Evaluating Existing Processes for Uptake of Scientific Evidence on AMR

The CGD working paper “Evaluating Existing Processes for Uptake of Scientific Evidence on AMR” (Kahn-Woods & McDonnell, 2025) analyses how scientific evidence is—or fails to be—translated into AMR policy and action, to inform the design of a prospective Independent Panel for Evidence for Action (IPEA). Using the Knowledge-to-Action framework and 15 expert interviews, the study finds that while AMR research is abundant, it remains fragmented, human-health focused, and poorly aligned across the One Health sectors. Evidence synthesis and translation into usable policy tools are under-resourced, and policymaker awareness, institutional capacity, and coordination between human, animal, and environmental health actors remain weak—especially in LMICs. Case studies of EVIPNet/RADAAR and PACCARB highlight the value of local co-development, credibility, and continuity, but also the persistent challenges of funding and implementation. The authors recommend that the IPEA ensure equitable One Health representation, context-sensitive and modular guidance, stronger links between research and implementation, alignment with existing initiatives, focus on a few priority areas, and sustained investment in local capacity and long-term engagement to make AMR evidence actionable and policy-relevant worldwide.