ArticleImplementation science : IS2014
The roles and influence of actors in the uptake of evidence: the case of malaria treatment policy change in Uganda.
Article in Implementation science : IS, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Barriers and opportunities to addressing social determinants of malaria in Wakiso District, Uganda.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Donor support for Health Policy and Systems Research: barriers to financing and opportunities for overcoming them.Globalization and health · 2022Article
- Main actors in the new population policy with a growing trend in Iran: a stakeholder analysis.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2022Article
- A scoping review of researchers' involvement in health policy dialogue in Africa.Systematic reviews · 2021Article
- Knowledge translation in Africa: are the structures in place?Implementation science communications · 2020Article
- NPC POPLINE: A Tool for Population and Reproductive Health Evidence-Based Decisions in Egypt.Open access Macedonian journal of medical sciences · 2019Article
- Knowledge translation for public health in low- and middle- income countries: a critical interpretive synthesis.Global health research and policy · 2018Review
- Policy dialogue to improve health outcomes in low income countries: what are the issues and way forward?BMC health services research · 2016Article
- Policy dialogues - the "bolts and joints" of policy-making: experiences from Cabo Verde, Chad and Mali.BMC health services research · 2016Article
- National malaria vector control policy: an analysis of the decision to scale-up larviciding in Nigeria.Health policy and planning · 2016Article
- The past, present and future use of epidemiological intelligence to plan malaria vector control and parasite prevention in Uganda.Malaria journal · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUganda changed its malaria treatment policy in response to evidence of resistance to commonly used antimalarials. The use of evidence in policy development--also referred to as knowledge translation (KT)--is crucial, especially in resource-limited settings. However, KT processes occur amidst a complex web of stakeholder interactions. Stakeholder involvement in evidence generation and in KT activities is essential. In the present study, we explored how stakeholders impacted the uptake of evidence in the malaria treatment policy change in Uganda.
methodsWe employed a qualitative case study methodology involving interviews with key informants and review of documents. A timeline of events was developed, which guided the purposive sampling of respondents and identification of relevant documents. Data were analysed using inductive content analysis techniques.
resultsStakeholders played multiple roles in evidence uptake in the malaria treatment policy change. Donors, the Ministry of Health (MoH), service providers, and researchers engaged in the role of evidence generation. The MoH, parliamentarians, and opinion leaders at the national and local levels engaged in dissemination of evidence. The donors, MoH, researchers, and service providers engaged in the uptake of evidence in policy development and implementation. Stakeholders exerted varying levels of support and influence for different reasons. It is noteworthy that all of the influential stakeholders were divided regarding the best antimalarial alternative to adopt.
conclusionOur results showed a diverse group of stakeholders who played multiple roles, with varying levels of support and influence on the uptake of evidence in the malaria treatment policy change. For a given KT processes, mapping the relevant stakeholders and devising mechanism for their engagement and for how to resolve conflicts of interest and disagreements a priori will enhance uptake of evidence in policy development.
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.