Skip to main content

Table 3 Example of the content analysis process for the study

From: Research translation to inform national health policies: learning from multiple perspectives in Uganda

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