ArticleHealth research policy and systems2012
Research-policy partnerships - experiences of the Mental Health and Poverty Project in Ghana, South Africa, Uganda and Zambia.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enablers and barriers for policymaker engagement in health research from the perspective of policymakers: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Challenges associated with implementing anti-doping policy and programs in Africa.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2022Article
- Article
- Partnerships in a Global Mental Health Research Programme-the Example of PRIME.Global social welfare : research, policy & practice · 2019Article
- How are evidence generation partnerships between researchers and policy-makers enacted in practice? A qualitative interview study.Health research policy and systems · 2019Article
- Dealing with context in logic model development: Reflections from a realist evaluation of a community health worker programme in Nigeria.Evaluation and program planning · 2019Article
- Article
- Article
- Organisational capacity and its relationship to research use in six Australian health policy agencies.PloS one · 2018Article
- Protocol for a mixed-methods realist evaluation of a health service user feedback system in Bangladesh.BMJ open · 2017Article
- Impact of tailored blogs and content on usage of Web CIPHER - an online platform to help policymakers better engage with evidence from research.Health research policy and systems · 2016Article
- Study protocol: realist evaluation of effectiveness and sustainability of a community health workers programme in improving maternal and child health in Nigeria.Implementation science : IS · 2016Article
- The development of ORACLe: a measure of an organisation's capacity to engage in evidence-informed health policy.Health research policy and systems · 2016Article
- Key influences in the design and implementation of mental health information systems in Ghana and South Africa.Global mental health (Cambridge, England) · 2016Review
- Using conjoint analysis to develop a system to score research engagement actions by health decision makers.Health research policy and systems · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPartnerships are increasingly common in conducting research. However, there is little published evidence about processes in research-policy partnerships in different contexts. This paper contributes to filling this gap by analysing experiences of research-policy partnerships between Ministries of Health and research organisations for the implementation of the Mental Health and Poverty Project in Ghana, South Africa, Uganda and Zambia.
methodsA conceptual framework for understanding and assessing research-policy partnerships was developed and guided this study. The data collection methods for this qualitative study included semi-structured interviews with Ministry of Health Partners (MOHPs) and Research Partners (RPs) in each country.
resultsThe term partnership was perceived by the partners as a collaboration involving mutually-agreed goals and objectives. The principles of trust, openness, equality and mutual respect were identified as constituting the core of partnerships. The MOHPs and RPs had clearly defined roles, with the MOHPs largely providing political support and RPs leading the research agenda. Different influences affected partnerships. At the individual level, personal relationships and ability to compromise within partnerships were seen as important. At the organisational level, the main influences included the degree of formalisation of roles and responsibilities and the internal structures and procedures affecting decision-making. At the contextual level, political environment and the degree of health system decentralisation affected partnerships.
conclusionsSeveral lessons can be learned from these experiences. Taking account of influences on the partnership at individual, organisation and contextual/system levels can increase its effectiveness. A common understanding of mutually-agreed goals and objectives of the partnership is essential. It is important to give attention to the processes of initiating and maintaining partnerships, based on clear roles, responsibilities and commitment of parties at different levels. Although partnerships are often established for a specific purpose, such as carrying out a particular project, the effects of partnership go beyond a particular initiative.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.