ArticleHeliyon2024
Barriers and facilitators of translating doctoral research findings into policy: The case of a selected health sciences school in a South African university.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although the barriers and facilitators of translating health research into policy are generally well documented, not much has been reported for universities in low-and middle-income countries. We identified and analyzed barriers and facilitators of translating doctoral research findings into policy in a selected health sciences school in a South African university. Methods: The study adopted a quantitative descriptive research design. We conveniently collected data through an online questionnaire administered to 47 PhD graduates, 11 PhD final year students and 21 PhD supervisors of the School of Nursing and Public Health. Descriptive statistics was performed, and data were summarized using percentages. Results: More than half (72.4 %) of the students reported not involving Department of Health during formulation of research questions for their projects and 62.1 % reported not directly sharing research findings with the Department of Health. 53.4 % of the students indicated that they attended Department of Health research days and only 39.7 % said they presented research findings at the meetings. Only 39.7 % of the students who shared their research results to the Department of Health received feedback. About 52.4 % of the academic supervisors believed the introduction of the quartile system as a measure of impact of publications may reduce policy impact. An individual PhD supervisor supervises an average of 6 PhD students at any given time. 85.7 % of PhD supervisors reported that they consider stakeholders needs/interests when assisting students to identify research topics. Conclusion: The study revealed the need for universities to make policymakers aware of available evidence, conduct research that is informed by the Department of Health's research agenda, involve the Department of Health in identifying research projects, and disseminate findings using platforms accessible to policymakers. Other key considerations are political will to utilize evidence, packaging evidence in a user-friendly manner and building the capacity of policymakers to use evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.