Lisa M Pfadenhauer1,2, Tanja Grath3,4, Peter Delobelle5,6, Nasreen Jessani7,8, Joerg J Meerpohl9,10, Anke Rohwer7, Bey-Marrié Schmidt11, Ingrid Toews10, Ann R Akiteng12, Gertrude Chapotera13, Tamara Kredo11,14, Naomi Levitt5, Seleman Ntawuyirushintege15, Kerstin Sell3,4, Eva A Rehfuess3,4. 1. Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology, LMU Munich, Elisabeth-Winterhalter-Weg 6, 81377, Munich, Germany. pfadenhauer@ibe.med.uni-muenchen.de. 2. Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany. pfadenhauer@ibe.med.uni-muenchen.de. 3. Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology, LMU Munich, Elisabeth-Winterhalter-Weg 6, 81377, Munich, Germany. 4. Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany. 5. Chronic Disease Initiative for Africa (CDIA), University of Cape Town, Groote Schuur Hospital, Observatory, Cape Town, 7925, South Africa. 6. Department of Public Health, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 103, Jette, 1090, Brussels, Belgium. 7. Centre for Evidence Based Health Care, Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Global Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Francie van Zijl Drive, Parow, Cape Town, 7500, South Africa. 8. Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, 21205, USA. 9. Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Breisacher Str. 86, 79110, Freiburg Im Breigau, Germany. 10. Cochrane Germany, Cochrane Germany Foundation, Berliner Allee 2, 79110, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany. 11. Cochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council, Francie van Zijl Drive, Parow Valley, Tygerburg, 7500, South Africa. 12. College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Plot 1 Upper Mulago Hill Road, Kampala, Uganda. 13. School of Public Health and Family Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Malawi, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Private Bag 360, Blantyre, Malawi. 14. Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa. 15. University of Rwanda, KG 11 Ave Gasabo, Kigali, Rwanda.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Collaboration for Evidence-based Healthcare and Public Health in Africa (CEBHA+) is a research consortium concerned with the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of non-communicable diseases. CEBHA+ seeks to engage policymakers and practitioners throughout the research process in order to build lasting relationships, enhance evidence uptake, and create long-term capacity among partner institutions in Ethiopia, Malawi, Rwanda, South Africa and Uganda in collaboration with two German universities. This integrated knowledge translation (IKT) approach includes the formal development, implementation and evaluation of country specific IKT strategies. METHODS: We have conceptualised the CEBHA+ IKT approach as a complex intervention in a complex system. We will employ a comparative case study (CCS) design and mixed methods to facilitate an in-depth evaluation. We will use quantitative surveys, qualitative interviews, quarterly updates, and a policy document analysis to capture the process and outcomes of IKT across the African CEBHA+ partner sites. We will conduct an early stage (early 2020) and a late-stage evaluation (early 2022), triangulate the data collected with various methods at each site and subsequently compare our findings across the five sites. DISCUSSION: Evaluating a complex intervention such as the CEBHA+ IKT approach is complicated, even more so when undertaken across five diverse countries. Despite conceptual, methodological and practical challenges, our comparative case study addresses important evidence gaps: While involving decision-makers in the research process is gaining traction worldwide, we still know very little regarding (i) whether this approach really makes a difference to evidence uptake, (ii) the mechanisms that make IKT successful, and (iii) relevant differences across socio-cultural contexts. The evaluation described here is intended to provide relevant insights on all of these aspects, notably in countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, and is expected to contribute to the science of IKT overall.
BACKGROUND: The Collaboration for Evidence-based Healthcare and Public Health in Africa (CEBHA+) is a research consortium concerned with the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of non-communicable diseases. CEBHA+ seeks to engage policymakers and practitioners throughout the research process in order to build lasting relationships, enhance evidence uptake, and create long-term capacity among partner institutions in Ethiopia, Malawi, Rwanda, South Africa and Uganda in collaboration with two German universities. This integrated knowledge translation (IKT) approach includes the formal development, implementation and evaluation of country specific IKT strategies. METHODS: We have conceptualised the CEBHA+ IKT approach as a complex intervention in a complex system. We will employ a comparative case study (CCS) design and mixed methods to facilitate an in-depth evaluation. We will use quantitative surveys, qualitative interviews, quarterly updates, and a policy document analysis to capture the process and outcomes of IKT across the African CEBHA+ partner sites. We will conduct an early stage (early 2020) and a late-stage evaluation (early 2022), triangulate the data collected with various methods at each site and subsequently compare our findings across the five sites. DISCUSSION: Evaluating a complex intervention such as the CEBHA+ IKT approach is complicated, even more so when undertaken across five diverse countries. Despite conceptual, methodological and practical challenges, our comparative case study addresses important evidence gaps: While involving decision-makers in the research process is gaining traction worldwide, we still know very little regarding (i) whether this approach really makes a difference to evidence uptake, (ii) the mechanisms that make IKT successful, and (iii) relevant differences across socio-cultural contexts. The evaluation described here is intended to provide relevant insights on all of these aspects, notably in countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, and is expected to contribute to the science of IKT overall.
Entities:
Keywords:
Co-production; Comparative case study; Complexity; Evaluation; Integrated knowledge translation; Mixed methods; Non-communicable diseases; Sub-Saharan Africa
Authors: Sarah E Gollust; Jane W Seymour; Maximilian J Pany; Adeline Goss; Zachary F Meisel; David Grande Journal: Inquiry Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 1.730