The paper addresses the well-documented challenge of integrating research evidence into public policy. It highlights that successful policymaking requires more than just presenting evidence, necessitating collaborative models and effective communication. The authors focus on 'Policy Labs' as one engagement approach, clarifying that they refer to the activity or process, not a specific institution or physical space. The aim is twofold: to offer a practical guide to running Policy Labs based on their experience and to show how these labs align with established enablers for evidence uptake in policymaking. The authors acknowledge the diversity of activities referred to as 'Policy Labs' but focus on their specific, practitioner-based approach.

The authors draw upon two systematic reviews (Oliver et al., 2014; Oliver and Cairney, 2019) to identify key enablers for bridging the evidence-policy gap. These enablers are grouped into three principles: Trust, Translation, and Timing. 'Trust' emphasizes collaboration and relationships between academics and policymakers, including high-quality, transparent research. 'Translation' highlights the need for clear and accessible communication of research findings, tailored to policymakers' needs and the specific policy context. 'Timing' underscores the importance of engaging policymakers early and ensuring evidence is available when policy decisions are made. The reviews reveal challenges including the accessibility of research reports to decision-makers and the difficulty in selecting appropriate evidence within time constraints.

The authors detail their eight-step approach to running Policy Labs, based on their experience conducting 15 labs between 2015 and 2019. These steps include: 1. Planning (20-40 days of staff time), 2. Establishing the lab's purpose (addressing issues at various stages of policymaking), 3. Selecting and inviting participants (including diverse stakeholders, potentially with opposing views), 4. Synthesizing and communicating evidence (providing briefing packs with accessible summaries of evidence), 5. Planning the agenda and facilitation (using participatory decision-making techniques), 6. Conducting the Policy Lab (incorporating breakout and plenary sessions), 7. Reporting results (producing accessible reports such as policy briefs or infographics), and 8. Creating and supporting new coalitions (empowering participants to become advocates for the findings). The authors illustrate these steps with examples from their Policy Labs, covering topics such as bariatric surgery for diabetes, caries prevention, and the UK's global research position. Different lab formats are presented, from 4-hour sessions to 1.5-day events, adapting to the specific context and needs.

The authors argue that their Policy Lab approach effectively embodies the enablers identified in the literature. First, the labs build networks and collaborations between academics and policymakers by bringing together individuals with diverse perspectives in a collaborative environment. Second, they synthesize evidence in a robust and accessible format using briefing packs and concise reports tailored to policymakers' needs. Third, the labs offer timely evidence by focusing on current policy issues and engaging policymakers early in the process. Examples of Policy Labs and their outcomes are detailed, showcasing how they addressed various challenges and influenced policy changes, including contributions to the update of NICE guidelines on diabetes treatment and influencing the independent review of the Mental Health Act. Challenges in measuring long-term impact are also acknowledged.

The authors emphasize the importance of viewing Policy Labs not as isolated events but as part of an ongoing process for engaging academics and policymakers. They argue that their approach effectively addresses the challenges of bringing evidence closer to policymaking by building trust, translating evidence accessibly, and ensuring timely access to relevant information. The effectiveness of Policy Labs is enhanced by their flexibility to be used at any stage of the policymaking cycle. The authors' model aligns with elements of design thinking, advocating for the co-creation of solutions and empowering participants to become advocates for change.

The paper concludes that Policy Labs, when designed and implemented using the described eight-step process, offer a valuable approach for integrating evidence into public policy. While acknowledging limitations in assessing long-term impact, the authors highlight the value of these labs in fostering collaboration, facilitating effective communication, and ensuring timely evidence access. Future research could focus on developing more robust methods for evaluating the long-term impact of Policy Labs and exploring further applications of design thinking principles in this context.

The authors acknowledge the difficulty in definitively measuring the long-term impact of Policy Labs on policy decisions. Attributing specific policy changes solely to a Policy Lab is challenging due to the complexity of the policymaking process. Further research is needed to establish more robust methods for evaluating the long-term effects of these initiatives.