A Process Evaluation to Assess Contextual Factors Associated With the Uptake of a Rapid Response Service to Support Health Systems’ Decision-Making in Uganda

Document Type : Original Article


1 Clinical Epidemiology Unit, School of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda

2 Regional East Africa Community Health Policy Initiative (REACH-PI) (Uganda Country Node), Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda

3 Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda


Although proven feasible, rapid response services (RRSs) to support urgent decision and policymaking are still a fairly new and innovative strategy in several health systems, more especially in low-income countries. There are several information gaps about these RRSs that exist including the factors that make them work in different contexts and in addition what affects their uptake by potential end users.
We used a case study employing process evaluation methods to determine what contextual factors affect the utilization of a RRS in Uganda. We held in-depth interviews with researchers, knowledge translation (KT) specialists and policy-makers from several research and policy-making institutions in Uganda’s health sector. We analyzed the data using thematic analysis to develop categories and themes about activities and structures under given program components that affected uptake of the service.
We identified several factors under three themes that have both overlapping relations and also reinforcing loops amplifying each other: Internal factors (those factors that were identified as over which the RRS had full [or almost full] control); external factors (factors over which the service had only partial influence, a second party holds part of this influence); and environmental factors (factors over which the service had no or only remote control if at all). Internal factors were the design of the service and resources available for it, while the external factors were the service’s visibility, integrity and relationships. Environmental factors were political will and health system policy and decision-making infrastructure.
For health systems practitioners considering RRSs, knowing what factors will affect uptake and therefore modifying them within their contexts is important to ensure efficient use and successful utilization of the mechanisms.


Main Subjects

  1. Mijumbi RM, Oxman AD, Panisset U, Sewankambo NK. Feasibility of a rapid response mechanism to meet policymakers’ urgent needs for research evidence about health systems in a low income country: a case study. Implement Science. 2014;9:114. doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0114-z
  2. European Union - Community Research and Development Information Service. Final Report Summary - SURE (Supporting the Use of Research Evidence (SURE) for Policy in African Health Systems). http://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/161252_en.html. Published 2015.
  3. Lavis JN, Lomas J, Hamid M, Sewankambo NK. Assessing country-level efforts to link research to action. Bull World Health Organ. 2007;84:620-628.
  4. Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:2. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-2
  5. Lavis J, Davies H, Oxman A, Denis J, Golden-Biddle K, Ferlie E. Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;Suppl 1:35-48.
  6. East African Community. Regional East African Community Health (REACH) Policy Initiative Project. 2005; http://www.who.int/evidence/resources/country_reports/en/index5.html.
  7. WHO-Evidence Informed Policy Network. Supporting the Use of Research Evidence (SURE) for policy in African health systems. Published 2009.
  8. Rosenberg N. Factors affecting the diffusion of technology. Explorations in Economic-History. In: Rosenberg N, ed. Perspectives on Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1972:189-212.
  9. Hall BH, Khan B. Adoption of New Technology. In: Jones DC, ed. New Economy Handbook. New York: Academic Press; 2002.
  10. Kitson A, Harvey G, McCormack B. Enabling the implementation of evidence based practice: a conceptual framework. Qual Health Care. 1998;7(3):149-158. doi:10.1136/qshc.7.3.149
  11. Glisson C. The Organizational Context of Children's Mental Health Services. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2002;5(4):233-253. doi:10.1023/a:1020972906177
  12. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovation in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):581-629. doi:10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x
  13. Fleuren M, Wiefferink K, Paulussen T. Determinants of innovation within health care organizations: Literature review and Delphi study. Int J Qual Health Care. 2004;16(2):107-123. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzh030
  14. Estabrooks CA, Squires JE, Hutchinson AM, et al. Assessment of variation in the alberta context tool: the contribution of unit level contextual factors and specialty in Canadian pediatric acute care settings. BMC Health Services Research. 2011;11:251. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-11-251
  15. Squires JE, Graham ID, Hutchinson AM, et al. Identifying the domains of context important to implementation science: a study protocol. Implement Sci. 2015;10:135. doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0325-y
  16. Kimberly J, Cook JM. Organizational Measurement and the Implementation of Innovations in Mental Health Services. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2008;35(1):11-20. doi:10.1007/s10488-007-0143-x
  17. French B. Contextual Factors Influencing Research Use in Nursing. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2005;2(4):172-183. doi:10.1111/j.1741-6787.2005.00034.x
  18. Graham I, Logan J, Harrison M, et al. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26(1):13-24.
  19. Banister EM, Leadbeater BJR, Marshall EA. Knowledge Translation in Context: Indigenous, Policy, and Community Settings. University of Toronto Press; 2011.
  20. Bower AG. The Diffusion and Value of Healthcare Information Technology. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation; 2004.
  21. Bliss MJ, Emshoff JG. Workbook for Designing a Process Evaluation. Georgia: Department of Human Resources, Division of Public Health; 2002.
  22. Brief 4: Developing Process Evaluation Questions 2009. http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/evaluation/pdf/brief4.pdf.
  23. Healy J, Maxwell J, Hong PK, Lin V. Responding to Requests for Information on Health Systems from Policy Makers in Asian Countries. http://www.who.int/alliance-hpsr/RespondingRequests_HS_AsianCountries_Healy.pdf. Published 2007.
  24. Rogers ME. Atributes of innovations and their rate of adoption. 4th ed. Diffusion of Innovations: The Fee Press; 1995:204-251.
  25. Spath D, Fähnrich KP. Advances in Services Innovations. Springer; 2006.
  26. Hirose A, Hall S, Memon Z, Hussein J. Bridging evidence, policy, and practice to strengthen health systems for improved maternal and newborn health in Pakistan. Health Res Policy Syst. 2015;13(Suppl 1):47.
  27. Khangura S, Polisena J, Clifford TJ, Farrah K, Kamel C. An emerging approach to evidence synthesis in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(1):20-27.
  28. Arthur D Little. Managing integrity and innovation for sustainable performance. Integrity + Innovation = Sustainable Performance. http://www.adlittle.com/downloads/tx_adlreports/ADL_IIP_Report.pdf. Published 2007.
  29. Bar-Yam Y. General Features of Complex Systems. Oxford, UK: Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS UNESCO Publishers); 2002.
  • Receive Date: 01 April 2016
  • Revise Date: 10 January 2017
  • Accept Date: 11 January 2017
  • First Publish Date: 01 October 2017