...
首页> 外文期刊>Implementation Science >Research evidence and policy: qualitative study in selected provinces in South Africa and Cameroon
【24h】

Research evidence and policy: qualitative study in selected provinces in South Africa and Cameroon

机译:研究证据和政策:南非和喀麦隆部分省份的定性研究

获取原文
           

摘要

Background The translation of research into policy and practice is enhanced by policymakers who can recognise and articulate their information needs and researchers that understand the policymakers’ environment. As researchers, we sought to understand the policymaking process and how research evidence may contribute in South Africa and Cameroon. Methods We conducted qualitative in-depth interviews in South Africa and focus group discussions in Cameroon with purposively sampled subnational (provincial and regional) government health programme managers. Audio recorded interviews were transcribed, thematically coded and analysed. Results Participants in both countries described the complex, often lengthy nature of policymaking processes, which often include back-and-forth consultations with many diverse stakeholder groups. These processes may be influenced by political structures, relationships between national and subnational levels, funding and international stakeholder agendas. Research is not a main driver of policy, but rather current contextual realities, costs, logistics and people (clinicians, NGOs, funders) influence the policy, and research plays a part. Research evidence is frequently perceived as unavailable, inaccessible, ill-timed or not applicable. The reliability of research on the internet was questioned. Evidence-informed health decision-making (EIDM) is regarded as necessary in South Africa but is less well understood in Cameroon. Insufficient time and capacity were hindrances to EIDM in both countries. Good relationships between researchers and policymakers may facilitate EIDM. Researchers should have a good understanding of the policymaking environment if they want to influence it. Greater interaction between policymakers and researchers is perceived as beneficial when formulating research and policy questions as it raises researchers’ awareness of implementation challenges and enables the design of tailored and focused strategies to respond to policymakers’ needs. Conclusions Policymaking is complicated, lengthy and mostly done at national level. Provinces/regions are tasked with implementation, with more room for adaptation in South Africa than in Cameroon. Research evidence plays a role in policy but does not drive it and is seen as mostly unavailable. Researchers need a thorough understanding of the policy process and environment, how the health system operates, as well as the priorities of policymakers. This can inform effective dialogue between researchers and policymakers, and contribute to enhancing use of research evidence in decision-making.
机译:背景知识决策者可以识别和阐明他们的信息需求,而研究者则可以理解政策制定者的环境,从而将研究转化为政策和实践。作为研究人员,我们试图了解决策过程以及研究证据如何在南非和喀麦隆做出贡献。方法我们在南非进行了定性深入访谈,并在喀麦隆与有目的地抽样的地方(省和地区)政府卫生计划经理进行了小组讨论。录音采访记录被转录,主题编码和分析。结果两国的参与者都描述了决策过程的复杂性,通常是漫长的,其中经常包括与许多不同利益相关者团体的来回磋商。这些过程可能会受到政治结构,国家和国家以下各级之间的关系,资金和国际利益相关者议程的影响。研究不是政策的主要驱动力,而是当前的实际情况,成本,物流和人员(临床医生,非政府组织,出资者)会影响政策,研究是其中的一部分。研究证据经常被认为是不可用,不可访问,不合时宜或不适用。互联网研究的可靠性受到质疑。在南非,循证卫生决策(EIDM)被认为是必要的,但在喀麦隆却鲜为人知。时间和能力不足是这两个国家EIDM的障碍。研究人员与决策者之间的良好关系可以促进EIDM。研究人员如果想影响决策环境,应该对决策环境有很好的了解。在制定研究和政策问题时,决策者与研究人员之间的更大互动被认为是有益的,因为它提高了研究人员对实施挑战的认识,并能够设计出量身定制且针对性强的策略来满足决策者的需求。结论决策是复杂的,漫长的,而且大多是在国家一级完成的。各省/地区都有执行的任务,与喀麦隆相比,南非的适应空间更大。研究证据在政策中起着一定作用,但并没有起到推动作用,而且几乎没有。研究人员需要对政策过程和环境,卫生系统的运作方式以及政策制定者的优先事项有透彻的了解。这可以为研究人员和政策制定者之间的有效对话提供信息,并有助于在决策过程中增加研究证据的使用。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号