Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33482839›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2021

The state of health research governance in Africa: what do we know and how can we improve?

Juliet Nabyonga-Orem, James Avoka Asamani, Micheal Makanga

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Neuropsychiatry genetics in Africa.Nature communications · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Why Are African Researchers Left Behind in Global Scientific Publications? - A Viewpoint.International journal of health policy and management · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

Juliet Nabyonga-OremInter-Country Support Team for Eastern and Southern Africa, UHC Life Course Cluster, World Health Organization, 82-86 Enterprise/Glenara Roads, Highlands, P.O Box CY 348; Causeway, Harare, Zimbabwe. nabyongaj@who.int.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1061-8678
James Avoka AsamaniInter-Country Support Team for Eastern and Southern Africa, UHC Life Course Cluster, World Health Organization, 82-86 Enterprise/Glenara Roads, Highlands, P.O Box CY 348; Causeway, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Micheal MakangaThe European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP), Anna van Saksenlaan 51, 2593 HW, The Hague, The Netherlands.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe developments in global health, digital technology, and persistent health systems challenges, coupled with global commitments like attainment of universal health coverage, have elevated the role of health research in low- and middle-income countries. However, there is a need to strengthen health research governance and create a conducive environment that can promote ethics and research integrity and increase public trust in research.

objectiveTo assess whether the necessary structures are in place to ensure health research governance.

methodsEmploying a cross-sectional survey, we collected data on research governance components from 35 Member States of the World Health Organization (WHO) African Region. Data were analysed using basic descriptive and comparative analysis.

resultsEighteen out of 35 countries had legislation to regulate the conduct of health research, while this was lacking in 12 countries. Some legislation was either grossly outdated or too limiting in scope, while some countries had multiple laws. Health research policies and strategies were in place in 16 and 15 countries, respectively, while research priority lists were available in 25 countries. Overlapping mandates of institutions responsible for health research partly explained the lack of strategic documents in some countries. The majority of countries had ethical committees performing a dual role of ethical and scientific review. Research partnership frameworks were available to varying degrees to govern both in-country and north-south research collaboration. Twenty-five countries had a focal point and unit within the ministries of health (MoH) to coordinate research.

conclusionGovernance structures must be adaptive to embrace new developments in science. Further, strong coordination is key to ensuring comprehensiveness and complementarity in both research development and generation of evidence. The majority of committees perform a dual role of ethics and scientific review, and these need to ensure representation of relevant expertise. Opportunities that accrue from collaborative research need to be seized through strong MoH leadership and clear partnership frameworks that guide negotiations.

Indexed as

Government ProgramsHealth PolicyAfricaCross-Sectional StudiesHumansWorld Health OrganizationHealth researchRegulationResearch governance

Identifiers

PMID33482839
PMCPMC7821686

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.