ArticleGates open research2026
Characterizing multi-criteria decision analysis, risk stratification, and hotspot analysis methods to optimise health policymaking and evidence translation for medicines in low- and middle-income countries: A scoping review.
Article in Gates open research, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Implementing new medicines or health interventions in lower-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) may be complex and challenging, and there is a need for practical structured approaches and tools to support the translation of evidence into practice, including the implementation of evidence-informed interventions and health policy making. Objective: This scoping review aimed to characterise three data analytical methodologies - multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), risk stratification, and hotspot analysis - to evaluate their use in guiding the implementation of medicines for human health in LMICs between 2010-2025. Methods: Scientific articles were searched in databases PubMed and Scopus following guidelines from the Preferred Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). Data were extracted in relation to the study aims, geographic scope and scale, author affiliations, disease focus, medicine type (categorised as oral drugs or vaccines), target population, medicine implementation phase, use of templates or tools, and main steps of the methodological process. In addition, grey literature was searched by reviewing conference abstracts, national public health websites and journals. Results: From the 4,920 articles screened, a total of 40 articles (MCDA=8, risk stratification= 22, hotspot analysis=10) were included from 28 countries across five global regions, mostly Africa. Most articles focused on communicable infectious diseases, and drugs (oral regimens) and vaccines in the pre-implementation stage at a sub-national level. The processes and techniques used for each analytical method varied widely, limiting comparability. However, common methodological steps were identified and used to construct preliminary templates to summarise the processes involved in applying each methodology and support their potential adaptations for decision-making around medicine implementation. Conclusion: These analytical methodologies provide a structured basis for further developing practical templates and decision-support tools to enhance the medicine translation; however, efforts are needed to raise awareness, strengthen capacity, and facilitate greater uptake.
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.