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

 Abstract  [ REVIEW | Article in Press ]

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.

Oliver, K., Malin, J., Akerlof, K.L. et al. What factors influence evidence use in policy? An updated systematic map. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. (2026). 
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-08391-6

Not a citation for Hodges' model, but I am grateful to Prof. Oliver and co-authors for being able to assist with data extraction using EPPI-Reviewer Screening Wizard. The preceding patience and guidance to complete the coding tasks was also invaluable in being transferable. I learned a great deal and it has been perversely reassuring (disheartening!) to see that the path to final publication is also 'circuitous' for academics.^  An additional lesson is building on existing work and publication (Oliver, 2014) to revisit a method and research question. (Updates to follow).

Previously: 'map' : 'systematic' : 'policy'

^A conclusion, much shared I believe: academic publishing is systematically dysfunctional.