Evidence for Informing Health Policy Development in Low- Income Countries (LICS): Perspectives of Policy Actors in Uganda

Document Type: Original Article

Authors

1 WHO Regional Office for Africa, Brazzaville, Congo

2 Regional East African Community Health (REACH) Policy Initiative, Kampala, Uganda

3 College of Health Sciences, Makerere University Medical School, Kampala, Uganda

Abstract

Background
Although there is a general agreement on the benefits of evidence informed health policy development given resource constraints especially in Low-Income Countries (LICs), the definition of what evidence is, and what evidence is suitable to guide decision-making is still unclear. Our study is contributing to filling this knowledge gap. We aimed to explore health policy actors’ views regarding what evidence they deemed appropriate to guide health policy development.
 
Methods
Using exploratory qualitative methods, we conducted interviews with 51 key informants using an indepth interview guide. We interviewed a diverse group of stakeholders in health policy development and knowledge translation in the Uganda health sector. Data were analyzed using inductive content analysis techniques.
 
Results
Different stakeholders lay emphasis on different kinds of evidence. While donors preferred international evidence and Ministry of  Health (MoH) officials looked to local evidence, district health managers preferred local evidence, evidence from routine monitoring and evaluation, and reports from service providers. Service providers on the other hand preferred local evidence and routine monitoring and evaluation reports whilst researchers preferred systematic reviews and clinical trials. Stakeholders preferred evidence covering several aspects impacting on decision-making highlighting the fact that although policy actors look for factual information, they also require evidence on context and implementation feasibility of a policy decision.
 
Conclusion
What LICslike Uganda categorize as evidence suitable for informing policy encompasses several types with no consensus on what is deemed as most appropriate. Evidence must be of high quality, applicable, acceptable to the users, and informing different aspects of decision-making.

Keywords

Main Subjects


  1. Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, et al. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof 2006; 26: 13-24. doi: 10.1002/chp.47
  2. Choi BC, Pang T, Lin V, Puska P, Sherman G, Goddard M, et al. Evidence based public health policy and practice: Can scientists and policy makers work together? J Epidemiol Community Health 2005; 59: 632-7. doi: 10.1136/jech.2004.031765
  3. Lomas J, Culyer T, McCutcheon C, McAuley L, Law S. Conceptualizing and Combining evidence for health system guidance [internet]. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, 2005. Available from: http://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/migrated/pdf/insightAction/evidence_e.pdf
  4. Aaserud M, Lewin S, Innvaer S, Paulsen EJ, Dahlgren AT, Trommald M, et al. Translating research into policy and practice in developing countries: a case study of magnesium sulphate for pre-eclampsia. BMC Health Serv Res 2005, 5: 68.
  5. Varkevisser CM, Mwaluko GM, Le Grand A. Research in action: the training approach of the Joint Health Systems Research Project for the Southern African Region. Health Policy Plan 2001; 16: 281-91.
  6. Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. Barriers and Facilitators of the Use of Evidence by Policy makers: an updated systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 2014; 14: 2. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-2
  7. Overseas Development Institute. The RAPID Framework for Assessing Research-Policy Links. Research and Policy in Development. ODI; 2014.
  8. Mubyazi GM, Gonzalez-Block MA. Research influence on antimalarial drug policy change in Tanzania: case study of replacing chloroquine with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine as the first-line drug. Malar J 2005; 4: 51.
  9. Oxman AD, Schunemann HJ, Fretheim A. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 14. Reporting guidelines. Health Res Policy Syst 2006; 4: 26. doi:  10.1186/1478-4505-4-26
  10. Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Fretheim A, Lewin S. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 17: Dealing with insufficient research evidence. Health Res Policy Syst 2009; 7: S17.
  11. Pang T. Evidence to action in the developing world: what evidence is needed? Bull World Health Organ 2007; 85: 247. doi: 10.2471/blt.07.040824
  12. Ritter A. How do drug policy makers access research evidence? Int J of Drug Policy 2009; 20: 70-5. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2007.11.017
  13. Oxman AD, Schunemann HJ, Fretheim A. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 7. Deciding what evidence to include. Health Res Policy Syst 2006; 4: 19.
  14. Innvaer S, Vist G, Trommald M, Oxman A. Health policy-makers’ perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy 2002; 7: 239-44.
  15. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336: 924. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD
  16. Shampa N. Case Studies: Getting Research into Policy and Practice (GRIPP). London: John Snow International; 2007
  17. Sophie S, Julius C. Evidence-Based Policymaking: What is it? How does it work? What relevance for developing countries? London: Overseas Development Institute; 2005.
  18. Pollard A, Court J. How Civil Society Organisations use evidence to influence policy processes: A literature review. ODI Working paper 249. London: ODI; 2005.
  19. Allen P, Black N, Clarke A, Fulop N. Studying the Organsiation and the Delivery of Health Services: Research Methods. London: Routledge; 2001.
  20. Nabyonga Orem J, Marchal B, Mafigiri D, Ssengooba F, Macq J, Da Silveira VC, et al. Perspectives on the role of stakeholders in knowledge translation in health policy development in Uganda. BMC Health Serv Re 2013; 13: 324. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-324
  21. Bernard HR. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press; 2006.
  22. Graneheim UH, Lundman B.  Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthness. Nurse Educ Today 2004; 25: 105-12. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001
  23. Basaza RK, Thomas SO, Chap I. Players and processes behind the national health insurance scheme: a case study of Uganda. BMC Health Serv Res 2013; 13: 1. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-357
  24. Sutcliff S, Court J. Evidence-Based Policymaking: What is it?  How does it work? What relevance for developing countries? London, UK: Overseas Development Institute; 2005.
  25. Nanyunja M, Nabyonga Orem J, Kato F, Kaggwa M, Katureebe C, Saweka J. Malar Res Treat 2011; 2011: 683167. doi: 10.4061/2011/683167
  26. Hutchinson E, Droti B, Gibb D, Chishinga N, Hoskins S, Phiri S, Parkhurst J. Translating evidence into policy in low-income countries: lessons from co-trimoxazole preventive therapy. Bull World Health Organ 2011; 89: 312-6. doi: 10.2471/BLT.10.077743
  27. Haynes AS, Gillespie JA, Derrick GE, Hall WD, Redman S, Chapman S, et al. Galvanizers, guides, champions, and shields: the many ways that policymakers use public health researchers. Milbank Q 2011; 89: 564-98. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2011.00643.x
  28. Orton L, Lloyd-Williams F, Taylor-Robinson D, O’Flaherty M, Capewell S. The use of research evidence in public health decision making processes: systematic review. PLoS One 2011; 6: e21704. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0021704
  29. Whitehead M, Petticrew M, Graham H, Macintyre SJ, Bambra C, Egan M. Evidence for public health policy on inequalities: 2: Assembling the evidence jigsaw. J Epidemiol Community Health; 2004. 58: 817-21. doi: 10.1136/jech.2003.015297
  30. Quazi ZS, Gaidhane A, and Zodpey S. Linking research evidence to health policy and practice. Journal of Public Administration and Policy Research 2010; 2: 68-73.
  31. Hutchinson E. Acting on the Evidence. Health Insights. Brighton: IDS; 2009.
  32. Lavis J, Davies H, Oxman A, Denis JL, Golden-Biddle K, Ferlie E. Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005; 10: 35-48. doi: 10.1258/1355819054308549
  33. Young J. Research, policy and practice: why developing countries are different. J Int Dev 2005; 17: 727-34. doi: 10.1002/jid.1235
  34. Carden F. Knowledge to Policy: Making the Most of Development Research. Ottawa: IDRC/Sage; 2009.
  35. Yamey G. What are the barriers to scaling up health interventions in low and middle income countries? A qualitative study of academic leaders in implementation science. Global Health 2012. 8: 11. doi: 10.1186/1744-8603-8-11
  36. Bernard Appiah, Weak research capacity holds back progress on diseases [internet]. 2013. Available from: http://www.scidev.net/global/r-d/news/               weak-research-capacity-holds-back-progress-on-diseases.html
  37. InterAcademy Medical Panel. A Call for Action to Strengthen Health Research Capacity in Low and Middle Income Countries; 2013. [cited March 2015]. Available from: http://www.iamp-online.org/sites/             iamp-online.org/files/IAMPCallforActiononRSC.pdf
  38. Bennett G, Jessani N. Knowledge translation toolkit: A resource for researchers. Ottowa: Sage; 2011.
  39. Meyer M. The Rise of the Knowledge Broker. Science Communication 2010; 32: 118-27. doi: 10.1177/1075547009359797
  40. Knight C, Lyall C. Knowledge brokers: the role of intermediaries in producing research impact. Evidence  Policy 2013; 9: 309-16. doi: 10.1332/174426413x671941