Skip to main content

Table 4 Preferred characteristics and sources of evidence for policy in Uganda.

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

Concepts assessed Researchers Decision makers /funders Media and CSO
Incentives and values for research generation or utilization - Contribution to science and public health
- Prospects for career development
- networking with other experts
- Income generation
- Optimizing wellbeing of communities
- Demonstrating results & visible benefits
- Improving value for money –(cheaper and effective)
- Simplifying interventions
- Duty to inform the public
- Grip and sustain audiences’ attention;
- Generate revenue or goodwill
- Promote debate with different view-points
Interests during dissemination or communication of evidence - Focus is positive results, i.e. what worked well
- Hands-off: “A good study speaks for its self”
- Hand-over: give report to decision makers
- Involve stakeholders in research processes
- Feasibility of applying new evidence:
 - how to achieve the benefits in the real world context
 - How much will it cost to implement?
 - How to integrated evidence with on-going policy and practice?
- Focus is to spur individual-level actions/awareness of the audiences
- Simplify information for non-educated audience
- Prefer known experts as the source of evidence
- Value evidence from first-hand face-linked (experiential) evidence in addition to face-free sources
Criteria for judging strength of evidence - Cohort studies, Randomized studies
- Optimal representativeness – i.e. multi-site or multi-country studies
Statistical credibility
- Long follow-up period of cohorts
- Operations research – testing the feasibility space eg benefits, acceptability, cost-effectiveness, and how to implement new interventions
- Alignment of evidence to major operational challenges
- Timeliness for action
- Large effect size
- Indigenous evidence
- Reputation of research institution /researcher
- Aim is a “balanced” story – with “triangulation” of different perspectives e.g. proponents, opponents, service providers, decision-makers
- Newsworthiness of evidence
 - Number of people affected
 - Extent of changes from status quo
 - Credibility of experts /researcher
- Verification of evidence
 - Stories of affected people
 - Publications in major journals and conferences
  1. CS: Civil Society Organizations;