ArticleHealth research policy and systems2024
Outcomes of an integrated knowledge translation approach in five African countries: a mixed-methods comparative case study.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIntegrated knowledge translation (IKT) aims to enhance evidence-informed decision-making in public health and healthcare by establishing continuous relationships between researchers and knowledge users, in particular decision-makers. The Collaboration for Evidence-Based Healthcare and Public Health in Africa (CEBHA+) undertook research on noncommunicable diseases in Ethiopia, Malawi, Rwanda, South Africa and Uganda. Alongside the research activities, we implemented an IKT approach, which entailed training and the development and implementation of site-specific IKT strategies. We evaluated these strategies according to a predefined programme theory.
methodsDrawing on our published protocol ( https://rdcu.be/dyfBP ), we interviewed and surveyed CEBHA+ researchers and their decision-making counterparts during two project stages (3/2020-2/2021; 9/2022-5/2023) and collected IKT-related documents. Transcripts and documents were analysed using qualitative content analysis and surveys were analysed descriptively, with subsequent integration, cross-case analysis and revision of the programme theory.
resultsA total of 36 researchers and 19 decision-makers participated in surveys, focus groups and/or interviews, and we collected 92 documents. Relationship building, capacity building and collaborative research were the most proximal intervention outcomes: CEBHA+ researchers and their counterparts built mutual appreciation and partnerships, accessed contacts and networks, and expanded skills in conducting and using research and in IKT. The level of trust between partners varied. Intermediate outcomes were changes in attitudes and knowledge; beyond the conceptualization in our initial programme theory, researchers substantially increased their understanding of the decision-making context and developed a vision for "research impact". While it was challenging to evaluate distal outcomes, the IKT approach was linked to the production of research perceived as addressing local priorities and being highly applicable and contextualized, and some consideration of evidence among decision-makers. Unintended effects included high opportunity costs associated with undertaking IKT. An unanticipated outcome was the heightened interest of the research funder in policy engagement. Our updated programme theory constitutes a low-level theory for IKT.
conclusionsWhilst this study faced many challenges common to the evaluation of knowledge translation interventions, it presents rich, theory-informed insights into IKT outcomes. These are based on documented IKT activities and participants' views, particularly in-depth insights of researchers' experiences with implementing the CEBHA+ IKT approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.