What factors influence evidence use in policy? An updated systematic map

Abstract In 2014, a large systematic map found that relational factors were amongst the most frequently reported facilitators of evidence use in policy. Since then, there has been a growth in evidence-use initiatives and research, many of which have attempted to address relational factors. In this timely updated map, we describe the current state of research about which factors influence evidence use in policy. A search strategy combining ‘evidence’, ‘barriers and facilitators’ and ‘policy/policymakers’ was used to identify studies across 15 electronic databases between 2012 and 2022. Studies were screened for those that include empirical data about evidence use in policy. Data extraction enabled descriptive analyses characterising studies in terms of focus, topic area, setting, and types of factors influencing use. Two thousand, one hundred and ninety-nine studies were included, a 20-fold increase over 10 years. The most commonly reported factors influencing use were the relevance of evidence, and then organisational (resources, skills, personnel and managerial support). A large number of studies reported on evidence-use interventions ( n = 877) of which 379 were evaluations. Findings may indicate a shift towards relational and systemic thinking about evidence use. There appears to be a growing recognition of the resourcing, work, time, and workforce required to embed evidence use within and between organisations. With this huge growth in the literature, particularly in new evidence use interventions being tested across policy sectors, continued review and mobilisation is necessary to effectively inform the design and implementation of evidence use interventions and research.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
Published
2026-09-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-08391-6
Primary Topic
Health Policy Implementation Science
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

What factors influence evidence use in policy? An updated systematic map

Hannah Forde, Tara Lamont, Elizabeth McGill, Sarah Nájera Espinosa et al.
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
Health Policy Implementation Science
article

What factors influence evidence use in policy? An updated systematic map

Hannah Forde, Tara Lamont, Elizabeth McGill, Sarah Nájera Espinosa, Matthew Hepplewhite, Theo Lorenc, K.L. Akerlof, Joseph Lam, Virginia Castellano Pleguezuelo, L. Williamson, Syka Iqbal, Jane Falconer, Melissa Mouthaan, Elizabeth Day, Axelle Cordier, Peter Jones, Harith Farooq, Elaine Toomey, Moriasi Nyanchoka, Joel Malin, Erik Persson, Laura Lane, Laura von Klinggraeff, Léa Jaques, Ramisha Rahman, Clare FitzGerald, Philip Martin, Kathryn Oliver, Sean Grant, Julius Cesar Alejandre
article en

Abstract

Abstract In 2014, a large systematic map found that relational factors were amongst the most frequently reported facilitators of evidence use in policy. Since then, there has been a growth in evidence-use initiatives and research, many of which have attempted to address relational factors. In this timely updated map, we describe the current state of research about which factors influence evidence use in policy. A search strategy combining ‘evidence’, ‘barriers and facilitators’ and ‘policy/policymakers’ was used to identify studies across 15 electronic databases between 2012 and 2022. Studies were screened for those that include empirical data about evidence use in policy. Data extraction enabled descriptive analyses characterising studies in terms of focus, topic area, setting, and types of factors influencing use. Two thousand, one hundred and ninety-nine studies were included, a 20-fold increase over 10 years. The most commonly reported factors influencing use were the relevance of evidence, and then organisational (resources, skills, personnel and managerial support). A large number of studies reported on evidence-use interventions ( n = 877) of which 379 were evaluations. Findings may indicate a shift towards relational and systemic thinking about evidence use. There appears to be a growing recognition of the resourcing, work, time, and workforce required to embed evidence use within and between organisations. With this huge growth in the literature, particularly in new evidence use interventions being tested across policy sectors, continued review and mobilisation is necessary to effectively inform the design and implementation of evidence use interventions and research.

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
Ikerbasque (ES), Twitter (United States) (US), University of Copenhagen (DK), Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques (FR), LinkedIn (United States) (US), University of Bradford (GB), University of Miami (US), George Mason University (US), King's College - North Carolina (US), St George's, University of London (GB), University of Oregon (US), Oregon Department of Education (US), Lúrio University (MZ), University of Oxford (GB), London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB), Basque Centre for Climate Change (ES), College of St George (GB), COPE Galway (IE), University College London (GB), University of York (GB), Miami University (US), University of Maine at Augusta (US), University of Edinburgh (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Health Policy Implementation Science
DOIOpen Access PDFOpenAlex
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.