Table 3 Example of the content analysis process for the study
Codes | Categories | Theme |
|---|---|---|
-PMTCT National Advisory Committee was chaired by the scientist that carried out the Niverapine study -The PMTCT National Advisory Committee was the main decision-making body -The first author was also a member of this PMTCT National Advisory Committee -Both implementers and research agencies benefited from sharing the decision space | Shared platforms for learning and decision making | Lessons learnt from PMTCT |
-The PMTCT National Advisory Committee commissioned a pilot study to learn about the operations feasibility -A national pilot was established to examine the feasibility of implementing PMTCT -Pilots aimed to assess how integration of PMTCT into ANC might affect the acceptability | Pilots to assess feasibility of Interventions | |
-History of shared decision-making platform -Sustained collaboration with research agencies like MUJHU, JCRC and PIDC. -Integration of technocrats, basic and operations research scientists along with funding agencies interested -PMTCT National Advisory Committee used research to quickly adjust the guidelines to stop single dose Niverapine when it failed | Evolution of Agencies to undertake Operational research | |
-700,000 pregnant women are screened annually -Many babies remained HIV negative -The faces of these babies and smiles of grateful mothers are common -Beneficiaries often in media reports -It is harder now to find HIV positive babies -When people see this change they are more willing to implement the policy | Visibility of the Benefits of PMTCT | |
-SMC policy audiences were primarily global, the nature of policy decision had tight connections to global agencies like WHO, UNAIDS and NIH. -SMC research in Uganda, Kenya and South Africa was funded by global stakeholders -WHO called us, we shared our results with other experts | Global vis-à-vis National Policy Process | Lessons learnt from SMC |
-The demand for a series of addition research evidence -MoH discuss translation of SMC evidence into policy -Feasibility questions emerged -We are also looking at cultural sensitivity | Demand for feasibility research | |
-SMC benefits happen when a large number has undertaken the service -Benefits are difficult to visualize by the policymakers -Researchers envision complexity of this process -Can existing services to shoulder circumcision | Less visible evidence for SMC | |
-Sharp differences in values prevail among researchers, policy makers & media -Contribution to science, career development… member of big scientific network -Driven by the need to find simpler and cost-effective solution -Motivated by the duty to inform the public -Maintain the interest of the audience | Incentives and values | Evidence that drives policy |
The main rationale for researcher-policy maker communication was: -PM driven by the need to share positive findings from research -Researchers’ attitudes were not favorable to active engagement and dissemination -Delays in dissemination process “dancing in the corridors” -Media prefer evidence from a locally recognized expert | Communication among groups | |
-Evidence judged as useful for decision making -We want randomized controlled trials -Decision makers assigned more weight to research that addresses operational problems -Emphasizes the number of the population affected | Strengths of evidence |