Evidence Informed Health Policymaking Grant

Aim: Enhance the use of research evidence in health policymaking across all tiers of government.

Work Package 1: Formative Research

First, we will explore the current understanding and competencies of policymakers regarding EIP through a qualitative Participatory Policy Analysis (PPA) approach (Sapkota et al 2024). Policymakers in Nepal often lack structured mechanisms for accessing and appraising research evidence, which impedes their decision-making. We will recruit 50 stakeholders representing government, civil society from local, provincial and federal levels to participate in six workshops to explore:

• (a) Specific barriers preventing the systematic use of evidence in Nepal’s health policy;
• (b) How do policymakers at different levels (federal, provincial, local) engage with evidence?
• (c) What kinds of evidence do they find to be useful for policymaking, and why?
• (d) What knowledge brokering mechanisms (e.g. training, stakeholder dialogues, advisory groups) are most effective in Nepal’s health system?
• (e) What institutional changes (e.g., policy mandates, capacity-building initiatives) are needed to support EIP?
• (f) Can digital tools (e.g., health data dashboards, mobile platforms) improve accessibility and application of research in policymaking?

This Work Pac will identify critical knowledge gaps and barriers to evidence use at all levels. This aligns with the BA’s call to identify systemic barriers to EIP.

Work Package 2: Capacity Building of Policymakers and Researchers

Capacity-building is essential to ensure sustainable evidence use, as previous studies in Nepal highlighted the limited research literacy among policymakers and the need for targeted training (Dhimal et al 2016; Tiwari et al 2021). This project will design and implement tailored programmes for:

• Training of civil servants/administrators to interpret health research evidence and use it in decision-making.
• Conduct policy dialogues (sensitization workshop) with Members of Parliaments (MPs) at federal, provincial and local levels to enhance their understanding of EIP.
• Provide training to researchers on evidence synthesis/systematic review and policy brief writing.

Work Package 3: Establish National Evidence Synthesis Centre

A major barrier to EIP is the lack of institutionalised knowledge translation platforms. For almost a decade it has been argued that Nepal urgently needs a National Evidence Synthesis Centre (NESC) to provide actionable policy recommendations (Simkhada et al 2023). Evidence synthesis is crucial for quality control and should be embedded in national policy structures (Sathian et al. 2023). Informed by findings from WP1–2, we will convene stakeholder meetings at all three levels of government before setting up a NESC at Kathmandu University (KU); this university has already provided an agreement.

The hub will be primarily run by existing KU researchers trained in WP2 and selected others from the Nepal Health Research Council (NHRC) and other HEIs of Nepal. We will seek further funding to sustain the centre. The NESC will:

• Act as a hub for synthesising research findings.
• Produce policy briefs tailored to decision-makers' needs.
• Facilitate direct engagement between researchers and policymakers.

Work 4: Evaluation and Sustainability

This project will establish a feedback loop for monitoring, evaluation, and iterative learning, involving:

• Embedding evidence-use tracking mechanisms.
• Supporting the Ministry of Health and Population and NHRC in developing a national repository of synthesised research which will be easily accessible to policymakers.
• Providing continuous learning opportunities for policymakers and researchers.

Evidence synthesis approaches must be embedded in national policymaking structures to improve public health outcomes (van Teijlingen et al. 2012). By addressing key questions—such as how contextual factors influence evidence use and how research evidence impacts health policy outcomes— this project will not only benefit Nepal but also provide valuable lessons for other Low- and-Middle Income Countries (LMICs) navigating similar governance challenges.