Correspondence: The African snakebite Alliance

The goal to reduce the burden of snakebite envenoming is challenged by the gaps in evidence for clinical care and public health. These evidence gaps and the absence of a strong network are illustrated by bibliometrics. The African Snakebite Alliance is a multidisciplinary group focusing on research themes which will generate evidence needed to shape policy and practice.

Stakeholder perspectives from 15 countries in Africa on barriers in snakebite envenoming research and the potential role of research hubs

Snakebite envenoming is a debilitating neglected tropical disease disproportionately affecting the rural poor in low and middle-income countries in the tropics and sub-tropics. Critical questions and gaps in public health and policy need to be addressed if major progress is to be made towards reducing the negative impact of snakebite, particularly in the World Health Organisation (WHO) Africa region. We engaged key stakeholders to identify barriers to evidence-based snakebite decision making and to explore how development of research and policy hubs could help to overcome these barriers. We conducted an electronic survey among 73 stakeholders from ministries of health, health facilities, academia and non-governmental organizations from 15 countries in the WHO Africa region. The primary barriers to snakebite research and subsequent policy translation were limited funds, lack of relevant data, and lack of interest from policy makers. Adequate funding commitment, strong political will, building expert networks and a demand for scientific evidence were all considered potential factors that could facilitate snakebite research. Participants rated availability of antivenoms, research skills training and disease surveillance as key research priorities. All participants indicated interest in the development of research and policy hubs and 78% indicated their organization would be willing to actively participate. In conclusion, our survey affirms that relevant stakeholders in the field of snakebite perceive research and policy hubs as a promising development, which could help overcome the barriers to pursuing the WHO goals and targets for reducing the burden of snakebite.

Embedding rapid reviews in health policy and systems decision-making: Impacts and lessons learned from four low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

Demand for rapid evidence-based syntheses to inform health policy and systems decision-making has increased worldwide, including in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). To promote use of rapid syntheses in LMICs, the WHO's Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research (AHPSR) created the Embedding Rapid Reviews in Health Systems Decision-Making (ERA) Initiative. Following a call for proposals, four LMICs were selected (Georgia, India, Malaysia and Zimbabwe) and supported for 1 year to embed rapid response platforms within a public institution with a health policy or systems decision-making mandate.

METHODS

While the selected platforms had experience in health policy and systems research and evidence syntheses, platforms were less confident conducting rapid evidence syntheses. A technical assistance centre (TAC) was created from the outset to develop and lead a capacity-strengthening program for rapid syntheses, tailored to the platforms based on their original proposals and needs as assessed in a baseline questionnaire. The program included training in rapid synthesis methods, as well as generating synthesis demand, engaging knowledge users and ensuring knowledge uptake. Modalities included live training webinars, in-country workshops and support through phone, email and an online platform. LMICs provided regular updates on policy-makers' requests and the rapid products provided, as well as barriers, facilitators and impacts. Post-initiative, platforms were surveyed.

RESULTS

Platforms provided rapid syntheses across a range of AHPSR themes, and successfully engaged national- and state-level policy-makers. Examples of substantial policy impact were observed, including for COVID-19. Although the post-initiative survey response rate was low, three quarters of those responding felt confident in their ability to conduct a rapid evidence synthesis. Lessons learned coalesced around three themes - the importance of context-specific expertise in conducting reviews, facilitating cross-platform learning, and planning for platform sustainability.

CONCLUSIONS

The ERA initiative successfully established rapid response platforms in four LMICs. The short timeframe limited the number of rapid products produced, but there were examples of substantial impact and growing demand. We emphasize that LMICs can and should be involved not only in identifying and articulating needs but as co-designers in their own capacity-strengthening programs. More time is required to assess whether these platforms will be sustained for the long-term.

Increasing Effectiveness and Equity in Strengthening Health Research Capacity Using Data and Metrics: Recent Advances of the ESSENCE Mechanism

Background

The ESSENCE on Health Research initiative established a Working Group on Review of Investments in 2018 to improve coordination and collaboration among funders of health research capacity strengthening. The Working Group comprises more than a dozen ESSENCE members, including diverse representation by geography, country income level, the public sector, and philanthropy.

Objective

The overall goal of the Working Group is increased research on national health priorities as well as improved pandemic preparedness, and, ultimately, fewer countries with very limited research capacity.

Methods

We developed a basic set of metrics for national health research capacity, assessed different models of coordination and collaboration, took a deeper dive into eight countries to characterize their national research capacity, and began to identify opportunities to better coordinate our investments. In this article, we summarize the presentations, discussions, and outcomes of our second annual (virtual) meeting, which had more than 100 participants representing funders, researchers, and other stakeholders from higher- and lower-income countries worldwide.

Findings and conclusions

Presentations on the first day included the keynote speaker, Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, chief scientist of the World Health Organization (WHO), and updates on data and metrics for research capacity, which are critical to establish targets, road maps, and budgets. The second day focused on improving collaboration and coordination among funders and other stakeholders, the potential return on investment for health research, ongoing work to increase coordination at the country level, and examples of research capacity strengthening efforts in diverse health research areas from around the world. We concluded that an intentional data- and metric-driven approach to health research capacity strengthening, emphasizing coordination among funders, local leadership, and equitable partnerships and allocation of resources, will enhance the health systems of resource-poor countries as well as the world's pandemic preparedness.

Evidence for informing health policy development in Low-income Countries (LICs): perspectives of policy actors in Uganda

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 in-depth 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 LICs like 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.

Uptake of evidence in policy development: the case of user fees for health care in public health facilities in Uganda

Background

Several countries in Sub Saharan Africa have abolished user fees for health care but the extent to which such a policy decision is guided by evidence needs further exploration. We explored the barriers and facilitating factors to uptake of evidence in the process of user fee abolition in Uganda and how the context and stakeholders involved shaped the uptake of evidence. This study builds on previous work in Uganda that led to the development of a middle range theory (MRT) outlining the main facilitating factors for knowledge translation (KT). Application of the MRT to the case of abolition of user fees contributes to its refining.

Methods

Employing a theory-driven inquiry and case study approach given the need for in-depth investigation, we reviewed documents and conducted interviews with 32 purposefully selected key informants. We assessed whether evidence was available, had or had not been considered in policy development and the reasons why and; assessed how the actors and the context shaped the uptake of evidence.

Results

Symbolic, conceptual and instrumental uses of evidence were manifest. Different actors were influenced by different types of evidence. While technocrats in the ministry of health (MoH) relied on formal research, politicians relied on community complaints. The capacity of the MoH to lead the KT process was weak and the partnerships for KT were informal. The political window and alignment of the evidence with overall government discourse enhanced uptake of evidence. Stakeholders were divided, seemed to be polarized for various reasons and had varying levels of support and influence impacting the uptake of evidence.

Conclusion

Evidence will be taken up in policy development in instances where the MoH leads the KT process, there are partnerships for KT in place, and the overall government policy and the political situation can be expected to play a role. Different actors will be influenced by different types of evidence and their level of support and influence will impact the uptake of evidence. In addition, the extent to which a policy issue is contested and, whether stakeholders share similar opinions and preferences will impact the uptake of evidence.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-014-0639-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.