Mapping the use of research to support strategies tackling maternal and child health inequities: evidence from six countries in Africa and Latin America

Health Research Policy and Systems

Fernando Muñoz³  Wanderley Bernardo⁵  Felix Limbani¹  Maria de Fatima Cuembelo⁶  Cynthia N. A. Hazel⁴  Patricia Akweongo⁴  Miguel Ángel Gonzalez-Block²  Victor Becerril-Montekio²  Emily Vargas⁷ 

[1] Dignities International, Research Department, Knowledge Translation Unit, Zomba, Malawi;Centro de Investigación en Sistemas de Salud, National Institute of Public Health, Cuernavaca, México;Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile;School of Public Health, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana;University of Sao Paolo, Sao Paolo, Brazil;Independent consultant, Maputo, Mozambique;National Institute of Health, Bogotá, D.C., Colombia

关键词: Research utilization;    Maternal and child health;    Latin America;    Inequities;    Health programs;    Evidence;    Africa;   

Others  :  1235280
DOI  :  10.1186/s12961-015-0072-1

 received in 2015-06-11, accepted in 2015-12-16,  发布年份 2016

【 摘 要 】

Background

Striving to foster collaboration among countries suffering from maternal and child health (MCH) inequities, the MASCOT project mapped and analyzed the use of research in strategies tackling them in 11 low- and middle-income countries. This article aims to present the way in which research influenced MCH policies and programs in six of these countries – three in Africa and three in Latin America.

Methods

Qualitative research using a thematic synthesis narrative process was used to identify and describe who is producing what kind of research, how research is funded, how inequities are approached by research and policies, the countries’ research capacities, and the type of evidence base that MCH policies and programs use. Four tools were designed for these purposes: an online survey for researchers, a semi-structured interview with decision makers, and two content analysis guides: one for policy and programs documents and one for scientific articles.

Results

Three modalities of research utilization were observed in the strategies tackling MCH inequities in the six included countries – instrumental, conceptual and symbolic. Instrumental utilization directly relates the formulation and contents of the strategies with research results, and is the least used within the analyzed policies and programs. Even though research is considered as an important input to support decision making and most of the analyzed countries count five or six relevant MCH research initiatives, in most cases, the actual impact of research is not clearly identifiable.

Conclusions

While MCH research is increasing in low- and middle-income countries, the impact of its outcomes on policy formulation is low. We did not identify a direct relationship between the nature of the financial support organizations and the kind of evidence utilization within the policy process. There is still a visible gap between researchers and policymakers regarding their different intentions to link evidence and decision making processes.

【 授权许可】

   
2016 Vargas et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]MASCOT. Proposal full title: Multilateral association for studying health inequalities and enhancing north-south. Coordination action. 2012. http://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/156424_en.html. Accessed 14 February 2015.
• [2]Organización Panamericana de la Salud. Salud en las Américas. http://www.paho.org/SaludenlasAmericas/index.php?id=58&option=com_content. Accessed 6 October 2014.
• [3]World Health Organization. Maternal, new-born, child and adolescent health. Neonatal mortality: trends 1990-2010. http://www.who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/topics/newborn/neonatal_mortality/en/. Accessed 12 November 2011.
• [4]World Health Organization. World Health Statistics 2010. http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/EN_WHS10_Full.pdf. Accessed 12 November 2011.
• [5]Stronks K. Generating evidence on interventions to reduce inequalities in health: the Dutch case. Scand J Public Health Suppl. 2002; 30:20-5.
• [6]MASCOT. Multilateral Association for Studying Health Inequalities and Enhancing North–south and South Cooperation. http://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/156424_en.html. Accessed 15 October 2014.
• [7]Banzi R, Moja L, Pistotti V, Facchini A, Liberati A. Conceptual frameworks and empirical approaches used to assess the impact of health research: an overview of reviews. Health Res Policy Syst. 2001; 9:26. BioMed Central Full Text
• [8]Cohen G, Shroeder J, Newson R, King L, Rychetnik L. Does health intervention research have real world policy and practice impacts: testing a new impact assessment tool. Health Res Policy Syst. 2015; 13:3. BioMed Central Full Text
• [9]van Dijk JP. Public health facts – why don’t they lead to healthy public policy? Int J Public Health. 2008; 53:121-22.
• [10]Hanney S, Gonzalez-Block MA, Buxton MJ, Kogan M. The utilisation of health research in policy-making: concepts, example and methods of assessment. Health Res Policy Syst. 2003; 1:2. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Weiss CH. The many meanings of research utilization. Public Adm Rev. 1979; 39(5):426-31.
• [12]Lavis JN, Ross SE, Hurley JE, Hohenadel JM, Stoddart GL, Woodward CA et al.. Examining the role of health services research in public policymaking. Milbank Q. 2001; 80:125-54.
• [13]Mays N, Pope C, Popay J. Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. Health Serv Res Policy. 2005; 10:6-20.
• [14]Ghana Health Service. National Infant and Young Child Feeding for Ghana Strategy Document. 2007.
• [15]Ghana Health Service. National Reproductive Health Service Policy and Standards. Second edition. 2003.
• [16]Word Health Organization. African Health Observatory. Analytical summary. http://www.aho.afro.who.int/profiles_information/index.php/Malawi:Analytical_summary_-_Health_information,_research,_evidence_and_knowledge. Accessed 23 October 2011.
• [17]Ali N, Hill C, Kennedy A, IJsselmuiden C. What factors influence national health research agendas in low and middle income countries?. COHRED, Geneva; 2006.
• [18]Murthy L, Shepperd S, Clarke MJ, Garner SE, Lavis JN, Perrier L et al.. Interventions to improve the use of systematic reviews in decision-making by health system managers, policy makers and clinicians. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 9:CD009401.
• [19]Sutcliffe S, Court J. Evidence-based policymaking: What is it? How does it work? What relevance for developing countries? Overseas Development Institute; 2005. http://www.odi.org/publications/2804-evidence-based-policymaking-work-relevance-developing-countries. Accessed 15 February 2015
• [20]Innvaer S, Vist G, Trommald M, Oxman A. Health policy-makers’ perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2001; 7:239-44.
• [21]Langlois EV, Ranson MK, Bärnighausen T, Bosch-Capblanch X, Daniels K, El-Jardali F et al.. Advancing the field of health systems research synthesis. Syst Rev. 2015; 4:90. BioMed Central Full Text
• [22]Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research. What is Health Policy and Systems Research and why does it matter? Geneva: AHPSR; 2007.
• [23]Bornbaum CC, Kornas K, Peirson L, Rosella LC. Exploring the function and effectiveness of knowledge brokers as facilitators of knowledge translation in health related settings: a systematic review and thematic analysis. Implement Sci. 2015; 20:10.
• [24]Ongolo-Zogo P, Lavis JN, Tomson G, Sewankambo NK. Climate for evidence informed health system policymaking in Cameroon and Uganda before and after the introduction of knowledge translation platforms: a structured review of governmental policy documents. Health Res Policy Syst. 2015; 13:2. BioMed Central Full Text
• [25]Koon A, Rao K, Tran N, Ghaffar A. Embedding health policy and systems research into decision-making processes in low- and middle-income countries. Health Res Policy Syst. 2013; 11:30. BioMed Central Full Text
• [26]Reed RL, Kalucy EC, Jackson-Bower E, McIntyre E. What research impacts do Australian primary health care researches expect and achieve? Health Res Policy Syst. 2011; 9:40. BioMed Central Full Text
• [27]Tetroe JM, Graham ID, Foy R, Robinson N, Eccles MP, Wensing M et al.. Health research funding agencies’ support and promotion of knowledge translation: an international study. Milbank Q. 2008; 86:125-55.
• [28]Council on Health Research for Development. Priority Setting for Health Research: Toward a management process for low and middle income countries. Geneva: COHRED; 2006.
• [29]Footman K, Chersich M, Blaauw D, Campbell O, Dhana J. A systematic mapping of funders of maternal health intervention research 2000-2012. Global Health. 2014; 10:72. BioMed Central Full Text