Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33661285›Full record

ReviewHealth policy and planning2021

Barriers and facilitators to knowledge translation activities within academic institutions in low- and middle-income countries.

Anna Kalbarczyk, Daniela C Rodriguez, Yodi Mahendradhata, Malabika Sarker, Assefa Seme, Piyusha Majumdar, Oluwaseun O Akinyemi, Patrick Kayembe, Olakunle O Alonge

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health policy and planning, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. "Community Over Commercialization": Help Us Keep GHSP Open.Global health, science and practice · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

9 authors at 7 institutions in 8 countries.

Anna KalbarczykJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6143-8634
Daniela C RodriguezJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Yodi MahendradhataFaculty of Medicine, Public Health and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Bulaksumur Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
Malabika SarkerBRAC James P. Grant School of Public Health, BRAC University, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Assefa SemeAddis Ababa University School of Public Health, Ethiopia.
Piyusha MajumdarIndian Institute of Health Management Research, Bengaluru, India.
Oluwaseun O AkinyemiDepartment of Health Policy and Management, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria.
Patrick KayembeSchool of Public Health, University of Kinshasa, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Olakunle O AlongeJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Johns Hopkins University · USAddis Ababa University · ETHeidelberg University · DEIIHMR University · INUniversitas Gadjah Mada · IDUniversity of Ibadan · NGUniversity of Kinshasa · CD

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The barriers and facilitators of conducting knowledge translation (KT) activities are well-established but less is known about the institutional forces that drive these barriers, particularly in low resource settings. Understanding organizational readiness has been used to assess and address such barriers but the employment of readiness assessments has largely been done in high-income countries. We conducted a qualitative study to describe the institutional needs and barriers in KT specific to academic institutions in low- and middle-income countries. We conducted a review of the grey and published literature to identify country health priorities and established barriers and facilitators for KT. Key-informant interviews (KII) were conducted to elicit perceptions of institutional readiness to conduct KT, including experiences with KT, and views on motivation and capacity building. Participants included representatives from academic institutions and Ministries of Health in six countries (Bangladesh, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Nigeria). We conducted 18 KIIs, 11 with members of academic institutions and 7 with policymakers. KIIs were analysed using a deductive and inductive coding approach. Our findings support many well-documented barriers including lack of time, skills and institutional support to conduct KT. Three additional institutional drivers emerged around soft skills and the complexity of the policy process, alignment of incentives and institutional missions, and the role of networks. Participants reflected on often-lacking soft-skills needed by researchers to engage policy makers. Continuous engagement was viewed as a challenge given competing demands for time (both researchers and policy makers) and lack of institutional incentives to conduct KT. Strong networks, both within the institution and between institutions, were described as important for conducting KT but difficult to establish and maintain. Attention to the cross-cutting themes representing barriers and facilitators for both individuals and institutions can inform the development of capacity building strategies that meet readiness needs.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesTranslational Research, BiomedicalBangladeshEthiopiaHumansIndiaIndonesiaNigeriacapacity buildingKnowledge translationmotivationorganizational readiness

Identifiers

PMID33661285
PMCPMC8173595
OpenAlexW3135543076

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.