Barriers and facilitators of evidence-informed health policymaking in Nepal: A scoping review.

Padam Simkhada, Kaung Suu Lwin, Bikash Koirala, Akina Shrestha, Hridaya Devkota, Anju Vaidya, Bibha Simkhada

Journal: PloS one 2026;21(10):e0358730

PMID: 42932288

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.

Copyright: © 2026 Simkhada et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Address: Research and Innovation Office, University of Chester, Chester, United Kingdom.; School of Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, United Kingdom.; Research and Innovation Office, University of Chester, Chester, United Kingdom.; Green Tara Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.; Department of Public Health, Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences, Dhulikhel, Nepal.; Green Tara Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Bant logo

© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence

NED wishes to thank the following organisations for their support:

We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.