TY - JOUR
T1 - Challenges for research uptake for health policymaking and practice in low- and middle-income countries
T2 - a scoping review
AU - Semahegn, Agumasie
AU - Manyazewal, Tsegahun
AU - Hanlon, Charlotte
AU - Getachew, Eyerusalem
AU - Fekadu, Bethelhem
AU - Assefa, Esubalew
AU - Kassa, Munir
AU - Hopkins, Michael
AU - Woldehanna, Tassew
AU - Davey, Gail
AU - Fekadu, Abebaw
N1 - Funding Information: This work was financially supported by the Wellcome Trust [Grant ID 221576/Z/20/Z]. We would also like to thank the CDT-Africa, Addis Ababa University, University of Sussex and National Institute of Health Research (NIHR)-Wellcome Global Health Research Partnership, UK, for the overall support. AF receives a research grant from the NIHR-Wellcome Trust to the Unit for Health Evidence and Policy (UHEP) Ethiopia (Grant ID 221576/Z/20/Z) and NIHR Global Health Research Unit on Neglected Tropical Diseases-Phase 1 (G2153) & Phase 2 (G3417). CH receives support from the National Institute of Health and Care Research through the NIHR Global Health Research Group on Homelessness and Mental Health in Africa (NIHR134325) and the SPARK project (NIHR200842) using UK aid from the UK Government. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. CH receives support from the Wellcome Trust through grants 222154/Z20/Z and 223615/Z/21/Z. Funding Information: We identified key recommendations to improve research uptake for health policymaking in LMICs. Establishing evidence translation platforms, improving health policy research literacy and understanding the political dimension and context [–] are among the key recommendations to improve research uptake. Comprehensive evidence uptake approach is crucial [, , , ], including strong monitoring, evaluation and learning strategy of evidence to policy translation [, , , , , ], and evidence to policy intervention audit []. Likewise, engaging stakeholders from inception and /or pre-implementation [] to dissemination is essential to understand the context of research uptake for health policymaking and practice in LMICs [, , , , , , , , , , , , ]. Establishing partnerships with global health funding organizations should prioritize the support of academic institutions’ capacity building initiatives, rigorous research, design dissemination strategies and establishing knowledge translation pathways []. Funding Information: This work was financially supported by the Wellcome Trust [Grant ID 221576/Z/20/Z]. We would also like to thank the CDT-Africa, Addis Ababa University, University of Sussex and National Institute of Health Research (NIHR)-Wellcome Global Health Research Partnership, UK, for the overall support. AF receives a research grant from the NIHR-Wellcome Trust to the Unit for Health Evidence and Policy (UHEP) Ethiopia (Grant ID 221576/Z/20/Z) and NIHR Global Health Research Unit on Neglected Tropical Diseases-Phase 1 (G2153) & Phase 2 (G3417). CH receives support from the National Institute of Health and Care Research through the NIHR Global Health Research Group on Homelessness and Mental Health in Africa (NIHR134325) and the SPARK project (NIHR200842) using UK aid from the UK Government. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. CH receives support from the Wellcome Trust through grants 222154/Z20/Z and 223615/Z/21/Z. Publisher Copyright: © 2023, The Author(s).
M1 - 131
PY - 2023/12/6
Y1 - 2023/12/6
N2 - BACKGROUND: An estimated 85% of research resources are wasted worldwide, while there is growing demand for context-based evidence-informed health policymaking. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), research uptake for health policymaking and practice is even lower, while little is known about the barriers to the translation of health evidence to policy and local implementation. We aimed to compile the current evidence on barriers to uptake of research in health policy and practice in LMICs using scoping review.METHODS: The scoping review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses-extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Both published evidence and grey literature on research uptake were systematically searched from major databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL (EBSCO), Global Health (Ovid)) and direct Google Scholar. Literature exploring barriers to uptake of research evidence in health policy and practice in LMICs were included and their key findings were synthesized using thematic areas to address the review question.RESULTS: A total of 4291 publications were retrieved in the initial search, of which 142 were included meeting the eligibility criteria. Overall, research uptake for policymaking and practice in LMICs was very low. The challenges to research uptake were related to lack of understanding of the local contexts, low political priority, poor stakeholder engagement and partnership, resource and capacity constraints, low system response for accountability and lack of communication and dissemination platforms.CONCLUSION: Important barriers to research uptake, mainly limited contextual understanding and low participation of key stakeholders and ownership, have been identified. Understanding the local research and policy context and participatory evidence production and dissemination may promote research uptake for policy and practice. Institutions that bridge the chasm between knowledge formation, evidence synthesis and translation may play critical role in the translation process.
AB - BACKGROUND: An estimated 85% of research resources are wasted worldwide, while there is growing demand for context-based evidence-informed health policymaking. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), research uptake for health policymaking and practice is even lower, while little is known about the barriers to the translation of health evidence to policy and local implementation. We aimed to compile the current evidence on barriers to uptake of research in health policy and practice in LMICs using scoping review.METHODS: The scoping review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses-extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Both published evidence and grey literature on research uptake were systematically searched from major databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL (EBSCO), Global Health (Ovid)) and direct Google Scholar. Literature exploring barriers to uptake of research evidence in health policy and practice in LMICs were included and their key findings were synthesized using thematic areas to address the review question.RESULTS: A total of 4291 publications were retrieved in the initial search, of which 142 were included meeting the eligibility criteria. Overall, research uptake for policymaking and practice in LMICs was very low. The challenges to research uptake were related to lack of understanding of the local contexts, low political priority, poor stakeholder engagement and partnership, resource and capacity constraints, low system response for accountability and lack of communication and dissemination platforms.CONCLUSION: Important barriers to research uptake, mainly limited contextual understanding and low participation of key stakeholders and ownership, have been identified. Understanding the local research and policy context and participatory evidence production and dissemination may promote research uptake for policy and practice. Institutions that bridge the chasm between knowledge formation, evidence synthesis and translation may play critical role in the translation process.
U2 - 10.1186/s12961-023-01084-5
DO - 10.1186/s12961-023-01084-5
M3 - Article
SN - 1478-4505
VL - 21
JO - Health Research Policy and Systems
JF - Health Research Policy and Systems
IS - 1
M1 - 131
ER -