ArticleHealth research policy and systems2025
Assessing the potential for scaling evidence-based interventions in African health systems: A deliberate dialogue.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2025. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe WHO Regional Office for Africa reviewed evidence-based interventions designed to enhance health systems outputs: access, quality, demand and resilience. Although there is eagerness to expand interventions, the extent to which they can be successfully scaled remains mostly unknown. This study evaluated their potential for scaling to enhance system outputs.
methodsUnderpinned by two frameworks for knowledge transfer, the study utilized a deliberative dialogue approach and an integrated knowledge translation strategy. A steering committee of 8 men and women oversaw the process, and 25 experts from across Africa were invited to participate. Data collection employed the African Scalability Assessment Framework (AFROSAF), consisting of 15 attributes grouped into nine scalability components: health need (three attributes), development process (three), intervention content (one), political context (one), evidence for impact (two), resource availability (one), target unit (one), scaling setting (one) and sustainability at scale (one). The scoring was on a 4-point Likert scale. Intervention scores ranged from 0 to 100, where higher scores indicated a greater potential for successful scaling. Data analysis included frequency counts, arithmetic mean, standard deviation (SD), 95% confidence interval (CI) and hierarchical cluster analysis.
resultsA total of 288 health services interventions were rated for scalability, with most focusing on disease prevention (n = 114; 39.6%) and newborn age group (n = 70; 24.3%). The scalability scores averaged 79.2 (SD 17.5). The highest component score was evidence for impact [mean (CI 95%) 87.9 (85.7, 90.2)] and lowest for health security [61.9 (58.0, 65.8)]. The scalability scores varied across public health functions and age cohorts. Interventions were clustered into three groups based on their scalability score: high (n = 185; 64.2%; mean 89.5; SD 6.1; range 78.7-100), medium (n = 77; 26.7%; mean 68.6; SD 5.3; range 58.3-76.9) and low (n = 26; 9.0%; mean 37.4; SD 14.2; range 3.7-55.6). Most high-scoring interventions focused on disease prevention, 78 (42.2%) and reproductive and newborn age groups 59 (31.9%).
conclusionsThis study rated public health interventions for their scalability in African health systems. Disease prevention interventions for pregnancy women and newborns were most likely to be scaled. However, health security remained largely unexplored, and further investigation remains pivotal.
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.