Feasibility of a rapid response mechanism to meet policymakers' urgent needs for research evidence about health systems in a low income country: a case study

Abstract

ObjectivesDespite the recognition of the importance of evidence-informed health policy and practice, there are still barriers to translating research findings into policy and practice. The present study aimed to establish the feasibility of a rapid response mechanism, a knowledge translation strategy designed to meet policymakers' urgent needs for evidence about health systems in a low income country, Uganda. Rapid response mechanisms aim to address the barriers of timeliness and relevance of evidence at the time it is needed.MethodsA rapid response mechanism (service) designed a priori was offered to policymakers in the health sector in Uganda. In the form of a case study, data were collected about the profile of users of the service, the kinds of requests for evidence, changes in answers, and courses of action influenced by the mechanism and their satisfaction with responses and the mechanism in general.ResultsWe found that in the first 28 months, the service received 65 requests for evidence from 30 policymakers and stakeholders, the majority of whom were from the Ministry of Health. The most common requests for evidence were about governance and organization of health systems. It was noted that regular contact between the policymakers and the researchers at the response service was an important factor in response to, and uptake of the service. The service seemed to increase confidence for policymakers involved in the policymaking process.ConclusionRapid response mechanisms designed to meet policymakers' urgent needs for research evidence about health systems are feasible and acceptable to policymakers in low income countries.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0114-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The path to longer and healthier lives for all Africans by 2030: the Lancet Commission on the future of health in sub-Saharan Africa

“…[307][308][309][310] Whereas international agencies are increasingly investing in research in Africa, they rarely provide core funding to strengthen institutions involved in such research. In addition, caps on overheads by some western research funders for African research institutions limit institutional development.…”

Use of Research Evidence in Policy and Decision-Making: Views, Attitudes and Practices of Health Policy Makers in Lusaka Province of Zambia

“…Surprisingly, despite the reported importance of EIHP, majority of the participants in this study, used evidence only sometimes with only a few who used evidence all the time when making decisions. Similarly, Mijumbi and colleagues [16] reported that, all the policymakers affirmed that research evidence was an important part of the policymaking process. This confirms the important of using research evidence in the decision-making process.…”

“…Similarly, researcher like Lavis and colleagues [8] reported that policy makers were not supported to acquire the required skills or to use research evidence in different forms. In addition, Mijumbi and others [16] indicated a lack of experience in RRM among policy makers and thus addressing this problem through such mechanisms and if accepted by policymakers can go a long way in improving capacity of policy makers in using RRM services. Thus, capacity building is also seen as important to increase researchers' abilities to produce and effectively disseminate evidence of use to decision makers [10] and to improve policy makers' abilities to critically appraise and interpret these outputs [17].…”

Policymaker experiences with rapid response briefs to address health-system and technology questions in Uganda

“…Researchers piloted a rapid response service in March 2010, providing rapid response briefs on demand to policymakers in Uganda [17]. The objectives of this study were to (1) explore Ugandan policymakers’ experiences with a rapid response brief template developed for this service; (2) use our findings to improve the format of that template; and (3) assess the extent to which the revised rapid response brief template better met policymakers’ needs.…”