Search results

Abstract Dialogue and exchange between researchers and policy personnel may increase the use of research evidence in policy. We piloted and evaluated a programme of formalised dialogue between researchers and provincial health policymakers in South Africa, called the buddying programme. An external evaluation examined implementation and short-term impact, drawing on documents, in-depth interviews with policymakers, a researcher buddies focus group and our own reflection on what we learnt. We set up buddying with seven policymakers and five researchers on six policy questions. Researchers knew little about policymaking or needs of policymakers. Policymakers respected the contact with researchers, respected researchers' objectivity and appreciated the formalised approach. Having policymaker champions facilitated the dialogue. Scenarios for policy questions and use were different. One topic was at problem identification stage (contraceptives and HIV risk), four at policy formulation stage (healthy lifestyles, chronic illness medication adherence, integrated care of chronic illness and maternal transmission of HIV to infants) and one at implementation stage (task shifting). Research evidence were used to identify or solve a policy problem (two scenarios), to legitimise a predetermined policy position (three scenarios) or the evidence indirectly influenced the policy (one scenario). The formalised dialogue required in this structured buddying programme took time and commitment from both sides. The programme illustrated the importance of researchers listening, and policymakers understanding what research can offer. Both parties recognised that the structured buddying made the dialogue happen. Often the evidence was helpful in supporting provincial policy decisions that were in the roll-out phase from the national government.

BACKGROUND: The strain on public resources to meet the healthcare needs of populations through publicly‐provided health insurance programmes is increasing and many governments turn to private health insurance (PHI) to ease the pressure on government budgets. With the goal of improving access to basic health care for citizens through PHI programmes, several high‐income countries have developed strong regulations for PHI schemes. Low‐ and middle‐income countries have the opportunity to learn from this experience to optimise PHI. If poorly regulated, PHI can hardly achieve an adequate quantity or quality of population coverage, as can be seen in the USA where a third of adults younger than 65 years of age have no insurance, sporadic coverage or coverage that exposes them to high out‐of‐pocket healthcare costs. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of policies that regulate private health insurance on utilisation, quality, and cost of health care provided. SEARCH METHODS: In November 2019 we searched CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; Sociological Abstracts and Social Services Abstracts; ICTRP; ClinicalTrials.gov; and Web of Science Core Collection for papers that have cited the included studies. This complemented the search conducted in February 2017 in IBSS; EconLit; and Global Health. We also searched selected grey literature databases and web‐sites. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, non‐randomised trials, interrupted time series (ITS) studies, and controlled before‐after (CBA) studies conducted in any population or setting that assessed one or more of the following interventions that governments use to regulate private health insurance: legislation and licensing, monitoring, auditing, and intelligence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of the evidence resolving discrepancies by consensus. We planned to summarise the results (using random‐effects or fixed‐effect meta‐analysis) to produce an overall summary if ...

Background The translation of research into policy and practice is enhanced by policymakers who can recognise and articulate their information needs and researchers that understand the policymakers' environment. As researchers, we sought to understand the policymaking process and how research evidence may contribute in South Africa and Cameroon. Methods We conducted qualitative in-depth interviews in South Africa and focus group discussions in Cameroon with purposively sampled subnational (provincial and regional) government health programme managers. Audio recorded interviews were transcribed, thematically coded and analysed. Results Participants in both countries described the complex, often lengthy nature of policymaking processes, which often include back-and-forth consultations with many diverse stakeholder groups. These processes may be influenced by political structures, relationships between national and subnational levels, funding and international stakeholder agendas. Research is not a main driver of policy, but rather current contextual realities, costs, logistics and people (clinicians, NGOs, funders) influence the policy, and research plays a part. Research evidence is frequently perceived as unavailable, inaccessible, ill-timed or not applicable. The reliability of research on the internet was questioned. Evidence-informed health decision-making (EIDM) is regarded as necessary in South Africa but is less well understood in Cameroon. Insufficient time and capacity were hindrances to EIDM in both countries. Good relationships between researchers and policymakers may facilitate EIDM. Researchers should have a good understanding of the policymaking environment if they want to influence it. Greater interaction between policymakers and researchers is perceived as beneficial when formulating research and policy questions as it raises researchers' awareness of implementation challenges and enables the design of tailored and focused strategies to respond to policymakers' needs. Conclusions Policymaking is complicated, lengthy and mostly done at national level. Provinces/regions are tasked with implementation, with more room for adaptation in South Africa than in Cameroon. Research evidence plays a role in policy but does not drive it and is seen as mostly unavailable. Researchers need a thorough understanding of the policy process and environment, how the health system operates, as well as the priorities of policymakers. This can inform effective dialogue between researchers and policymakers, and contribute to enhancing use of research evidence in decision-making.

AbstractBackgroundWell‐conducted systematic reviews contribute to informing clinical practice and public health guidelines. Between 2008 and 2018 Cochrane authors in sub‐Saharan Africa were publishing progressively fewer Cochrane Reviews, compared to non‐Cochrane reviews. The objective of this study was to determine what motivated trained Cochrane authors in sub‐Saharan Africa to conduct and publish non‐Cochrane reviews over Cochrane Reviews.MethodsWe conducted a mixed‐methods exploratory sequential study. We purposely selected 12 authors, who had published at least one Cochrane‐ and one non‐Cochrane review, for in‐depth, semi‐structured interviews. We manually coded and analysed the qualitative data using Grounded Theory approach and used the results to inform the survey questions. Subsequently we surveyed 60 authors with similar publishing experience. We analysed the quantitative data using descriptive and inferential statistics.ResultsFacilitators to publish with Cochrane were a high‐impact factor, rigorous research, and visibility. From barriers, the main categories were protracted time to complete Cochrane Reviews, complex title registration process, and inconsistencies between Cochrane Review groups regarding editorial practices. From the survey, authors confirmed rigorous research and reviewing process (84%), high impact factor (77%), and good mentorship (73%). The major barriers included Cochrane's long reviewing process (70%) and Cochrane's complicated title registration (50%). Authors with publishing experience in the previous 10 years at <95 percentile of systematic review publications, there was no significant difference between the medians for publishing with Cochrane (1) and non‐Cochrane (0) reviews, p = 0.06. Similarly, for those with publishing experience of ≥95 percentile of systematic review publication there was no significant difference between the medians for publishing with Cochrane (4) and non‐Cochrane (6), p = 0.344.ConclusionAuthors considered the visibility and relevance of Cochrane research as a trade‐off point. They continued publishing with Cochrane despite the barriers that they encountered. However, the concerns raised by many authors are worth addressing.