Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33676518›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2021

How to bring research evidence into policy? Synthesizing strategies of five research projects in low-and middle-income countries.

Séverine Erismann, Maria Amalia Pesantes, David Beran, Andrea Leuenberger, Andrea Farnham, Monica Berger Gonzalez de White, Niklaus Daniel Labhardt, Fabrizio Tediosi, Patricia Akweongo, August Kuwawenaruwa and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract 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 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
16.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 84 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Ten new insights in climate science 2024.One earth (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025
    Review
  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

15 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.

Séverine ErismannSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland. severine.erismann@swisstph.ch.
Maria Amalia PesantesCRONICAS Centre of Excellence in Chronic Diseases, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru.
David BeranDivision of Tropical and Humanitarian Medicine, University of Geneva and Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Andrea LeuenbergerSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland.
Andrea FarnhamSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland.
Monica Berger Gonzalez de WhiteSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland.
Niklaus Daniel LabhardtSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland.
Fabrizio TediosiSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland.
Patricia AkweongoSchool of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana.
August KuwawenaruwaSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland.
Jakob ZinsstagSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland.
Fritz BruggerSwiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Claire SomervilleGender Centre, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland.
Kaspar WyssSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland.
Helen PrytherchSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland. helen.prytherch@swisstph.ch.
University of Basel · CHSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute · CHGraduate Institute of International and Development Studies · CHUniversidad del Valle de Guatemala · GTUniversidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia · PEUniversity of Geneva · CHUniversity of Ghana · GH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAddressing the uptake of research findings into policy-making is increasingly important for researchers who ultimately seek to contribute to improved health outcomes. The aims of the Swiss Programme for Research on Global Issues for Development (r4d Programme) initiated by the Swiss National Science Foundation and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation are to create and disseminate knowledge that supports policy changes in the context of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This paper reports on five r4d research projects and shows how researchers engage with various stakeholders, including policy-makers, in order to assure uptake of the research results.

methodsEleven in-depth interviews were conducted with principal investigators and their research partners from five r4d projects, using a semi-structured interview guide. The interviews explored the process of how stakeholders and policy-makers were engaged in the research project.

resultsThree key strategies were identified as fostering research uptake into policies and practices: (S1) stakeholders directly engaged with and sought evidence from researchers; (S2) stakeholders were involved in the design and throughout the implementation of the research project; and (S3) stakeholders engaged in participatory and transdisciplinary research approaches to coproduce knowledge and inform policy. In the first strategy, research evidence was directly taken up by international stakeholders as they were actively seeking new evidence on a very specific topic to up-date international guidelines. In the second strategy, examples from two r4d projects show that collaboration with stakeholders from early on in the projects increased the likelihood of translating research into policy, but that the latter was more effective in a supportive and stable policy environment. The third strategy adopted by two other r4d projects demonstrates the benefits of promoting colearning as a way to address potential power dynamics and working effectively across the local policy landscape through robust research partnerships.

conclusionsThis paper provides insights into the different strategies that facilitate collaboration and communication between stakeholders, including policy-makers, and researchers. However, it remains necessary to increase our understanding of the interests and motivations of the different actors involved in the process of influencing policy, identify clear policy-influencing objectives and provide more institutional support to engage in this complex and time-intensive process.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesPolicy MakingAdministrative PersonnelHealth PolicyHumansPolicyResearch PersonnelEvidence-based policy-makingResearch for development

Identifiers

PMID33676518
PMCPMC7936421
OpenAlexW3134827198

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.