Abstract
BackgroundSwaziland is experiencing the world’s worst HIV and AIDS epidemic. Prevalence rose from four percent of antenatal clinic attendees in 1992 to 42.6 percent in 2004. The Report ‘Reviewing ‘Emergencies’ for Swaziland: Shifting the Paradigm in a New Era’ published in 2007 bought together social and economic indicators. It built a picture of the epidemic as a humanitarian emergency, requiring urgent action from international organisations, donors, and governments. Following a targeted communications effort, the report was believed to have raised the profile of the issue and Swaziland - a success story for HIV and AIDS research.MethodsKeen to understand how, where and why the report had an impact, Health Economics and HIV/AIDS Research Division commissioned an assessment to track and evaluate the influence of the research. This tapped into literature on the significance of understanding the research-to-policy interface. This paper outlines the report and its impact. It explores key findings from the assessment and suggests lessons for future research projects.ResultsThe paper demonstrates that, although complex, and not without methodological issues, impact assessment of research can be of real value to researchers in understanding the research-to-policy interface.ConclusionOnly by gaining insight into this process can researchers move forward in delivering effective research.
Highlights
Swaziland is experiencing the world’s worst HIV and AIDS epidemic
Its epidemic spread with exceptional speed, from four percent of antenatal clinic attendees in 1992 to 42.6 percent in 2004 [2]
The report challenged the use of GDP per capita as an indicator to set the status of a country and its access to support in the face of a generalised AIDS epidemic
Summary
Assessing the impact: The research to policy interface Much of SRH and HIV and AIDS research, in the development arena, aims to influence policy, it is Figure 1: Reviewing ‘Emergencies’ for Swaziland: Shifting the Paradigm in a New Era “Traditional humanitarian thinking focuses on the shortͲterm, and is often aimed at returning affected populations to ‘normality’. Perkins and Lindstrom (2008, unpublished) identify a number of significant problems when attempting to track the impact of research: difficulty in determining conceptual influence (on opinion, attitudes and thinking); identifying research users, timing of assessment; attributing impact in the context of other drivers; and using qualitative and subjective data [10]. Notwithstanding such issues, if real understanding of research-to-policy interface is to be achieved, an assessment must explain why impacts took place, going beyond just identifying them. Weight was given to opinion that was reinforced with explicit examples, and to those highlighting barriers, limitations or negative impacts of the report
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
