Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26334760›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2015

Research evidence and policy: qualitative study in selected provinces in South Africa and Cameroon.

Celeste E Naude, Babalwa Zani, Pierre Ongolo-Zogo, Charles S Wiysonge, Lillian Dudley, Tamara Kredo, Paul Garner, Taryn Young

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Scientific Evidence in Public Health Decision-Making: A Systematic Literature Review of the Past 50 Years.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Celeste E NaudeCentre for Evidence-based Health Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, PO Box 241, Cape Town, 8000, South Africa. cenaude@sun.ac.za.
Babalwa ZaniSouth African Cochrane Centre, South African Medical Research Council, P.O. Box 19070, Tygerberg, Cape Town, 7505, South Africa. babalwa.zani@uct.ac.za.
Pierre Ongolo-ZogoCentre for Development of Best Practices in Health, Central Hospital Yaoundé, University of Yaoundé, P.O. Box 87, Yaoundé, Cameroon. pc.ongolo@gmail.com.
Charles S WiysongeCentre for Evidence-based Health Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, PO Box 241, Cape Town, 8000, South Africa. charlesw@sun.ac.za.
Lillian DudleyDivision of Community Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, P.O. Box 241, Cape Town, 8000, South Africa. ldudley@sun.ac.za.
Tamara KredoSouth African Cochrane Centre, South African Medical Research Council, P.O. Box 19070, Tygerberg, Cape Town, 7505, South Africa. tamara.kredo@mrc.ac.za.
Paul GarnerLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Department of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool, Merseyside, L3 5QA, UK. paul.garner@lstmed.ac.uk.
Taryn YoungCentre for Evidence-based Health Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, PO Box 241, Cape Town, 8000, South Africa. tyoung@sun.ac.za.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 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.

methodsWe 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.

resultsParticipants 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.

conclusionsPolicymaking 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.

Indexed as

Policy MakingTranslational Research, BiomedicalBiomedical ResearchCameroonEvidence-Based MedicineFocus GroupsHealth PolicyHumansInterviews as TopicQualitative ResearchSouth Africa

Identifiers

PMID26334760
PMCPMC4557313

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.