Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28166798›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2017

Identifying and characterising health policy and system-relevant documents in Uganda: a scoping review to develop a framework for the development of a one-stop shop.

Boniface Mutatina, Robert Basaza, Ekwaro Obuku, John N Lavis, Nelson Sewankambo

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Feasibility and Acceptability of mPallCareJMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Boniface MutatinaCollege of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. bonifacemutatina@yahoo.com.
Robert BasazaCollege of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Ekwaro ObukuCollege of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
John N LavisMcMaster Health Forum, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, and Department of Political Science, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. West, CRL 209, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L6, Ontario, Canada.
Nelson SewankamboCollege of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Makerere University · UGLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBMcMaster University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth policymakers in low- and middle-income countries continue to face difficulties in accessing and using research evidence for decision-making. This study aimed to identify and provide a refined categorisation of the policy documents necessary for building the content of a one-stop shop for documents relevant to health policy and systems in Uganda. The on-line resource is to facilitate timely access to well-packaged evidence for decision-making.

methodsWe conducted a scoping review of Uganda-specific, health policy, and systems-relevant documents produced between 2000 and 2014. Our methods borrowed heavily from the 2005 Arksey and O'Malley approach for scoping reviews and involved five steps, which that include identification of the research question; identification of relevant documents; screening and selection of the documents; charting of the data; and collating, summarising and reporting results. We searched for the documents from websites of relevant government institutions, non-governmental organisations, health professional councils and associations, religious medical bureaus and research networks. We presented the review findings as numerical analyses of the volume and nature of documents and trends over time in the form of tables and charts.

resultsWe identified a total of 265 documents including policies, strategies, plans, guidelines, rapid response summaries, evidence briefs for policy, and dialogue reports. The top three clusters of national priority areas addressed in the documents were governance, coordination, monitoring and evaluation (28%); disease prevention, mitigation, and control (23%); and health education, promotion, environmental health and nutrition (15%). The least addressed were curative, palliative care, rehabilitative services and health infrastructure, each addressed in three documents (1%), and early childhood development in one document. The volume of documents increased over the past 15 years; however, the distribution of the different document types over time has not been uniform.

conclusionThe review findings are necessary for mobilising and packaging the local policy-relevant documents in Uganda in a one-stop shop; where policymakers could easily access them to address pressing questions about the health system and interventions. The different types of available documents and the national priority areas covered provide a good basis for building and organising the content in a meaningful way for the resource.

Indexed as

Health PolicyDocumentationEvidence-Based PracticeHealth Information SystemsHealth PrioritiesHumansUgandaClearinghouseEvidence-informed policyFrameworkHealth policy and system documentsLow- and middle-income countriesUganda

Identifiers

PMID28166798
PMCPMC5294842
OpenAlexW2586520037

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.