Table 1.

Characteristics of retrieved documents

Category	Criteria	Number N = 109		Percent = yes
		Yes	No
What it covers	Topical/relevant issue from the perspective of policy makers with an explicit process for determining topically/relevance (e.g., priority setting exercise, rapid response service).	35	74	32%
	Document explicitly addresses at least four or more of the following: political and/or health system contexts, problem, options, implementation considerations, and cost implications.	67	42	61%
What it includes	Draws on synthesized/assessed research evidence that has been assessed for its local applicability.	39	70	36%
	Incorporates the tacit knowledge of policymaker/stakeholders that has been collected in a systematic way and reported in a transparent manner.	20	89	18%
For whom its targeted	Explicitly targets policymakers/stakeholders as the key audience.	72	37	66%
	Engages policymakers/stakeholders in merit review.	21	88	19%
How its packaged	Organized to highlight decision relevant information.	72	37	66%
	Understandable/lay language used.	87	22	80%
	In format that is readily appreciated (e.g., graded entry).	98	11	90%
How use is supported	Contextualized through online commentaries/briefings provided by policymakers/stakeholders.	5	104	5%
Features and content	Equity considerations discussed or implicitly considered, e.g., through topic or analysis.	36	73	33%
	Recommendations provided.	47	62	43%
	Methods described.	51	58	47%
	Quality of research evidence and/ or limitations outlined.	29	80	27%
	Reference list provided.	84	25	77%
	Local applicability discussed, including case examples to highlight how a particular policy might be adapted to local circumstances.	44	65	40%
	Key messages or summary points provided.	63	46	58%

Adapted from [7] and informed by our understanding of useful characteristics appreciated by end users of summary documents [2,5].