Researcher and policymaker dialogue: the Policy BUDDIES Project in Western Cape Province, South Africa

Evaluation of a strategic academic-government partnership to advance COVID-19 clinical practice guidelines access and uptake in South Africa

INTRODUCTION

Academic-government partnerships are important to advance timely, responsive and relevant evidence for decision-making (policy, guideline, law and regulation) deliberations. Deliberate and strategic integrated knowledge translation (KT) approaches within such partnerships have been shown to facilitate evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM). We used Cochrane's KT Framework to map and analyse COVID-19 response activities instituted by a strategic academic-government partnership to support EIDM during the COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa.

METHODS

We used Cochrane's KT Framework to map and analyse COVID-19 response activities instituted by a strategic academic-government partnership to support EIDM during the COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa. The COVID-19 response activities included coproducing rapid therapeutics reviews, engaging stakeholders with review evidence, packaging and disseminating review products, facilitating access to rapid reviews for evidence users and adapting partnership processes for rapid review production.

RESULTS

This paper highlights the importance of (a) authentic partnerships between evidence producers and users (motivated by context-specific goals, trust and relationships); (b) intentional and systematic stakeholder engagement to promote the rapid exchange of information; (c) using tailored, responsive and relevant KT to promote the uptake of evidence and (d) monitoring and evaluating the implementation of KT to identify lessons learnt and adaptation of KT approaches.

CONCLUSION

In responding to future emergencies, a comprehensive KT strategy, including the expertise of KT practitioners and science communicators to make evidence and guideline recommendations accessible, should be embedded. Additionally, streamlining bureaucratic processes for approving and communicating information; identifying and addressing decision-maker capacity needs; engaging a range of stakeholders and integrating KT in usual decision-making processes, is recommended. Adequate investment by governments is needed for sustaining KT approaches that can enhance EIDM for improving public health outcomes.

Barriers and facilitators of translating doctoral research findings into policy: The case of a selected health sciences school in a South African university

Background

Although the barriers and facilitators of translating health research into policy are generally well documented, not much has been reported for universities in low-and middle-income countries. We identified and analyzed barriers and facilitators of translating doctoral research findings into policy in a selected health sciences school in a South African university.

Methods

The study adopted a quantitative descriptive research design. We conveniently collected data through an online questionnaire administered to 47 PhD graduates, 11 PhD final year students and 21 PhD supervisors of the School of Nursing and Public Health. Descriptive statistics was performed, and data were summarized using percentages.

Results

More than half (72.4 %) of the students reported not involving Department of Health during formulation of research questions for their projects and 62.1 % reported not directly sharing research findings with the Department of Health. 53.4 % of the students indicated that they attended Department of Health research days and only 39.7 % said they presented research findings at the meetings. Only 39.7 % of the students who shared their research results to the Department of Health received feedback. About 52.4 % of the academic supervisors believed the introduction of the quartile system as a measure of impact of publications may reduce policy impact. An individual PhD supervisor supervises an average of 6 PhD students at any given time. 85.7 % of PhD supervisors reported that they consider stakeholders needs/interests when assisting students to identify research topics.

Conclusion

The study revealed the need for universities to make policymakers aware of available evidence, conduct research that is informed by the Department of Health's research agenda, involve the Department of Health in identifying research projects, and disseminate findings using platforms accessible to policymakers. Other key considerations are political will to utilize evidence, packaging evidence in a user-friendly manner and building the capacity of policymakers to use evidence.

Characteristics of knowledge translation platforms and methods for evaluating them: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Knowledge translation platforms (KTPs) are intermediary organisations, initiatives or networks whose intent is to bridge the evidence into action divide. Strategies and tools include collaborative knowledge production, capacity building, information exchange and dialogue to facilitate relevant and timely engagement between researchers and decision-makers and other relevant stakeholders. With the wide range of definitions and descriptions of KTPs, there is a need to (1) provide a nuanced understanding of characteristics of KTPs and (2) assess and consolidate research methods used in mapping and evaluating KTPs to inform standardised process and impact evaluation.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This scoping review will follow the recommended and accepted methods for scoping reviews and reporting guidelines. Eligibility for inclusion is any conceptual or empirical health-related qualitative, quantitative and/or mixed method studies including (1) definitions, descriptions and models or frameworks of KTPs (including those that do not self-identify as KTPs, eg, university research centres) and (2) research methods for mapping and/or evaluating KTPs. Searches will be carried out in PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Embase, Global Health and Web of Science using a predetermined search strategy, without any date, language or geographical restrictions. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts. One reviewer will complete data extraction for all included studies, and another will check a sample of 50% of the included studies. The analysis and synthesis will provide (1) an understanding of the various characteristics of KTPs; (2) insight into characteristics or factors that make them resilient and/or adaptive to facilitate impact (ie, influence policy and practice); and (3) an overview of the various methods for mapping and evaluating KTPs. We will explore enhancing an existing framework for classifying KTPs, or perhaps even developing a new framework for identifying and monitoring KTPs if necessary and relevant.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This scoping review does not require ethics approval, as we will only include information from previously conducted studies and we will not involve human participants. The results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal for publication and as conference presentations.

A scoping review of researchers' involvement in health policy dialogue in Africa

BACKGROUND

Improving evidence-informed policy dialogue to support the development and implementation of national health policies is vital, but there is limited evidence on researchers' roles in policy dialogue processes in Africa. The objective of this study is to examine researchers' involvement in health policy dialogue in Africa.

METHODS

The database search of this scoping review was conducted from inception to January 24, 2021, by an expert searcher/librarian to determine the extent of evidence, barriers, and facilitators of researchers' involvement in health policy dialogues in Africa. PROSPERO, Wiley Cochrane Library, OVID Medline, OVID EMBASE, OVID PsycINFO, OVID Global Health, EBSCO CINAHL, BASE (Bielefeld Academic Search Engine), and Google/Google Scholar were searched using key words representing the concepts "policy dialogue", "health", and "Africa". No limits were applied. A narrative summary of results was presented.

RESULTS

There were 26 eligible studies representing 21 African countries. Significant discrepancies in researchers' involvement existed across countries. In 62% of the countries, there was suboptimal involvement of researchers in policy dialogues due to no or partial participation in policy dialogues. Major barriers included limited funding, lack of evidence in the public health field of interest, and skepticism of policymakers. The presence of an interface for exchange, demand for scientific evidence, and donors' funding were the most reported facilitators.

CONCLUSIONS

To improve the uptake of evidence in health policy-making processes, an environment of trust and communication between policymakers and researchers must be established. Policymakers need to demonstrate that they value research, by providing adequate funding, promoting knowledge translation activities, and supporting personal and professional development opportunities for researchers.

Integrated knowledge translation to advance noncommunicable disease policy and practice in South Africa: application of the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework

Background

In response to the “know–do” gap, several initiatives have been implemented to enhance evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM). These include individual training, organizational culture change management, and legislative changes. The importance of relationships and stakeholder engagement in EIDM has led to an evolution of models and approaches including integrated knowledge translation (IKT). IKT has emerged as a key strategy for ensuring that engagement is equitable, demand-driven, and responsive. As a result, the African-German Collaboration for Evidence-Based Healthcare and Public Health in Africa (CEBHA+) incorporated an IKT approach to influence noncommunicable diseases (NCD) policy and practice. We documented the phased process of developing, implementing, and monitoring the IKT approach in South Africa; and explored the appropriateness of using the exploration, preparation, implementation, and sustainment (EPIS) framework for this purpose.

Methods

We mapped the South Africa IKT approach onto the EPIS framework using a framework analysis approach. Notes of team meetings, stakeholder matrices, and engagement strategies were analysed and purposefully plotted against the four phases of the framework in order to populate the different constructs. We discussed and finalized the analysis in a series of online iterations until consensus was reached.

Results

The mapping exercise revealed an IKT approach that was much more iterative, dynamic, and engaging than initially thought. Several constructs (phase-agnostic) remained important and stable across EPIS phases: stable and supportive funding; committed and competent leadership; skilled and dedicated IKT champions; diverse and established personal networks; a conducive and enabling policy environment; and boundary-spanning intermediaries. Constructs such as “innovations” constantly evolved and adapted to the changing inner and outer contexts (phase-specific).

Conclusions

Using the EPIS framework to interrogate, reflect on, and document our IKT experiences proved extremely relevant and useful. Phase-agnostic constructs proved critical to ensure resilience and agility of NCD deliberations and policies in the face of highly dynamic and changing local contexts, particularly in view of the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Bridging IKT with a framework from implementation science helps to reflect on this process and can guide the development and planning of similar interventions and strategies.

Exploring the evolution of engagement between academic public health researchers and decision-makers: from initiation to dissolution

CONTEXT

Relationships between researchers and decision-makers have demonstrated positive potential to influence research, policy and practice. Over time, interest in better understanding the relationships between the two parties has grown as demonstrated by a plethora of studies globally. However, what remains elusive is the evolution of these vital relationships and what can be learned from them with respect to advancing evidence-informed decision-making. We therefore explored the nuances around the initiation, maintenance and dissolution of academic-government relationships.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth interviews with 52 faculty at one school of public health and 24 government decision-makers at city, state, federal and global levels. Interviews were transcribed and coded deductively and inductively using Atlas.Ti. Responses across codes and respondents were extracted into an Excel matrix and compared in order to identify key themes.

FINDINGS

Eight key drivers to engagement were identified, namely (1) decision-maker research needs, (2) learning, (3) access to resources, (4) student opportunities, (5) capacity strengthening, (6) strategic positioning, (7) institutional conditionalities, and (8) funder conditionalities. There were several elements that enabled initiation of relationships, including the role of faculty members in the decision-making process, individual attributes and reputation, institutional reputation, social capital, and the role of funders. Maintenance of partnerships was dependent on factors such as synergistic collaboration (i.e. both benefit), mutual trust, contractual issues and funding. Dissolution of relationships resulted from champions changing/leaving positions, engagement in transactional relationships, or limited mutual trust and respect.

CONCLUSIONS

As universities and government agencies establish relationships and utilise opportunities to share ideas, envision change together, and leverage their collaborations to use evidence to inform decision-making, a new modus operandi becomes possible. Embracing the individual, institutional, networked and systems dynamics of relationships can lead to new practices, alternate approaches and transformative change. Government agencies, schools of public health and higher education institutions more broadly, should pay deliberate attention to identifying and managing the various drivers, enablers and disablers for relationship initiation and resilience in order to promote more evidence-informed decision-making.

Review of published evidence on knowledge translation capacity, practice and support among researchers and research institutions in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

Knowledge translation (KT) is a dynamic and iterative process that includes synthesis, dissemination, exchange and ethically sound application of knowledge to yield beneficial outcomes for society. Effective KT requires researchers to play an active role in promoting evidence uptake. This paper presents a systematised review of evidence on low- and middle-income country (LMIC) researchers' KT capacity, practice and interventions for enhancing their KT practice (support) with the aim of identifying gaps and informing future research and interventions.

METHODS

An electronic search for peer-reviewed publications focusing on LMIC researchers' KT capacity, practice and support across all academic fields, authored in English and from the earliest records available to February 2019, was conducted using PubMed and Scopus. Selected studies were appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, data pertaining to publication characteristics and study design extracted, and an a priori thematic analysis of reported research findings completed.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 334 screened articles, of which 66 met the inclusion criteria. Most (n = 43) of the articles presented original research findings, 22 were commentaries and 1 was a structured review; 47 articles reported on researchers' KT practice, 12 assessed the KT capacity of researchers or academic/research institutions and 9 reported on KT support for researchers. More than half (59%) of the articles focused on sub-Saharan Africa and the majority (91%) on health research. Most of the primary studies used the case study design (41%). The findings suggest that LMIC researchers rarely conduct KT and face a range of barriers at individual and institutional levels that limit their KT practice, including inadequate KT knowledge and skills, particularly for communicating research and interacting with research end-users, insufficient funding, and inadequate institutional guidelines, structures and incentives promoting KT practice. Furthermore, the evidence-base on effective interventions for enhancing LMIC researchers' KT practice is insufficient and largely of weak quality.

CONCLUSIONS

More high-quality research on researchers' KT capacity, practice and effective KT capacity strengthening interventions is needed. Study designs that extend beyond case studies and descriptive studies are recommended, including better designed evaluation studies, e.g. use of realist approaches, pragmatic trials, impact evaluations, implementation research and participatory action research.