Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28764787›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2017

Assessing the capacity of ministries of health to use research in decision-making: conceptual framework and tool.

Daniela C Rodríguez, Connie Hoe, Elina M Dale, M Hafizur Rahman, Sadika Akhter, Assad Hafeez, Wayne Irava, Preety Rajbangshi, Tamlyn Roman, Marcela Ţîrdea and 2 more

Abstract read
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 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Data-informed decision-making for life-saving commodities investments in Malawi: A qualitative case study.Malawi medical journal : the journal of Medical Association of Malawi · 2018
    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

12 authors.

Daniela C RodríguezDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States of America. drodri17@jhu.edu.
Connie HoeDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States of America.
Elina M DaleWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
M Hafizur RahmanDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States of America.
Sadika AkhterInternational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Assad HafeezHealth Services Academy, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Wayne IravaCollege of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Fiji National University, Suva, Fiji.
Preety RajbangshiPublic Health Foundation of India, Gurgaon, India.
Tamlyn Roman, Cape Town, South Africa.
Marcela ŢîrdeaMinistry of Health of the Republic of Moldova, Chisinau, Republic of Moldova.
Rouham YamoutUNICEF Lebanon, Beirut, Lebanon.
David H PetersDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States of America.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe capacity to demand and use research is critical for governments if they are to develop policies that are informed by evidence. Existing tools designed to assess how government officials use evidence in decision-making have significant limitations for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs); they are rarely tested in LMICs and focus only on individual capacity. This paper introduces an instrument that was developed to assess Ministry of Health (MoH) capacity to demand and use research evidence for decision-making, which was tested for reliability and validity in eight LMICs (Bangladesh, Fiji, India, Lebanon, Moldova, Pakistan, South Africa, Zambia).

methodsInstrument development was based on a new conceptual framework that addresses individual, organisational and systems capacities, and items were drawn from existing instruments and a literature review. After initial item development and pre-testing to address face validity and item phrasing, the instrument was reduced to 54 items for further validation and item reduction. In-country study teams interviewed a systematic sample of 203 MoH officials. Exploratory factor analysis was used in addition to standard reliability and validity measures to further assess the items.

resultsThirty items divided between two factors representing organisational and individual capacity constructs were identified. South Africa and Zambia demonstrated the highest level of organisational capacity to use research, whereas Pakistan and Bangladesh were the lowest two. In contrast, individual capacity was highest in Pakistan, followed by South Africa, whereas Bangladesh and Lebanon were the lowest.

conclusionThe framework and related instrument represent a new opportunity for MoHs to identify ways to understand and improve capacities to incorporate research evidence in decision-making, as well as to provide a basis for tracking change.

Indexed as

Decision MakingHealth Services ResearchCapacity BuildingEfficiency, OrganizationalHealth PolicyHumansReproducibility of ResultsCapacityDecision-makingGovernment officialsResearch utilisation

Identifiers

PMID28764787
PMCPMC5539643

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.