Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29121958›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2017

Institutional capacity to generate and use evidence in LMICs: current state and opportunities for HPSR.

Zubin Cyrus Shroff, Dena Javadi, Lucy Gilson, Rockie Kang, Abdul Ghaffar

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 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Reconfiguring global primary care evidence: The essential role of regional journals.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Periodontal diseases in Africa.Periodontology 2000 · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

5 authors.

Zubin Cyrus ShroffAlliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, World Health Organization, Avenue Appia 20, Geneva, 1211, Switzerland. shroffz@who.int.
Dena JavadiAlliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, World Health Organization, Avenue Appia 20, Geneva, 1211, Switzerland.
Lucy GilsonHealth Economics Unit, Health Policy and Systems Division, School of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Rockie KangUniversity of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Abdul GhaffarAlliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, World Health Organization, Avenue Appia 20, Geneva, 1211, Switzerland.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence-informed decision-making for health is far from the norm, particularly in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Health policy and systems research (HPSR) has an important role in providing the context-sensitive and -relevant evidence that is needed. However, there remain significant challenges both on the supply side, in terms of capacity for generation of policy-relevant knowledge such as HPSR, and on the demand side in terms of the demand for and use of evidence for policy decisions. This paper brings together elements from both sides to analyse institutional capacity for the generation of HPSR and the use of evidence (including HPSR) more broadly in LMICs.

methodsThe paper uses literature review methods and two survey instruments (directed at research institutions and Ministries of Health, respectively) to explore the types of institutional support required to enhance the generation and use of evidence.

resultsFindings from the survey of research institutions identified the absence of core funding, the lack of definitional clarity and academic incentive structures for HPSR as significant constraints. On the other hand, the survey of Ministries of Health identified a lack of locally relevant evidence, poor presentation of research findings and low institutional prioritisation of evidence use as significant constraints to evidence uptake. In contrast, improved communication between researchers and decision-makers and increased availability of relevant evidence were identified as facilitators of evidence uptake.

conclusionThe findings make a case for institutional arrangements in research that provide support for career development, collaboration and cross-learning for researchers, as well as the setting up of institutional arrangements and processes to incentivise the use of evidence among Ministries of Health and other decision-making institutions. The paper ends with a series of recommendations to build institutional capacity in HPSR through engaging multiple stakeholders in identifying and maintaining incentive structures, improving research (including HPSR) training, and developing stronger tools for synthesising non-traditional forms of local, policy-relevant evidence such as grey literature. Addressing challenges on both the supply and demand side can build institutional capacity in the research and policy worlds and support the enhanced uptake of high quality evidence in policy decisions.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesHealth PolicyPolicy MakingCapacity BuildingCooperative BehaviorEvidence-Based PracticeHumansResearch PersonnelAlliance for Health Policy and Systems ResearchHealth policy and systems researchInstitutional capacityLow- and middle-income countries

Identifiers

PMID29121958
PMCPMC5680819

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.