Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38622666›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2024

Politics-evidence conflict in national health policy making in Africa: a scoping review.

Edward W Ansah, Samuel Maneen, Anastasia Ephraim, Janet E Y Ocloo, Mabel N Barnes, Nkosi N Botha

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
13.5field-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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Digital pulse: Social media reaction to South Africa's National Health Insurance implementation.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2025
    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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Edward W AnsahDepartment of Health, Physical Education and Recreation (HPER), University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9450-7774
Samuel ManeenDepartment of Health, Physical Education and Recreation (HPER), University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0797-6685
Anastasia EphraimDepartment of Health, Physical Education and Recreation (HPER), University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9043-3333
Janet E Y OclooDepartment of Health, Physical Education and Recreation (HPER), University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6612-0476
Mabel N BarnesDepartment of Health, Physical Education and Recreation (HPER), University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana.
Nkosi N BothaDepartment of Health, Physical Education and Recreation (HPER), University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana. saintbotha2015@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7879-3459
University of Cape Coast · GH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenerally, public health policy-making is hardly a linear process and is characterized by interactions among politicians, institutions, researchers, technocrats and practitioners from diverse fields, as well as brokers, interest groups, financiers and a gamut of other actors. Meanwhile, most public health policies and systems in Africa appear to be built loosely on technical and scientific evidence, but with high political systems and ideologies. While studies on national health policies in Africa are growing, there seems to be inadequate evidence mapping on common themes and concepts across existing literature. PURPOSE: The study seeks to explore the extent and type of evidence that exist on the conflict between politics and scientific evidence in the national health policy-making processes in Africa.

methodsA thorough literature search was done in PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, Dimensions, Taylor and Francis, Chicago Journals, Emerald Insight, JSTOR and Google Scholar. In total, 43 peer-reviewed articles were eligible and used for this review.

resultWe found that the conflicts to evidence usage in policy-making include competing interests and lack of commitment; global policy goals, interest/influence, power imbalance and funding, morals; and evidence-based approaches, self-sufficiency, collaboration among actors, policy priorities and existing structures. Barriers to the health policy process include fragmentation among actors, poor advocacy, lack of clarity on the agenda, inadequate evidence, inadequate consultation and corruption. The impact of the politics-evidence conflict includes policy agenda abrogation, suboptimal policy development success and policy implementation inadequacies.

conclusionsWe report that political interests in most cases influence policy-makers and other stakeholders to prioritize financial gains over the use of research evidence to policy goals and targets. This situation has the tendency for inadequate health policies with poor implementation gaps. Addressing these issues requires incorporating relevant evidence into health policies, making strong leadership, effective governance and a commitment to public health.

Indexed as

Health PolicyPolicy MakingPoliticsAfricaEvidence-Based PracticeHumansPublic HealthAfricaEvidence-based policyHealth policyHealth politicsPolicy-makingPublic healthPublic policy

Identifiers

PMID38622666
PMCPMC11017532
OpenAlexW4394816496

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.