Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34895251›Full record

ReviewHealth research policy and systems2021

Political economy analysis of universal health coverage and health financing reforms in low- and middle-income countries: the role of stakeholder engagement in the research process.

Giulia Loffreda, Kéfilath Bello, Joël Arthur Kiendrébéogo, Isidore Selenou, Mohamed Ali Ag Ahmed, Jean Paul Dossou, Sophie Witter, Maria Paola Bertone

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 6 countries.

Giulia LoffredaInstitute for Global Health and Development, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, UK. gloffreda@qmu.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4895-1051
Kéfilath BelloCentre de Recherche en Reproduction Humaine et en Démographie, CERRHUD, Cotonou, Benin.
Joël Arthur KiendrébéogoDepartment of Public Health, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium.
Isidore SelenouResearch for Development International, Yaoundé, Cameroon.
Mohamed Ali Ag AhmedDepartment of Public Health, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium.
Jean Paul DossouCentre de Recherche en Reproduction Humaine et en Démographie, CERRHUD, Cotonou, Benin.
Sophie WitterInstitute for Global Health and Development, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, UK.
Maria Paola BertoneInstitute for Global Health and Development, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, UK.
Queen Margaret University · GBInstituut voor Tropische Geneeskunde · BEUniversité de Montréal · CAUniversité Joseph Ki-Zerbo · BFUniversity of Bamako · ML

Funding

National Institute for Health Research 130266
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProgress towards universal health coverage (UHC) is an inherently political process. Political economy analysis (PEA) is gaining momentum as a tool to better understand the role of the political and economic dimensions in shaping and achieving UHC in different contexts. Despite the acknowledged importance of actors and stakeholders in political economy considerations, their role in the PEA research process beyond "study subjects" as potential cocreators of knowledge and knowledge users has been overlooked so far. We therefore aimed to review the approaches with reference to stakeholder engagement during the research process adopted in the current published research on the political economy of UHC and health financing reforms, and the factors favouring (or hindering) uptake and usability of PEA work.

methodsWe reviewed the literature to describe whether, when and how stakeholders were involved in the research process of studies looking at the political economy of UHC and health financing reforms, and to identify challenges and lessons learned on effective stakeholder engagement and research uptake. We used a standardized search strategy with key terms across several databases; we screened and included articles that focused on PEA and UHC. Additionally, we conducted a short survey of the authors of the included studies to complement the information retrieved.

resultsFifty articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. We found overall little evidence of systematic engagement of stakeholders in the research process, which focused mostly on the data collection phase of the research (i.e., key informant interviews). Our study identifies some reasons for the varying stakeholder engagement. Challenges include PEA requiring specific skills, a focus on sensitive issues, and the blurriness in researchers' and stakeholders' roles and the multiple roles of stakeholders as research participants, study subjects and research users. Among the approaches that might favour usability of PEA work, we identified early engagement, coproduction of research questions, local partners and personal contact, political willingness, and trust and use of prospective analysis.

conclusionsStakeholder engagement and research uptake are multifaceted concepts and complex processes, particularly when applied to PEA. As such, stakeholder engagement in the research process of PEA of UHC and health financing reforms is limited and underreported. Despite the challenges, however, stakeholder engagement remains key to ensuring relevance, usability and research uptake of PEA studies. More efforts are required to ensure engagement at different stages of the research process and better reporting in published articles.

Indexed as

Healthcare FinancingUniversal Health InsuranceDelivery of Health CareDeveloping CountriesHumansStakeholder ParticipationHealth financingPolitical economyResearch uptakeStakeholder engagementUniversal health coverage

Identifiers

PMID34895251
PMCPMC8665578
OpenAlexW4200066631

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.