Background: Evidence briefs for policy (EBP) draw on best-available data and research evidence (e.g., systematic reviews) to help clarify policy problems, frame options for addressing them, and identify implementation considerations for policymakers in a given context. An increasing number of governments, non-governmental organizations and research groups have been developing EBP on a wide variety of topics. However, the reporting characteristics of EBP vary across organizations due to a lack of internationally accepted standard reporting guidelines. This project aims to develop a STandard reporting guideline of Evidence briefs for Policy (STEP), which will encompass a reporting checklist and a STEP statement and a user manual. Methods: We will refer to and adapt the methods recommended by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network. The key actions include: (1) developing a protocol; (2) establishing an international multidisciplinary STEP working group (consisting of a Coordination Team and a Delphi Panel); (3) generating an initial draft of the potential items for the STEP reporting checklist through a comprehensive review of EBP-related literature and documents; (4) conducting a modified Delphi process to select and refine the reporting checklist; (5) using the STEP to evaluate published policy briefs in different countries; (6) finalizing the checklist; (7) developing the STEP statement and the user manual (8) translating the STEP into different languages; and (9) testing the reliability through real world use. Discussion: Our protocol describes the development process for STEP. It will directly address what and how information should be reported in EBP and contribute to improving their quality. The decision-makers, researchers, journal editors, evaluators, and other stakeholders who support evidence-informed policymaking through the use of mechanisms like EBP will benefit from the STEP.

At present, there exists no widely agreed upon set of study-design selection criteria for systematic reviews of health systems research, except for those proposed by the Cochrane Collaboration's Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) review group (which comprises randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series). We conducted a meta-review of the study-design selection criteria used in systematic reviews available in the McMaster University's Health Systems Evidence or the EPOC database. Of 414 systematic reviews, 13% did not indicate any study-design selection criteria. Of the 359 studies that described such criteria, 50% limited their synthesis to controlled trials and 68% to some or all of the designs defined by the EPOC criteria. Seven out of eight reviews identified at least one controlled trial that was relevant for the review topic. Seven percent of the reviews included either no or only one relevant primary study. Our meta-review reveals reviewers’ preferences for restricting synthesis to controlled experiments or study designs that comply with the EPOC criteria. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the current practices regarding study-design selection in systematic reviews of health systems research as well as alternative approaches.