematic barriers and facilitators for evidence-informed policymaking.

Thematic dimension Barriers Facilitators
1. Structured science-policy participation

Weak coordination and limited structured engagement between researchers and policymakers.

Fragmented advisory mechanisms and persistence of linear knowledge transfer models.

Limited academic incentives to engage in policy processes.

Poor communication and lack of mutual understanding between researchers and decision-makers.

Establishment of formal science advisory bodies and intersectoral coordination platforms.

Use of knowledge brokers and structured communication mechanisms.

Recognition of co-production models that align scientific outputs with policy needs.
2. Institutional deficit and limited access to evidence

Absence of institutional frameworks for systematically integrating evidence into policymaking.

Restricted access to timely, relevant, and context-specific data.

Inadequate data infrastructure and limited institutional capacity to manage evidence flows.

Low perceived applicability of academic research to political realities.

Institutionalization of evidence-informed policy units or governmental research departments.

Improved data-sharing systems and standardized tools for evidence appraisal.

Government reforms embedding evidence access into procedural norms.
3. Political conflicts and resistance to evidence use

Ideological resistance and politicization of evidence in highly polarized contexts.

Selective use or dismissal of evidence to suit political agendas.

Lack of political continuity that weakens long-term integration of evidence.

Political priorities overriding evidence-based considerations.

Political consensus on evidence-informed agendas.

Leadership by influential or bipartisan actors advocating for science.

Use of evidence to support politically sensitive decisions in early policy stages.
4. Trust, knowledge creation, and legitimacy

Low trust in scientific institutions among policymakers and the public.

Limited stakeholder involvement reducing the perceived legitimacy of evidence.

Disconnection between academic research and local policy contexts.

Engagement of key stakeholders in research design and implementation.

Transparent processes that enhance the credibility and legitimacy of evidence.

Emphasis on participatory and deliberative knowledge creation models.
5. Political support and institutionalization of scientific advice

Lack of sustained political will to maintain scientific advisory mechanisms.

Frequent administrative changes disrupting the continuity of evidence use.

Unformalized role of science in policy decision-making.

High-level political support for evidence-based governance.

Institutional mandates formalizing scientific advice within government structures.

Legislative frameworks requiring expert consultation.
6. International networks and collaborative platforms

Institutional isolation and low participation in global evidence platforms.

Limited engagement in transnational networks and low capacity for international collaboration.

Active participation in global policy forums and scientific exchange initiatives.

Adoption of international best practices and shared learning mechanisms.

Integration into regional or global evidence consortia.

Institutional deficits were highlighted through the lack of systematic frameworks, limited data access, and constrained institutional capacities. These were counterbalanced by the institutionalization of evidence-informed policy units, improved data systems, and procedural reforms.

Political resistance was characterized by ideological polarization, selective evidence use, and discontinuity due to shifting administrations. Facilitators included bipartisan leadership, political consensus, and strategic use of evidence in sensitive decisions.

Regarding trust and legitimacy, low confidence in scientific institutions and insufficient stakeholder engagement were underscored. Participatory research processes and transparent practices were cited as mechanisms to restore credibility.

Political support remained inconsistent, undermined by administrative turnover and weak formalization. Nonetheless, high-level backing, institutional mandates, and legislative requirements for expert consultation were identified as enablers.

Finally, international collaboration was impeded by institutional isolation and minimal participation in global platforms. However, engagement in international forums and alignment with best practices were recognized as vital pathways to foster cross-border evidence use (Table 4).

A total of 119 studies were identified across 32 countries. The highest number of studies originated from England (34 studies, 28.6%), followed by the United States (23 studies, 19.3%), Canada (7 studies, 5.9%), Brazil (4 studies, 3.4%), and Nigeria (4 studies, 3.4%). These five countries accounted for over 60% of all recorded studies.

Institutional involvement analysis revealed that references to ministries were relatively infrequent across cases. The Ministry of Health was the most commonly mentioned, appearing in 11 studies (9.2% of the total). This was followed by the Ministry of the Environment (1 mention), the Ministry of Education (1 mention), and the Ministry of the Economy and Ministry of the Interior or Governance (none). Notably, the vast majority of studies (104 cases, 87.4%) did not explicitly mention any of the six predefined ministries and were categorized as “Other/Undetermined.”

This distribution highlighted both a concentration of research output in high-income countries and a generally low frequency of direct ministerial involvement in the documentation of evidence-informed policymaking processes (Figure 2).

Geographic distribution of evidence-informed policymaking studies by country of origin.

World map with light blue circles of varying sizes indicating data points across continents. Larger circles are located in North America, Europe, South America, Africa, and Australia, suggesting higher data values in these regions. Discussion

The results of this systematic review reveal a complex network of factors that influence the incorporation of scientific evidence into public policy formulation. Broadly speaking, multiple structural, institutional, and political barriers persist, hindering the systematic integration of scientific knowledge into governmental decision-making processes. Nonetheless, enabling conditions were also identified, allowing for the emergence of effective pathways to promote evidence-informed governance.

One recurring limitation is the weak linkage between the scientific community and decision-makers. The predominance of unidirectional knowledge transfer models has been widely questioned for their ineffectiveness in promoting meaningful use of evidence, a concern echoed in the existing literature that emphasizes the need for more interactive and iterative mechanisms (Nutley et al., 2002; Dagenais, 2021; Suazo-Galdames and Saracostti, 2025). The lack of institutional incentives encouraging academics to engage in policy advisory processes contributes to this disconnect (Walker et al., 2019). However, experiences of knowledge co-production and the existence of permanent advisory bodies, and boundary organizations such as science-policy interfaces have been shown to improve the relevance, credibility, and legitimacy of public policies (Gabbay et al., 2020; La Brooy et al., 2017; Suazo-Galdames et al., 2024).

From an institutional perspective, deficits in data infrastructure, poorly standardized regulatory frameworks, and limited organizational capacities hinder the systematic integration of evidence (Makkar et al., 2018; El-Jardali et al., 2015). These findings align with previous studies that highlight similar challenges, particularly in low-income contexts, these limitations are exacerbated by the scarcity of technical and human resources (Orem et al., 2014). Nevertheless, progress has been observed in countries that have institutionalized evidence-based policy units, developed interoperable analytical tools, and promoted procedural reforms aimed at facilitating the use of knowledge (Ferrigno et al., 2022; Shtatina et al., 2021; Fyfe and Richardson, 2018) as in the case of Indonesia in terms of reproductive health (Meijers et al., 2022). In Latin America, progress has been observed in the induction of science in public policies, especially in the field of education, where academic contributions are being systematically analyzed to improve the implementation of public policies, address inequalities, and address complex challenges in the education system (Torres-Bernal et al., 2024; Davyt, 2023); however, in this region there were not many studies included that focused their objective on how public policies can appropriate Science for their better performance, proposal and approach. Peña et al. analyze the governance of science, technology, and innovation in Latin American higher education institutions, highlighting how effective governance incorporates public policies that support scientific knowledge production and management, demonstrating progress in integrating science into public policy across countries like Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, and Colombia (Peña et al., 2022).

According to Mateos-Espejel and Estrada Rodríguez (2024) articles that highlight advances in the inclusion of science in public policies in Europe, Africa, and Asia include studies on Citizen Science and its application in sustainable agriculture. In addition, in these same regions, according to the study by Paz-Enrique (2023) spaces and forms of participation in the construction of public policies related to science, technology, and innovation were identified. These results are divergent and consistent with the outcomes of the present study, which revealed a little representation of countries that research on public policies and incorporated science in Asia and Africa.

Public policy communication and the appropriation of scientific knowledge have also been deeply affected by how science is publicly represented. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, studies have shown that poorly communicated, politically driven, or exaggerated representations of scientific findings such as the hydroxychloroquine case can distort public understanding and undermine trust in institutions and evidence-based policymaking (Caulfield et al., 2021). Caulfield et al. (2021) warn that during health crises, poor scientific communication and politicized interpretations not only derail public trust, but also hinder the integration of research into public decisions. Similarly, Taschner et al. (2021) argue that in current media ecosystems, hype is no longer solely driven by media and scientific institutions but often originates in political and social media spheres, with the public actively contributing to the amplification of misinformation. These dynamics illustrate how scientific knowledge can be misappropriated or marginalized when public discourse and decision-making become detached from rigorous evidence, further underscoring the need for governance structures that protect scientific integrity and transparency.

Finally, a study by Espinoza Martínez (2019) reports that there is an induction of science in public policies in Europe, Africa and Asia.

These findings aligned with earlier syntheses emphasizing the structural disconnect between research production and policy implementation. However, while previous literature often focused on technical constraints, this review brought forward novel insights concerning epistemological mismatches and temporal misalignments between research and policymaking cycles. For instance, while some studies describe limited institutional capacity as the primary bottleneck, others highlighted the absence of trust-building mechanisms and collaborative governance processes that ensure continuity in evidence use.

The political dimension also plays an ambivalent role. On one hand, the politicization and strategic use of evidence can lead to selective uptake and instrumentalization, thereby weakening the integrity of the evidence-policy interface (Bozeman and Bozeman, 2022; Bromme et al., 2014). On the other, committed leadership, cross-party consensus, and institutional continuity have been recognized as key facilitators in the successful adoption of evidence-informed policymaking practices (Meyerson et al., 2018; Reddy and Sahay, 2016). These findings corroborate earlier research pointing to the importance of political will and leadership stability in sustaining long-term policy change.

A cross-cutting theme identified in the literature is trust. The legitimacy of scientific evidence in the eyes of policymakers largely depends on the transparency of its production and the involvement of social actors. This has been extensively discussed in the field of deliberative policy analysis, where participatory methodologies and context-sensitive approaches are recognized as crucial to enhancing both the epistemic and democratic quality of policies (Moat et al., 2014; Mendell and Richardson, 2021; Suazo-Galdames, 2024; Suazo-Galdames and de Toro, 2024). In this regard, civil society has played a dual role as both consumer and producer of evidence by contributing community-based knowledge and exerting pressure for more accountable governance.

Several studies reviewed described the emergence of evidence networks collaborative structures connecting researchers, policymakers, and civil society actors that function as platforms for co-producing and contextualizing evidence. These networks often played a critical role in expanding the types of knowledge considered valid for policy, integrating lived experience, practitioner insights, and local data. Transdisciplinary platforms, particularly in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa, were highlighted for contributing to shared ownership of the policy process. In these contexts, the role of civil society has transcended consultation, becoming instrumental in validating evidence, setting policy agendas, and ensuring transparency in implementation (Schulz and Adams, 2025; Ochen-Ochen, 2025; Kauko, 2022; García, 2021; Hawkins and Parkhurst, 2016).

Another important aspect concerns nature and definition of “evidence” itself. The findings of this review highlight the persistent tension between formal scientific knowledge and alternative or experiential forms of evidence. This includes local knowledge, practitioner expertise, and values-based arguments, which are often dismissed or marginalized in technocratic models of policy design. A more pluralistic understanding of evidence is required one that reflects power asymmetries and acknowledges that knowledge production and use are inherently political processes.

The review further underscored how power dynamics influence what is considered credible or legitimate evidence. In many instances, quantitative data from formal institutions were privileged, while qualitative or community-generated evidence was downplayed, regardless of its contextual relevance. These hierarchies of evidence often mirrored broader inequalities in institutional voice and visibility. At the same time, informal and politically embedded evidence pathways such as advisory coalitions, epistemic communities, and issue networks were found to be particularly influential in shaping policy narratives, especially when formal mechanisms for evidence use were weak or absent.

The predominance of academic papers emerging from the UK, US, and Canada can be attributed to several intertwined factors, including established scientific advisory traditions in these nations, robust funding mechanisms, and significant historical investments in research infrastructures. This phenomenon can be analyzed through the lens of existing literature on evidence-based policy-making and the dynamics of advisory roles in government contexts.

Firstly, the legacy of science advisory structures in the UK, the US, and Canada has fostered an environment where scientific research is systematically integrated into policy-making processes. Tangney and Howes (2016) highlight challenges in bridging the gap between scientific knowledge and policy decision-making, particularly in climate adaptation, emphasizing the critical role of evidence in shaping policies. The establishment of scientific advisory committees (SACs) in Britain serves to mobilize scientific knowledge directly into the policy arena, affecting various high-profile issues through a structured advisory network, as discussed by Page et al. (2018). This institutional support results in a higher output of papers, as researchers in these countries are often engaged in direct policy consultations and studies that warrant publication.

Moreover, boundary organizations, which serve as intermediaries between scientific expertise and policy-making, also play a crucial role in facilitating this trend. Pattyn et al. (2022) suggest that these organizations often embody a dual advice role, enhancing their credibility and effectiveness in governance contexts, which drives the influence of academic work on political decision-making in established democracies. The sophisticated policy-making environments in the UK, US, and Canada cultivate a niche for scholars to generate research that directly feeds back into the system, thus increasing publication frequency in reputable journals.

Additionally, funding structures in these countries enable a wide range of research initiatives that emphasize policy relevance and societal benefit. Demeritt (2010) notes that publicly funded research in the UK often aims at achieving tangible societal impacts, which incentivizes academic production aligned with government priorities. The interplay of academic ambition and governmental need in such ecosystems generates a high density of research outputs addressing pressing societal challenges, explaining why these sought-after publications proliferate in these nations.

Furthermore, the focus on engagement with the public and policy-makers is increasingly codified within UK policy discourse. The push for upstream public engagement, as examined by Rogers-Hayden and Pidgeon (2007), indicates a shift where scientists are expected to contribute more broadly to public understanding and policy articulation, thus leading to greater scholarly output reflecting these engagements. Such dynamics foster an atmosphere where academic discourse is frequently invigorated with fresh empirical insights, resulting in numerous publications that respond to real-world issues.

International cooperation also emerges as a powerful strategy to address structural barriers and promote institutional learning. Transnational networks such as EVIPNet, the International Network for Government Science Advice (INGSA), and the Alliance for Useful Evidence have proven effective in building local capacities, fostering trust between stakeholders, and diffusing best practices (Lester et al., 2020; Van Kammen et al., 2006). Nonetheless, unequal participation in these platforms exacerbates regional disparities in access to knowledge and its translation into policy, underscoring the need for more inclusive and equitable evidence ecosystems.

The increasing involvement of civil society in the context of evidence networks goes beyond mere consultation to profound engagement throughout the policy cycle. As elaborated by García (2021), civil society organizations have become instrumental in validating evidence, shaping policy agendas, and ensuring transparency in the implementation process. Their advocacy efforts help hold policymakers accountable and strengthen the democratic processes through which policies are enacted.

Moreover, as described by Ochen-Ochen (2025), the collaborative nature of these networks facilitates a direct line of communication between marginalized communities and policymakers, amplifying voices that might otherwise be excluded from policy discussions. This democratization of evidence production plays a crucial role in addressing disparities and ensuring that the needs and rights of all stakeholders are represented.

In terms of practical implications, the findings highlight the need to move toward governance models that institutionalize the use of evidence through legal frameworks, sustained resources, and organizational structures that promote interaction between science and policy. From a theoretical standpoint, the urgency is noted to develop more integrative approaches that acknowledge the contextual, negotiated, and political nature of knowledge in decision-making.

Limitations and strengths

Among the limitations of this review is the methodological heterogeneity of the included studies, which prevents firm generalizations about the effectiveness of the various mechanisms analyzed. Moreover, the predominance of studies from high-income countries restricts the transferability of the findings to contexts with weaker institutional capacities. It should also be noted that much of the existing literature relies on descriptive accounts or case studies, limiting the scope for causal inference.

Nonetheless, the review provides a comprehensive synthesis of international experiences and incorporates diverse disciplinary perspectives, offering both breadth and depth in the analysis of barriers and enablers to evidence-informed policymaking. The inclusion of grey literature and reports from policy institutions further enriched the understanding of real-world policy dynamics.

 Conclusions and future directions

In terms of practical implications, the findings emphasize the need to institutionalize evidence use through legal mandates, sustained financial and human resources, and dedicated organizational structures that promote interaction between science and policy. Moving beyond the linear model of knowledge translation, it is imperative to embrace iterative, dialogical, and politically informed approaches that reflect the contested and negotiated nature of policymaking.

From a theoretical standpoint, there is an urgent need to develop integrative frameworks that incorporate the political economy of knowledge, recognize the role of intermediary actors such as knowledge brokers, and capture the interplay between evidence, values, and interests in decision-making processes.

Future research should prioritize comparative analyses across countries and policy sectors, assess the long-term impact of scientific advisory mechanisms, and explore the contributions of non-traditional evidence sources. Investigations into how power relations shape what counts as legitimate evidence and how marginalized voices can be included are particularly relevant for advancing inclusive and democratic forms of evidence-informed governance.

 Data availability statement

The datasets presented in this study can be found in online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession number(s) can be found at: https://doi.org/10.17632/b73wm9852j.1.

 Author contributions

IS-G: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MS: Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AC-G: Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

 Funding

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This work was made possible through the financial support provided by the ANID/FONDECYT Regular 1250064 project, supported by the Chilean Agency for Research and Development.

 Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

 Generative AI statement

The authors declare that Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. Artificial intelligence was used exclusively to enhance the accuracy, clarity, and fluency of English language and grammar. No content was generated or modified beyond linguistic refinement and stylistic improvement.

 Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

 References Adam C. Steinebach Y. Knill C. (2018). Neglected challenges to evidence-based policy-making: the problem of policy accumulation. Policy. Sci. 51, 269–290. doi: 10.1007/s11077-018-9318-4 Angelou A. Ladi S. Panagiotatou D. Tsagkroni V. (2024). Paths to trust: explaining citizens' trust to experts and evidence-informed policymaking during the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Adm. 102, 1008–1025. doi: 10.1111/padm.12962 Arinder M. Arinder M. K. (2016). Bridging the divide between evidence and policy in public sector decision making: a practitioner's perspective. Public Adm. Rev. 76, 394–398. doi: 10.1111/puar.12572 Aro A. Bertram M. Hämäläinen R. Van De Goor I. Skovgaard T. Valente A. . (2016). Integrating research evidence and physical activity policy making-REPOPA project. Health Promot. Int. 31, 430–439. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dav002, PMID: 25669200 Barton J. L. (2016). Federal Investments in Evidence-Based Early Childhood Home Visiting: A multiple streams analysis. Poverty Public Policy 8, 248–262. doi: 10.1002/pop4.142 Bäumle P. Hirschmann D. Feser D. Baeumle P. Hirschmann D. Feser D. (2023). The contribution of knowledge intermediation to sustainability transitions and digitalization: qualitative insights into four German regions. Technol. Soc. 73:102252. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102252 Bax C. de Jong M. Koppenjan J. Bax C. de Jong M. Koppenjan J. (2010). Implementing evidence-based policy in a network setting: road safety policy in the Netherlands. Public Adm. 88, 871–884. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01843.x, PMID: 20925155 Bedregal P. Ferlie E. (2001). Evidence based primary care? A multi-tier, multiple stakeholder perspective from Chile. Int. J. Health Plann. Manag. 16, 47–60. doi: 10.1002/hpm.608, PMID: 11326574 Behague D. Tawiah C. Rosato M. Some T. Morrison J. (2009). Evidence-based policy-making: the implications of globally-applicable research for context-specific problem-solving in developing countries. Soc. Sci. Med. 69, 1539–1546. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.08.006, PMID: 19781839 Biau S. Bonnet E. Dagenais C. De Allegri M. Traoré Z. Ouedraogo A. . (2021). Using information and communication technologies to engage citizens in health system governance in Burkina Faso: protocol for action research. JMIR Res. Protoc. 10:e28780. doi: 10.2196/28780 Botterill L. C. Hindmoor A. (2012). Turtles all the way down: bounded rationality in an evidence-based age. Policy Stud. 33, 367–379. doi: 10.1080/01442872.2011.626315 Bozeman B. Bozeman B. (2022). Use of science in public policy: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic efforts to 'follow the science'. Sci. Public Policy 49, 806–817. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scac026 Braganza M. Pearson E. Avila C. Zlowe D. Ovretveit J. Kilbourne A. . (2022). Aligning quality improvement efforts and policy goals in a national integrated health system. Health Serv. Res. 57, 9–19. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.13944 Bromme R. Prenzel M. Jäger M. (2014). Educational research and evidence based educational policy: the challenge of exposing and of understanding educational research. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 17, 3–54. doi: 10.1007/s11618-014-0514-5 Broström A. McKelvey M. (2018). Engaging experts: science-policy interactions and the introduction of congestion charging in Stockholm. Minerva 56, 183–207. doi: 10.1007/s11024-017-9331-3, PMID: 29780180 Brown C. (2014). Advancing policy makers' expertise in evidence-use: a new approach to enhancing the role research can have in aiding educational policy development. J. Educ. Change 15, 19–36. doi: 10.1007/s10833-013-9224-7 Bullock H. Lavis J. Mulvale G. Wilson M. Bullock H. L. Lavis J. N. . (2024). An examination of mental health policy implementation efforts and the intermediaries that support them in New Zealand, Canada and Sweden: a comparative case study. Front. Health Serv. 4:1371207. doi: 10.3389/frhs.2024.1371207, PMID: 39234210 Byrne E. Elliott E. Saltus R. Angharad J. Byrne E. Elliott E. (2018). The creative turn in evidence for public health: community and arts-based methodologies. J. Public Health 40, i24–i30. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdx151, PMID: 29538726 Cairney P. Oliver K. (2020). How should academics engage in policymaking to achieve impact? Polit. Stud. Rev. 18, 228–244. doi: 10.1177/1478929918807714 Calnan S. Millar S. R. Mongan D. (2023). Support for evidence-based alcohol policy in Ireland: results from a representative household survey. Eur. J. Pub. Health 33, 323–330. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckad031, PMID: 36866443 Carpenter C. Carpenter C. (2016). Rethinking the political/−science−/fiction nexus: global policy making and the campaign to stop killer robots. Perspect. Polit. 14, 53–69. doi: 10.1017/S1537592715003229 Caulfield T. Bubela T. Kimmelman J. Ravitsky V. (2021). Let’s do better: public representations of COVID-19 science. FACETS 6, 403–423. doi: 10.1139/facets-2021-0018 Dagenais C. (2021). Research use at the Ministry of Health in Burkina Faso: the decision-makers’ perspective. Implement. Sci. Commun. 2:22. doi: 10.1186/s43058-021-00126-9, PMID: 33597047 Davyt A. (2023). La mirada política del campo latinoamericano en ciencia, tecnología y sociedad. Ciencia, Tecnología y Política 6:089. doi: 10.24215/26183188e089 Demeritt D. (2010). Harnessing science and securing societal impacts from publicly funded research: reflections on UK science policy. Environ. Plann. A 42, 515–523. doi: 10.1068/a42440 El-Jardali F. Karroum L. B. Bawab L. Kdouh O. El-Sayed F. Rachidi H. . (2015). Health reporting in print media in Lebanon: evidence, quality and role in informing policymaking. PLoS One 10:e0136435. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136435, PMID: 26308077 Ellen M. Lavis J. Sharon A. Shemer J. (2014). Health systems and policy research evidence in health policy making in Israel: what are researchers' practices in transferring knowledge to policy makers? Health Res. Policy Syst. 12:67. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-12-67 Erismann S. Pesantes M. Beran D. Leuenberger A. Farnham A. de White M. . (2021). How to bring research evidence into policy? Synthesizing strategies of five research projects in low-and middle-income countries. Health Res. Policy Syst. 19:29. doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-00646-1 Espinoza Martínez A. V. (2019). Estudio comparativo de las políticas públicas en competitividad a nivel centroamericano. Innovare 7, 38–57. doi: 10.5377/innovare.v7i1.7570 Ferlie E. Dopson S. Fitzgerald L. Locock L. (2009). Renewing policy to support evidence-based health care. Public Adm. 87, 837–852. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01796.x Ferrigno M. Lorenzetti R. Folino L. A. Zucaro R. (2022). The new Italian web database to support irrigation investment policies: DANIA. Int. J. Sustain. Agric. Manag. Inform. 8, 64–83. doi: 10.1504/IJSAMI.2022.123047 Filograna A. Perossini F. Prette D. (2023). Evidence-based policy lifecycle management: the H2020 DECIDO experience. Open Res. Eur. 3:70. doi: 10.12688/openreseurope.15697.2, PMID: 38560295 Fisher M. A. Milliken L. K. (2022). Crowdsourcing science and technology expertise to empower legislative branch oversight and policymaking. Digit. Gov. Res. Pract. 3, 1–8. doi: 10.1145/3524065, PMID: 39076787 Fobé E. Brans M. Fobe E. Brans M. (2013). Policy-oriented foresight as evidence for policy making: conditions of (mis)match. Evid. Policy 9, 473–492. doi: 10.1332/174426413X662789 Fyfe N. R. Richardson N. (2018). Police reform, research and the uses of'expert knowledge'. Eur. J. Policing Stud. 5:147. doi: 10.5553/EJPS/2034760X2018005003010 Gabbay J. Le May A. Pope C. Brangan E. Cameron A. Klein J. H. . (2020). Uncovering the processes of knowledge transformation: the example of local evidence-informed policy-making in United Kingdom healthcare. Health Res. Policy Syst. 18:110. doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-00587-9, PMID: 32988405 Gaiotto E. M. G. Godoy-Vieira A. Soares C. B. E Silva L. G. M. Toma T. S. Nóbrega M. D. P. S. S. (2023). Health needs of primary care workers: an experience report of articulation between researchers, managers and workers in the city of São Paulo. Physis 33:e33045. doi: 10.1590/S0103-7331202333045 García L. R. (2021). The silver bullet reversed: the impact of evidence on policymaker attention. Evid. Policy 17, 423–446. doi: 10.1332/174426420x16017817089543 Gerber L. Barton C. Cheng S. Anderson D. Gerber L. R. Barton C. J. . (2020). Producing actionable science in conservation: best practices for organizations and individuals. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2:e295. doi: 10.1111/csp2.295 Gluckman P. (2014). Policy: the art of science advice to government. Nature 507, 163–165. doi: 10.1038/507163a, PMID: 24627919 Gluckman P. Quirion R. Denis M. Allen K. Principles and structures of science advice. International Science Council. (2022). Available online at: http://hdl.handle.net/10625/61808 (Accessed March 14, 2025). Godfrey L. Funke N. Mbizvo C. Godfrey L. Funke N. Mbizvo C. (2010). Bridging the science-policy interface: a new era for south African research and the role of knowledge brokering. S. Afr. J. Sci. 106, 34–41. doi: 10.4102/sajs.v106i5/6.247 Hamalainen R.-M. Aro A. R. de Goor I. Lau C. J. Jakobsen M. W. Chereches R. M. . (2015). Exploring the use of research evidence in health-enhancing physical activity policies. Health Res. Policy Syst. 13:43. doi: 10.1186/s12961-015-0047-2 Harding R. (2003). New challenges for innovation systems: a cross country comparison. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 26, 226–246. doi: 10.1504/ijtm.2003.003371 Hawkins B. Parkhurst J. (2016). The ‘good governance’ of evidence in health policy. Evid. Policy 12, 575–592. doi: 10.1332/174426415x14430058455412 Hong S. Kim S. Kim Y. Park J. Hong S. Kim S. H. . (2019). Big data and government: evidence of the role of big data for smart cities. Big Data Soc. 6:2053951719842543. doi: 10.1177/2053951719842543 Ibarra C. O'Ryan R. Silva B. (2018). Applying knowledge governance to understand the role of science in environmental regulation: the case of arsenic in Chile. Environ. Sci. Pol. 86, 115–124. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.05.002 Jack S. Dobbins M. Tonmyr L. Dudding P. Brooks S. Kennedy B. (2010). Research evidence utilization in policy development by child welfare administrators. Child Welfare 89, 83–100. Jing Y. Hu Z. (2020). Why was apparent evidence ignored? The delayed relaxation of China's birth control. Aust. J. Public Adm. 79, 208–224. doi: 10.1111/1467-8500.12409 Kauko J. (2022). Politics of evidence: think tanks and the academies act. Br. Educ. Res. J. 48, 1232–1253. doi: 10.1002/berj.3824 Kleine M. (2009). Capacity building for effective work at the interface of forest science and forest policy. Mount. Res. Dev. 29, 114–120. doi: 10.1659/mrd.1095 Knight A. R. (2019). How can the social sciences work with ecology in informing feral horse policy and management in South-Eastern Australia? Ecol. Manag. Restor. 20, 9–12. doi: 10.1111/emr.12366 Koga N. M. Loureiro M. de Moura Palotti P. L. da Silva Lins R. do Couto B. G. Lima S. N. (2022). Analysing the information sources Brazilian bureaucrats use as evidence in everyday policymaking. Policy Polit. 50, 483–506. doi: 10.1332/030557321X16588356122629 Koga N. M. Palotti P. L. M. Do Couto B. G. Lins R. D. S. Do Nascimento M. I. B. (2021). The use of multiple sources of information in public policy: the Brazilian federal bureaucracy. Revista de Administracao Publica 55, 1165–1190. doi: 10.1590/0034-761220200871, PMID: 40608664 La Brooy C. Kelaher M. La Brooy C. Kelaher M. (2017). The research-policy-deliberation nexus: a case study approach. Health Res. Policy Syst. 15:75. doi: 10.1186/s12961-017-0239-z, PMID: 28865464 Langeveld K. Stronks K. Harting J. Langeveld K. Stronks K. Harting J. (2016). Use of a knowledge broker to establish healthy public policies in a city district: a developmental evaluation. BMC Public Health 16:271. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-2832-4, PMID: 26979063 Larned S. T. Howard-Williams C. Taylor K. Scarsbrook M. (2022). Freshwater science–policy interactions in Aotearoa-New Zealand: lessons from the past and recommendations for the future. Aust. J. Water Resour. 26, 131–152. doi: 10.1080/13241583.2022.2065723 Lecesne H. Kimble L. Gettis M. Dye B. (2025). Assessing clinical nurse educators’ perceptions of factors influencing evidence-based nursing policy implementation within a large pediatric healthcare system. J. Clin. Nurs. doi: 10.1111/jocn.17651, PMID: 39871656 Lester L. Haby M. M. Chapman E. Kuchenmüller T. (2020). Evaluation of the performance and achievements of the WHO evidence-informed policy network (EVIPNet) Europe. Health Res. Policy and Syst. 18:109. doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-00612-x, PMID: 32972421 Lévesque A. Bissonnette J. Vansintjan A. Dupras J. Levesque A. Bissonnette J.-F. (2024). Conflicting perspectives on ecosystem conservation in a cultivated floodplain: the role of science and the challenge of pluralism in decision-making in lac Saint-Pierre (Quebec, Canada). Environ. Policy Gov. 34, 476–489. doi: 10.1002/eet.2095 Lewis J. (2011). Parenting programmes in England: policy development and implementation issues, 2005-2010. J. Soc. Welf. Fam. Law 33, 107–121. doi: 10.1080/09649069.2011.617068 Lim H. Niwa Y. Tange M. Lim H. Niwa Y. Tange M. (2021). Landscape planning based on EBPM: location prioritization of green space management. Reg. Sci. Policy Pract. 13:708. doi: 10.1111/rsp3.12373 Linke S. Gilek M. Karlsson M. Udovyk O. (2014). Unravelling science-policy interactions in environmental risk governance of the Baltic Sea: comparing fisheries and eutrophication. J. Risk Res. 17, 505–523. doi: 10.1080/13669877.2013.794154 Lu J. Chiang T. (2018). Developing an adequate supply of health services: Taiwan's path to universal health coverage. Soc. Sci. Med. 198, 7–13. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.12.017 Luján J. L. (2023). Evidence-based policies: lessons from regulatory science. Policy Polit. 51, 524–537. doi: 10.1111/polp.12543 MacAulay M. Fafard P. Cassola A. Palkovits M. (2023). Analysing the ‘follow the science’ rhetoric of government responses to COVID-19. Policy Polit. 51, 466–485. doi: 10.1332/030557321X16831146677554 Makkar S. Haynes A. Williamson A. Redman S. Makkar S. R. Haynes A. (2018). Organisational capacity and its relationship to research use in six Australian health policy agencies. PLoS One 13:e0192528. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192528, PMID: 29513669 Manyuchi A. E. Mugabe J. O. (2018). The production and use of indicators in science, technology and innovation policy-making in Africa: lessons from Malawi and South Africa. J. Sci. Technol. Policy Manag. 9, 21–41. doi: 10.1108/JSTPM-06-2017-0026 Marchevska D. (2024). Enlightenment, politicisation or mere window dressing? Europeanisation and the use of evidence for policy making in Bulgaria. Policy. Sci. 57, 281–303. doi: 10.1007/s11077-024-09527-8 Mateos-Espejel L. Estrada Rodríguez J. L. (2024). Contribución de la ciencia ciudadana a las políticas públicas sobre agricultura sustentable. Mundo Agrar. 25:240. doi: 10.24215/15155994e240 Mathews C. Goga A. Loveday M. Zembe W. Daviaud E. Siegfried N. . (2019). Moving towards universal health coverage: strengthening the evidence ecosystem for the south African health system. S. Afr. Med. J. 109, 8–14. doi: 10.7196/SAMJ.2019.v109i11b.14245, PMID: 32252861 Mavoa H. Waqa G. Moodie M. Kremer P. McCabe M. Snowdon W. . (2012). Knowledge exchange in the Pacific: the TROPIC (translational research into obesity prevention policies for communities) project. BMC Public Health 12:552. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-552, PMID: 22830984 Mbachu C. Agwu P. Obi F. Onwujekwe O. (2024). Understanding and bridging gaps in the use of evidence from modeling for evidence-based policy making in Nigeria’s health system. MDM Policy Pract. 9:23814683231225658. doi: 10.1177/23814683231225658, PMID: 38250666 Meijers K. Van der Kwaak A. Aqel I. Borst R. Jenniskens F. Radyowijati A. . (2022). Using a rapid knowledge translation approach for better sexual and reproductive health and rights in Bangladesh, Burundi, Indonesia, and Jordan. Global Health Sci. Pract. 10:e2100461. doi: 10.9745/GHSP-D-21-00461, PMID: 35487555 Mendell J. Richardson L. (2021). Integrated knowledge translation to strengthen public policy research: a case study from experimental research on income assistance receipt among people who use drugs. BMC Public Health 21:153. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-10121-9, PMID: 33461522 Meyerson B. Haderxhanaj L. Comer K. Zimet G. Meyerson B. E. Haderxhanaj L. T. . (2018). Learning in the zone: toward workforce development of evidence-based public policy communication. BMC Public Health 18:700. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5617-0, PMID: 29871602 Mikton C. Power M. Raleva M. Makoae M. Al Eissa M. Cheah I. . (2013). The assessment of the readiness of five countries to implement child maltreatment prevention programs on a large scale. Child Abuse Negl. 37, 1237–1251. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.07.009, PMID: 23962585 Moat K. A. Lavis J. N. Clancy S. J. El-Jardali F. Pantoja T. (2014). Evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues: perceptions and intentions to act on what was learnt. Bull. World Health Organ. 92, 20–28. doi: 10.2471/BLT.12.116806, PMID: 24391297 Moseley C. Kleinert H. Sheppard-Jones K. Hall S. (2013). Using research evidence to inform public policy decisions. Intellect. Dev. Disabil. 51, 412–422. doi: 10.1352/1934-9556-51.5.412, PMID: 24303827 Moura P. Marra C. Camoes M. Souza P. Moura P. L. Marra C. A. . (2023). The applied research guiding the decision-making process in public policies: the experience of the National School of public administration. Cadernos Gestao Publica e Cidadania 28:e88074. doi: 10.12660/cgpc.v28.88074 Munnich L. Schmit M. Munnich L. W. Jr. Schmit M. P. (2017). Roadway safety policy and leadership case study of six Midwest states. Transp. Res. Rec. 2635, 19–27. doi: 10.3141/2635-03 Namdarian L. Khedmatgozar H. R. (2024). How does the evidence-based approach contribute to ethical policy-making in science and technology? Iran. J. Inf. Process. Manag. 39, 1–26. doi: 10.22034/JIPM.2024.711523 Niño-Sandoval Y. Alvarez-Risco A. Simbaqueba-Uribe J. Del-Aguila-Arcentales S. Villalobos-Alvarez D. Yañez J. . (2023). Processes of communication and dissemination of science: the challenges of science policy guidelines in Colombia. Front. Educ. 8:1184212. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1184212 Núñez-Samudio V. Landires I. (2020). Public policies based on scientific evidence: child road safety. Arch. Argent. Pediatr. 118, e252–e257. doi: 10.5546/AAP.2020.ENG.E252, PMID: 32470261 Nutley S. Davies H. T. O. (1999). Introducing evidence-based practice: the contrasting experiences of health care and probation service organisations in the UK. Public Policy Adm. 14, 39–57. doi: 10.1177/095207679901400404 Nutley S. Walter I. Bland N. (2002). The institutional arrangements for connecting evidence and policy: the case of drug misuse. Public Policy Adm. 17, 76–94. doi: 10.1177/095207670201700306 Ochen-Ochen I. (2025). The politics of monitoring and evaluation: implications for evidence generation and use. Afr. Eval. J. 13:792. doi: 10.4102/aej.v13i1.792 Ongolo-Zogo P. Lavis J. N. Tomson G. Sewankambo N. K. (2018). Assessing the influence of knowledge translation platforms on health system policy processes to achieve the health millennium development goals in Cameroon and Uganda: A comparative case study. Health Policy Plan. 33, 539–554. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czx194, PMID: 29506146 Orem J. N. Mafigiri D. K. Nabudere H. Criel B. (2014). Improving knowledge translation in Uganda: more needs to be done. Pan Afr. Med. J. 17 Suppl 1:14. doi: 10.11694/pamj.supp.2014.17.1.3482, PMID: 24624247 Oronje R. N. Murunga V. I. Zulu E. M. (2019). Strengthening capacity to use research evidence in health sector policy-making: experience from Kenya and Malawi. Health Res. Policy Syst. 17:101. doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0511-5, PMID: 31856848 Page E. C. Akkilic E. Brien M. Brooks B. Busson L. Chagpar S. . (2018). Politicians in white coats? Scientific advisory committees and policy in Britain. Public Policy Adm. 33, 428–446. doi: 10.1177/0952076717711746 Page M. J. McKenzie J. E. Bossuyt P. M. Boutron I. Hoffmann T. C. Mulrow C. D. . (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71 Paing P. Y. Kyaw Z. L. Schojan M. Traill T. Thura S. Tin N. . (2021). Development of a knowledge broker group to support evidence-informed policy: lessons learned from Myanmar. Health Res. Policy Syst. 19:153. doi: 10.1186/s12961-021-00806-x, PMID: 34963496 Parks R. G. Thomas F. Morshed A. B. Dodson E. A. Tian R. Politi M. C. . (2023). Municipal officials' perspectives on policymaking for addressing obesity and health equity. Evid. Policy 19, 444–464. doi: 10.1332/174426421X16793276974116, PMID: 38650970 Pattyn V. Blum S. Fobé E. Pekar-Milicevic M. Brans M. (2022). Academic policy advice in consensus-seeking countries: the cases of Belgium and Germany. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 88, 26–42. doi: 10.1177/0020852319878780 Paz-Enrique L. (2023). Políticas públicas y su expresión en la divulgación de la ciencia, tecnología e innovación. Rev. Cient. Cienc. Tecnol. 23, 114–127. doi: 10.47189/rcct.v23i37.545 Pellegrini M. Vivanet G. (2021). Evidence-based policies in education: initiatives and challenges in Europe. ECNU Rev. Educ. 4, 25–45. doi: 10.1177/2096531120924670 Peña L. J. A. Diez R. C. Á. Guerrero E. A. S. Sauceda R. A. A. Alvarado S. R. (2022). Gobernanza de la ciencia, tecnología e innovación universitaria en el marco de cooperación internacional en América Latina. Telos Rev. Estud. Interdiscip. Cienc. Soc. 24, 698–717. doi: 10.36390/telos243.15 Persson J. Johansson E. L. Olsson L. (2018). Harnessing local knowledge for scientific knowledge production: challenges and pitfalls within evidence-based sustainability studies. Ecol. Soc. 23:38. doi: 10.5751/ES-10608-230438 Purtle J. Nelson K. Henson R. Horwitz S. McKay M. Hoagwood K. . (2022). Policy makers' priorities for addressing youth substance use and factors that influence priorities. Psychiatr. Serv. 73, 388–395. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.202000919, PMID: 34384231 Quinn E. Johnson D. Krieger J. MacDougall E. Payne E. Chan N. . (2015). Developing local board of health guidelines to promote healthy food access – King County, Washington, 2010-2012. Prev. Chronic Dis. 12:E58. doi: 10.5888/pcd12.140544, PMID: 25927606 Rahai M. Hosseinpoor D. (2024). Modeling the environmental and regulatory impacts of cryptocurrency mining: a system dynamics approach to policy evaluation. AUT J. Model. Simul. 56, 219–234. doi: 10.22060/miscj.2025.23524.5386 Reddel T. Ball S. Reddel T. Ball S. (2022). Knowledge coproduction: panacea or placebo? Lessons from an emerging policy partnership. Policy Des. Pract. 5, 183–196. doi: 10.1080/25741292.2021.1992106 Reddy K. S. Sahay S. (2016). Voices of decision makers on evidence-based policy: a case of evolving TB/HIV co-infection policy in India. AIDS Care 28, 397–400. doi: 10.1080/09540121.2015.1096889, PMID: 26462134 Reed J. Chervier C. Borah J. R. Gumbo D. Moombe K. B. Mbanga T. M. . (2023). Co-producing theory of change to operationalize integrated landscape approaches. Sustain. Sci. 18, 839–855. doi: 10.1007/s11625-022-01190-3, PMID: 36119558 Rhodes T. Lancaster K. Rhodes T. Lancaster K. (2022). Uncomfortable science: how mathematical models, and consensus, come to be in public policy. Sociol. Health Illn. 44, 1461–1480. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.13535, PMID: 36127860 Rogers-Hayden T. Pidgeon N. (2007). Moving engagement “upstream”? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering's inquiry. Public Underst. Sci. 16, 345–364. doi: 10.1177/0963662506076141 Sajadi H. S. Majdzadeh R. Ehsani-Chimeh E. Yazdizadeh B. Nikooee S. Pourabbasi A. . (2021). Policy options to increase motivation for improving evidence-informed health policy-making in Iran. Health Res. Policy Syst. 19:91. doi: 10.1186/s12961-021-00737-7, PMID: 34098971 Saleh M. F. Gamar S. A. (2024). Applying a democratic evidence-based decision-making model: a case illustration of policy development at an Arab university. J. High. Educ. Policy Manag. 46, 618–634. doi: 10.1080/1360080X.2024.2345321 Saric K. Muziringa M. Eldermire E. Young S. Dabengwa I. Saric K. J. . (2022). Leveraging microgrants to support capacity-building workshops in low- and middle-income countries for meeting the sustainable development goals. J. Med. Libr. Assoc. 110, 126–132. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2022.1334, PMID: 35210973 Sarkki S. Balian E. Heink U. Keune H. Nesshöver C. Niemelä J. . (2020). Managing science-policy interfaces for impact: interactions within the environmental governance meshwork. Environ. Sci. Pol. 113, 21–30. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2019.05.011 Sarkki S. Young J. C. Vandewalle M. Heikkinen H. I. Norum R. Stenseke M. . (2025). Transformative science–policy interfacing: the case of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Sustain. Sci. 20, 231–249. doi: 10.1007/s11625-024-01593-4 Scavuzzi Â. M. A. Reis V. G. D. Ramos M. S. Souza M. J. A. D. Winkler I. Pereira-Guizzo C. D. S. (2023). Application of scientific knowledge: knowledge translation in an institute of science and technology in public health. Cad. Saude Publica. 39:e00006523. doi: 10.1590/0102-311XPT006523, PMID: 38055546 Schepelmann P. Fischer S. Drews M. Bastein T. Kropp J. Krummenauer L. . (2021). Evidence-based narratives in European research programming. Eur. J. Futures Res. 9:6. doi: 10.1186/s40309-021-00175-2 Schulz C. Adams W. M. (2025). ‘…And the evidence was irrefutable’: the politics of evidence in the world commission on dams. Geogr. J. 191:e70002. doi: 10.1111/geoj.70002 Shim H. Shin K. (2022). Empirical analysis of evidence-based policymaking in r&d programmes. Sustainability (Switzerland) 14:311. doi: 10.3390/su14010311, PMID: 40607831 Shtatina M. A. Shmelev I. V. Cenerelli A. (2021). Implementation of the “regulatory guillotine” and development of the administrative law. SHS Web Conf. 118:03014. doi: 10.1051/shsconf/202111803014 Silva S. S. D. Feldmann P. R. Spers R. G. Bambini M. D. (2019). Analysis of the process of technology transfer in public research institutions: the Embrapa agrobiology case. Innov. Manag. Rev. 16, 375–390. doi: 10.1108/INMR-05-2018-0024 Siow M.-L. Ramachandran S. Shuib A. Mohammad Afandi S. H. (2015). Adapting evidence-based intervention in rural tourism policies: pragmatic benchmarking considerations for tourism business operations in Semporna, Sabah, Malaysia. Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes 7, 473–485. doi: 10.1108/WHATT-06-2015-0031 Siyanbola W. Adeyeye A. Olaopa O. Hassan O. (2016). Science, technology and innovation indicators in policy-making: the Nigerian experience. Palgrave Commun. 2, 1–9. doi: 10.1057/palcomms.2016.15 Spiel C. Schober B. Strohmeier D. Spiel C. Schober B. Strohmeier D. (2018). Implementing intervention research into public policy-the "I3-approach". Prev. Sci. 19, 337–346. doi: 10.1007/s11121-016-0638-3, PMID: 26922431 Stadelmaier J. Rehfuess E. Forberger S. Eisele-Metzger A. Nagavci B. Schünemann H. . (2022). Using GRADE evidence to decision frameworks to support the process of health policy-making: an example application regarding taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages. Eur. J. Pub. Health 32, 92–100. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckac077 Straf M. L. Schwandt T. A. Prewitt K. (2012). Using science as evidence in public policy. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Strehlenert H. Richter-Sundberg L. Nyström M. E. Hasson H. (2015). Evidence-informed policy formulation and implementation: A comparative case study of two national policies for improving health and social care in Sweden. Implement. Sci. 10:169. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0359-1, PMID: 26642783 Suazo-Galdames I. (2024). Impact of university-school collaborations on students’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors towards climate action and sustainability. Revista Ibérica de Sistemas e Tecnologias de Informação E71, 377–388. Suazo-Galdames I. de Toro X. (2024). Experiences of community engagement between higher education institutions and schools for the promotion of STEM disciplines. Rev. Ibér. Sist. Tecnol. Inf. E71, 592–610. Suazo-Galdames I. de Toro X. Acevedo D. (2024). Bridging science and society: the role of university science communication centers. Eur. J. Educ. Psychol. 17, 1–25. doi: 10.32457/ejep.v17i1.2551 Suazo-Galdames I. Saracostti M. (2025). Educational alliances for climate action: Analysis of partnerships between universities and schools in education for sustainability. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 75–86. Tachino T. Tachino T. (2012). Theorizing uptake and knowledge mobilization: a case for intermediary genre. Written Commun. 29, 455–476. doi: 10.1177/0741088312457908 Tangney P. Howes M. (2016). The politics of evidence-based policy: a comparative analysis of climate adaptation in Australia and the UK. Environ. Plann. C Gov. Policy 34, 1115–1134. doi: 10.1177/0263774x15602023 Taschner N. P. de Almeida L. G. Orsi C. (2021). Revising the “hype pipeline” model in scientific communication. Front. Commun. 6:601023. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2021.601023 Torres-Bernal R. G. Mejía-Campó N. Huayta-Franco Y. J. (2024). Problemas y desafíos de las Políticas Públicas Educativas en América Latina: Una revisión sistemática. Comuni@ cción 15, 167–180. doi: 10.33595/2226-1478.15.2.1052 Turnpenny J. Lorenzoni I. Jones M. (2009). Noisy and definitely not normal: responding to wicked issues in the environment, energy and health. Environ. Sci. Pol. 12, 347–358. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2009.01.004 Uneke C. J. Ezeoha A. E. Ndukwe C. D. Oyibo P. G. Onwe F. Igbinedion E. B. . (2011). Individual and organisational capacity for evidence use in policy making in Nigeria: an exploratory study of the perceptions of Nigeria health policy makers. Evid. Policy 7, 251–276. doi: 10.1332/174426411X591744 Uneke C. Sombie I. Johnson E. Uneke B. Okolo S. (2022). Promoting the use of evidence in health policy-making in the economic Commission of the West African States Region: exploring the perception of policy-makers on the necessity of an evidence-based policy-making guidance. Ann. Afr. Med. 21, 223–230. doi: 10.4103/aam.aam_90_20, PMID: 36204907 Urcuqui-Bustamante M. Selfa T. Ashcraft M. Asbjornsen H. Jones W. Manson H. . (2023). Using science-based role-play simulations to inform payment for hydrological services program design in Mexico. Environ. Sci. Pol. 139, 71–82. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2022.10.016 Van Kammen J. Jansen C. W. Bonsel G. J. Kremer J. A. M. Evers J. L. H. Wladimiroff J. W. (2006). Technology assessment and knowledge brokering: the case of assisted reproduction in the Netherlands. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 22, 302–306. doi: 10.1017/S026646230605118X, PMID: 16984057 Vesely A. Ochrana F. Nekola M. (2018). When evidence is not taken for granted: the use and perception of evidence in the Czech Republic ministries. NISPAcee J. Public Adm. Policy 11, 219–234. doi: 10.2478/nispa-2018-0020 Wahabi H. Al-Ansary L. Wahabi H. A. Al-Ansary L. A. (2011). Innovative teaching methods for capacity building in knowledge translation. BMC Med. Educ. 11:85. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-11-85, PMID: 21999174 Walker L. A. Lawrence N. S. Chambers C. D. Wood M. Barnett J. Durrant H. . (2019). Supporting evidence-informed policy and scrutiny: A consultation of UK research professionals. PLoS One 14:e0214136. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214136, PMID: 30913236 Wan K. Shackley S. Doherty R. Shi Z. Zhang P. Golding N. . (2020). Science-policy interplay on air pollution governance in China. Environ. Sci. Pol. 107, 150–157. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2020.03.003 Waqa G. Mavoa H. Snowdon W. Moodie M. Nadakuitavuki R. Mc Cabe M. . (2013). Participants' perceptions of a knowledge-brokering strategy to facilitate evidence-informed policy-making in Fiji. BMC Public Health 13:725. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-725, PMID: 23919672 Waqa G. Mavoa H. Snowdon W. Moodie M. Schultz J. McCabe M. . (2013). Knowledge brokering between researchers and policymakers in Fiji to develop policies to reduce obesity: A process evaluation. Implement. Sci. 8:74. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-74, PMID: 23816188 Webster J. Waqa G. Thow A. Allender S. Lung T. Woodward M. . (2022). Scaling-up food policies in the Pacific Islands: protocol for policy engagement and mixed methods evaluation of intervention implementation. Nutr. J. 21:8. doi: 10.1186/s12937-022-00761-5, PMID: 35105346 Weldon I. Parkhurst J. (2022). Governing evidence use in the nutrition policy process: evidence and lessons from the 2020 Canada food guide. Nutr. Rev. 80, 467–478. doi: 10.1093/nutrit/nuab105, PMID: 35043195 Whicher A. (2021). Evolution of policy labs and use of design for policy in UK government. Policy Des. Pract. 4, 252–270. doi: 10.1080/25741292.2021.1883834 Wilcox A. (2003). Evidence-based youth justice? Some valuable lessons from an evaluation for the youth justice board. Youth Justice 3, 21–35. doi: 10.1177/147322540300300103 Willemsen M. C. (2018). Scientific evidence and policy learning. Tobacco control policy in the Netherlands: Between economy, public health, and ideology. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 165–182. Williamson A. Barker D. Green S. D'Este C. Davies H. T. O. Jorm L. . (2019). Increasing the capacity of policy agencies to use research findings: a stepped-wedge trial. Health Res. Policy Syst. 17:14. doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0408-8, PMID: 30728034 Wilson D. C. Smith N. A. Blakey N. C. Shaxson L. (2007). Using research-based knowledge to underpin waste and resources policy. Waste Manag. Res. 25, 247–256. doi: 10.1177/0734242X07079154, PMID: 17612325 Wolf E. Van Dooren W. Wolf E. E. A. Van Dooren W. (2017). How policies become contested: a spiral of imagination and evidence in a large infrastructure project. Policy. Sci. 50, 449–468. doi: 10.1007/s11077-017-9275-3 Woodson T. Boutilier S. (2022). Impacts for whom? Assessing inequalities in NSF-funded broader impacts using the inclusion-immediacy criterion. Sci. Public Policy 49, 168–178. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scab072 Yan L. Fang W. Delong E. Neal B. Peterson E. Huang Y. . (2014). Population impact of a high cardiovascular risk management program delivered by village doctors in rural China: design and rationale of a large, cluster-randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health 14:345. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-345, PMID: 24721435