Barriers and facilitators of evidence-informed health policymaking in Nepal: A scoping review
4 affiliations
- 1Research and Innovation Office, University of Chester, Chester, United Kingdom
- 2School of Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, United Kingdom
- 3Green Tara Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal
- 4Department of Public Health, Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences, Dhulikhel, Nepal
Abstract
Background: Evidence-informed health policymaking (EIPM) is essential for strengthening health systems and achieving equitable health outcomes. Despite policy commitments in Nepal, the translation of research evidence into policy and practice remains limited. This scoping review synthesizes the barriers and facilitators influencing EIPM across health policy domains in Nepal. Methods: We conducted a scoping review following the Arksey and O’Malley framework and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Peer-reviewed studies published between 2015 and 2025 that examined barriers and facilitators of EIPM in Nepal were identified through searches of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Global Health. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and conducted descriptive and thematic analyses. Results: Of 2,139 records identified, 26 studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies covered maternal and neonatal health, non-communicable diseases (NCDs), nutrition, emergency care, health systems governance, climate-health, public health regulation, and COVID-19 ethics. Barriers were grouped into five themes: systemic and governance challenges; capacity and resource constraints; evidence-related issues; contextual and cultural factors; and operational gaps. Common barriers included political interference, fragmented coordination, workforce shortages, inadequate funding, donor-driven agendas, poor dissemination of research, and limited implementation guidance. Facilitators clustered into four themes: institutional and structural enablers, political and leadership commitment, capacity building and stakeholder engagement, and global and donor support. Sector-specific differences were observed, with socio-cultural barriers more prominent in maternal and neonatal health, governance and coordination challenges particularly evident in NCD policies, and technical capacity and data limitations more pronounced in climate-health policy. Conclusions: Nepal’s EIPM landscape reflects strong commitment but uneven institutionalization. Strengthening governance, institutional capacity, evidence systems, and coordination across federal, provincial, and local institutions is essential to improve the translation of research into policy and practice. Institutionalizing EIPM requires not only producing evidence but also creating systems that routinely generate, translate, and use evidence for decision-making.
Related
- Barriers and facilitators to self-management among patients with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy: A qualitative study informed by the integrated theory of health behavior change
- Exploring difference of evidence-based and evidence-informed policymaking with AI-assisted search
- Supply, demand and use of economic evidence in vaccine policymaking in Africa: A scoping review
- Facilitators, Barriers and Reported Implementation Outcomes of Wide‐Awake Local Anaesthesia No Tourniquet in Hand Surgery Practice: A Systematic Scoping Review
- A Rapid Scoping Review of Resilience Facilitators and Barriers among Black Children and Young People in Canada
BibTeX
@article{simkhada2026barriers,
title = {{Barriers and facilitators of evidence-informed health policymaking in Nepal: A scoping review}},
author = {Padam Simkhada and Kaung Suu Lwin and Bikash Koirala and Akina Shrestha and Hridaya Devkota and Anju Vaidya and Bibha Simkhada},
journal = {PLOS One},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0358730},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0358730},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Barriers and facilitators of evidence-informed health policymaking in Nepal: A scoping review
AU - Padam Simkhada
AU - Kaung Suu Lwin
AU - Bikash Koirala
AU - Akina Shrestha
AU - Hridaya Devkota
AU - Anju Vaidya
AU - Bibha Simkhada
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/26
JO - PLOS One
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0358730
UR - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0358730
AB - Background: Evidence-informed health policymaking (EIPM) is essential for strengthening health systems and achieving equitable health outcomes. Despite policy commitments in Nepal, the translation of research evidence into policy and practice remains limited. This scoping review synthesizes the barriers and facilitators influencing EIPM across health policy domains in Nepal. Methods: We conducted a scoping review following the Arksey and O’Malley framework and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Peer-reviewed studies published between 2015 and 2025 that examined barriers and facilitators of EIPM in Nepal were identified through searches of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Global Health. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and conducted descriptive and thematic analyses. Results: Of 2,139 records identified, 26 studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies covered maternal and neonatal health, non-communicable diseases (NCDs), nutrition, emergency care, health systems governance, climate-health, public health regulation, and COVID-19 ethics. Barriers were grouped into five themes: systemic and governance challenges; capacity and resource constraints; evidence-related issues; contextual and cultural factors; and operational gaps. Common barriers included political interference, fragmented coordination, workforce shortages, inadequate funding, donor-driven agendas, poor dissemination of research, and limited implementation guidance. Facilitators clustered into four themes: institutional and structural enablers, political and leadership commitment, capacity building and stakeholder engagement, and global and donor support. Sector-specific differences were observed, with socio-cultural barriers more prominent in maternal and neonatal health, governance and coordination challenges particularly evident in NCD policies, and technical capacity and data limitations more pronounced in climate-health policy. Conclusions: Nepal’s EIPM landscape reflects strong commitment but uneven institutionalization. Strengthening governance, institutional capacity, evidence systems, and coordination across federal, provincial, and local institutions is essential to improve the translation of research into policy and practice. Institutionalizing EIPM requires not only producing evidence but also creating systems that routinely generate, translate, and use evidence for decision-making.
SN - 1932-6203
ER -