Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32516361›Full record

ArticleHealth policy and planning2020

How do decision-makers use evidence in community health policy and financing decisions? A qualitative study and conceptual framework in four African countries.

Meghan Bruce Kumar, Miriam Taegtmeyer, Jason Madan, Sozinho Ndima, Kingsley Chikaphupha, Aschenaki Kea, Edwine Barasa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health policy and planning, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. SEEP-CI: A Structured Economic Evaluation Process for Complex Health System Interventions.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    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.

Meghan Bruce KumarCommunity Health Systems Group, Department of International Public Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
Miriam TaegtmeyerCommunity Health Systems Group, Department of International Public Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
Jason MadanCentre for Health Economics at Warwick, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Sozinho NdimaCommunity Health Department, Faculty of Medicine, University Eduardo Mondlane, Maputo, Mozambique.
Kingsley ChikaphuphaResearch for Equity and Community Health (REACH) Trust, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Aschenaki KeaSchool of Public and Environmental Health, Hawassa University, Hawassa, Ethiopia.
Edwine BarasaHealth Economics Research Unit, KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Various investments could help countries deliver on the universal health coverage (UHC) goals set by the global community; community health is a pillar of many national strategies towards UHC. Yet despite resource mobilization towards this end, little is known about the potential costs and value of these investments, as well as how evidence on the same would be used in related decisions. This qualitative study was conducted to understand the use of evidence in policy and financing decisions for large-scale community health programmes in low- and middle-income countries. Through key informant interviews with 43 respondents in countries with community health embedded in national UHC strategies (Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique) and at global institutions, we investigated evidence use in community health financing and policy decision-making, as well as evidentiary needs related to community health data for decision-making. We found that evidence use is limited at all levels, in part due to a perceived lack of high-quality, relevant evidence. This perception stems from two main areas: first, desire for local evidence that reflects the context, and second, much existing economic evidence does not deal with what decision-makers value when it comes to community health systems-i.e. coverage and (to a lesser extent) quality. Beyond the evidence gap, there is limited capacity to assess and use the evidence. Elected officials also face political challenges to disinvestment as well as structural obstacles to evidence use, including the outsized influence of donor priorities. Evaluation data must to speak to decision-maker interests and constraints more directly, alongside financiers of community health providing explicit guidance and support on the role of evidence use in decision-making, empowering national decision-makers. Improved data quality, increased relevance of evidence and capacity for evidence use can drive improved efficiency of financing and evidence-based policymaking.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingHealth PolicyPublic HealthEthiopiaHumansKenyaMalawiMozambiquecommunity healthEconomic evaluationEthiopiaevidence-based policyhealth financingKenyaMalawiMozambique

Identifiers

PMID32516361
PMCPMC7487332

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.