Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26499950›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2015

Role and use of evidence in policymaking: an analysis of case studies from the health sector in Nigeria.

Obinna Onwujekwe, Nkoli Uguru, Giuliano Russo, Enyi Etiaba, Chinyere Mbachu, Tolib Mirzoev, Benjamin Uzochukwu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors.

Obinna OnwujekweDepartment of Health Administration and Management, College of Medicine University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus, Enugu, Nigeria. obinna.onwujekwe@unn.edu.ng.
Nkoli UguruDepartment of Preventive Dentistry, College of Medicine University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus, Enugu, Nigeria. nkolika.uguru@unn.edu.ng.
Giuliano RussoGlobal Health and Tropical Medicine, Instituto de Higiene e Medicina Tropical (IHMT), The Nova University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal. grusso@ihmt.unl.pt.
Enyi EtiabaDepartment of Health Administration and Management, College of Medicine University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus, Enugu, Nigeria. enyi.etiaba@unn.edu.ng.
Chinyere MbachuDepartment of Community Medicine, College of Medicine University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus, Enugu, Nigeria. chinyere23ng@yahoo.com.
Tolib MirzoevNuffield Centre for International Health and Development, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. t.mirzoev@leeds.ac.uk.
Benjamin UzochukwuDepartment of Community Medicine, College of Medicine University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus, Enugu, Nigeria. benjamin.uzochukwu@unn.edu.ng.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth policymaking is a complex process and analysing the role of evidence is still an evolving area in many low- and middle-income countries. Where evidence is used, it is greatly affected by cognitive and institutional features of the policy process. This paper examines the role of different types of evidence in health policy development in Nigeria.

methodsThe role of evidence was compared between three case studies representing different health policies, namely the (1) integrated maternal neonatal and child health strategy (IMNCH); (2) oral health (OH) policy; and (3) human resource for health (HRH) policy. The data was collected using document reviews and 31 in-depth interviews with key policy actors. Framework Approach was used to analyse the data, aided by NVivo 10 software.

resultsMost respondents perceived evidence to be factual and concrete to support a decision. Evidence was used more if it was perceived to be context-specific, accessible and timely. Low-cost high-impact evidence, such as the Lancet series, was reported to have been used in drafting the IMNCH policy. In the OH and HRH policies, informal evidence such as experts' experiences and opinions, were reported to have been useful in the policy drafting stage. Both formal and informal evidence were mentioned in the HRH and OH policies, while the development of the IMNCH was revealed to have been informed mainly by more formal evidence. Overall, respondents suggested that formal evidence, such as survey reports and research publications, were most useful in the agenda-setting stage to identify the need for the policy and thus initiating the policy development process. International and local evidence were used to establish the need for a policy and develop policy, and less to develop policy implementation options.

conclusionRecognition of the value of different evidence types, combined with structures for generating and using evidence, are likely to enhance evidence-informed health policy development in Nigeria and other similar contexts.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareEvidence-Based MedicineHealth PolicyPolicy MakingBiomedical ResearchChildChild HealthFemaleHumansInfant HealthInfant, NewbornMaternal HealthNigeriaOral HealthQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID26499950
PMCPMC4619441

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.