Experience of Kenyan researchers and policy-makers with knowledge translation during COVID-19: a qualitative interview study

Challenges for research uptake for health policymaking and practice in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

An estimated 85% of research resources are wasted worldwide, while there is growing demand for context-based evidence-informed health policymaking. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), research uptake for health policymaking and practice is even lower, while little is known about the barriers to the translation of health evidence to policy and local implementation. We aimed to compile the current evidence on barriers to uptake of research in health policy and practice in LMICs using scoping review.

METHODS

The scoping review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses-extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Both published evidence and grey literature on research uptake were systematically searched from major databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL (EBSCO), Global Health (Ovid)) and direct Google Scholar. Literature exploring barriers to uptake of research evidence in health policy and practice in LMICs were included and their key findings were synthesized using thematic areas to address the review question.

RESULTS

A total of 4291 publications were retrieved in the initial search, of which 142 were included meeting the eligibility criteria. Overall, research uptake for policymaking and practice in LMICs was very low. The challenges to research uptake were related to lack of understanding of the local contexts, low political priority, poor stakeholder engagement and partnership, resource and capacity constraints, low system response for accountability and lack of communication and dissemination platforms.

CONCLUSION

Important barriers to research uptake, mainly limited contextual understanding and low participation of key stakeholders and ownership, have been identified. Understanding the local research and policy context and participatory evidence production and dissemination may promote research uptake for policy and practice. Institutions that bridge the chasm between knowledge formation, evidence synthesis and translation may play critical role in the translation process.

'What we lacked was the courage to take decisions that differed from the rest of the world': expert perspectives on the role of evidence in COVID-19 policymaking in Iraq

INTRODUCTION

Iraq reported its first COVID-19 case on 24 February 2020 and formed a national committee and advisory committees to support its response. While global experts have suggested that the COVID-19 pandemic provided an exceptional opportunity for advancing evidence-informed policymaking (EIPM), no research has examined this in Iraq. Therefore, this study aimed to examine evidence use in COVID-19 policymaking in Iraq.

METHODS

This qualitative study employed semi-structured interviews with 20 Iraqi policymakers and researchers. Data were analysed thematically in Arabic using inductive coding.

FINDINGS

Participants described COVID-19 policy in Iraq as based on research conducted in other countries, with poor access and quality of routine data and lack of national research priorities and academic freedom as barriers to national research production. Most researchers influenced policy individually, with universities and other research bodies not seen as contributing to policy development. Public non-compliance could be traced to mistrust in both political and healthcare systems and became particularly problematic during the pandemic. Proposed strategies to increase national research production included dedicated funding, establishing communication and collaboration for research priority setting, and protection of academic freedom.

CONCLUSION

Sociopolitical and economic realities in Iraq were unsupportive of national or subnational evidence generation even before the COVID-19 pandemic, and government relied on international evidence and policy transfer rather than contextually informed EIPM. Strengthening evidence-informed infectious disease policymaking and policy transfer would thus require governmental focus on improving the quality and relevance of Iraqi research, engagement between researchers and policymakers, and processes of evidence use and policy transfer.

The hidden emotional labour behind ensuring the social value of research: Experiences of frontline health policy and systems researchers based in Kenya during COVID-19

Health policy and systems research (HPSR) is a multi-disciplinary, largely applied field of research aimed at understanding and strengthening the performance of health systems, often with an emphasis on power, policy and equity. The value of embedded and participatory HPSR specifically in facilitating the collection of rich data that is relevant to addressing real-world challenges is increasingly recognised. However, the potential contributions and challenges of HPSR in the context of shocks and crises are not well documented, with a particular gap in the literature being the experiences and coping strategies of the HPSR researchers who are embedded in health systems in resource constrained settings. In this paper, we draw on two sets of group discussions held among a group of approximately 15 HPSR researchers based in Nairobi, Kenya, who were conducting a range of embedded HPSR studies throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. The researchers, including many of the authors, were employed by the KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme (KWTRP), which is a long-standing multi-disciplinary partnership between the Kenya Medical Research Institute and the Wellcome Trust with a central goal of contributing to national and international health policy and practice. We share our findings in relation to three inter-related themes: 1) Ensuring the continued social value of our HPSR work in the face of changing priorities; 2) Responding to shifting ethical procedures and processes at institutional and national levels; and 3) Protecting our own and front-line colleagues' well-being, including clinical colleagues. Our experiences highlight that in navigating research work and responsibilities to colleagues, patients and participants through the pandemic, many embedded HPSR staff faced difficult emotional and ethical challenges, including heightened forms of moral distress, which may have been better prevented and supported. We draw on our findings and the wider literature to discuss considerations for funders and research leads with an eye to strengthening support for embedded HPSR staff, not only in crises such as the on-going COVID-19 pandemic, but also more generally.