A scoping review of researchers\u2019 involvement in health policy dialogue in Africa

Doris Yimgang,Georges Danhoundo,Sandra Campbell,Elizabeth Kusi-Appiah,Vijit Sunder,Sanni Yaya

doi:10.1186/s13643-021-01745-y

Abstract

BackgroundImproving evidence-informed policy dialogue to support the development and implementation of national health policies is vital, but there is limited evidence on researchers’ roles in policy dialogue processes in Africa. The objective of this study is to examine researchers’ involvement in health policy dialogue in Africa.MethodsThe database search of this scoping review was conducted from inception to January 24, 2021, by an expert searcher/librarian to determine the extent of evidence, barriers, and facilitators of researchers’ involvement in health policy dialogues in Africa. PROSPERO, Wiley Cochrane Library, OVID Medline, OVID EMBASE, OVID PsycINFO, OVID Global Health, EBSCO CINAHL, BASE (Bielefeld Academic Search Engine), and Google/Google Scholar were searched using key words representing the concepts “policy dialogue”, “health”, and “Africa”. No limits were applied. A narrative summary of results was presented.ResultsThere were 26 eligible studies representing 21 African countries. Significant discrepancies in researchers’ involvement existed across countries. In 62% of the countries, there was suboptimal involvement of researchers in policy dialogues due to no or partial participation in policy dialogues. Major barriers included limited funding, lack of evidence in the public health field of interest, and skepticism of policymakers. The presence of an interface for exchange, demand for scientific evidence, and donors’ funding were the most reported facilitators.ConclusionsTo improve the uptake of evidence in health policy-making processes, an environment of trust and communication between policymakers and researchers must be established. Policymakers need to demonstrate that they value research, by providing adequate funding, promoting knowledge translation activities, and supporting personal and professional development opportunities for researchers.

Highlights

Improving evidence-informed policy dialogue to support the development and implementation of national health policies is vital, but there is limited evidence on researchers’ roles in policy dialogue processes in Africa
Looking at the formation of health policies in the African context, Siron and his colleagues [5] identified that the increasingly politicized health policy decisions are driven by the ideological motivations of stakeholders who overlook research evidence to advance their political interests
In 2011 the European Union, World Health Organization (WHO), and the Government of Luxembourg formed a partnership to help build the capacity of developing countries for evidence-informed health policies using policy dialogue [6]

Summary

Introduction

Improving evidence-informed policy dialogue to support the development and implementation of national health policies is vital, but there is limited evidence on researchers’ roles in policy dialogue processes in Africa. The objective of this study is to examine researchers’ involvement in health policy dialogue in Africa. Mounting evidence demonstrates that the health policy-making process in these countries is prescriptive, insufficiently evidence-based, and inconsiderate of contexts [1, 2]. Researchers and academic experts, largely considered to be well-informed citizens, discourage the formation of policies based on decision-makers’ personal ideas, interests, or experiences [1, 4]. Looking at the formation of health policies in the African context, Siron and his colleagues [5] identified that the increasingly politicized health policy decisions are driven by the ideological motivations of stakeholders who overlook research evidence to advance their political interests. In 2011 the European Union, World Health Organization (WHO), and the Government of Luxembourg formed a partnership to help build the capacity of developing countries for evidence-informed health policies using policy dialogue [6].

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion