Table 4 Preferred characteristics and sources of evidence for policy 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 |