Institute of Tropical Medicine Antwerp
Foundation of Public Utility

Malaria treatment policy change in Uganda: what role did evidence play?

DSpace/Manakin Repository

Show simple item record Nabyonga-Orem, J. Ssengooba, F. Macq, J. Criel, B. 2015-02-05T15:39:23Z 2015-02-05T15:39:23Z 2014
dc.identifier.issn 1475-2875
dc.identifier.other ITG-HLA
dc.identifier.other DPH
dc.identifier.other U-HFIN
dc.identifier.other JIF
dc.identifier.other DOI
dc.identifier.other FTA
dc.identifier.other OAJ
dc.identifier.other E-only
dc.identifier.other URL
dc.identifier.other Abstract
dc.identifier.other UPD57
dc.description.abstract BACKGROUND: Although increasing attention is being paid to knowledge translation (KT), research findings are not being utilized to the desired extent. The present study explores the role of evidence, barriers, and factors facilitating the uptake of evidence in the change in malaria treatment policy in Uganda, building on previous work in Uganda that led to the development of a middle range theory (MRT) outlining the main facilitatory factors for KT. Application of the MRT to a health policy case will contribute to refining it. METHODS: Using a case study approach and mixed methods, perceptions of respondents on whether evidence was available, had been considered and barriers and facilitatory factors to the uptake of evidence were explored. In addition, the respondents' rating of the degree of consistency between the policy decision and available evidence was assessed. Data collection methods included key informant interviews and document review. Qualitative data were analysed using content thematic analysis, whereas quantitative data were analysed using Excel spreadsheets. The two data sets were eventually triangulated. RESULTS: Evidence was used to change the malaria treatment policy, though the consistency between evidence and policy decisions varied along the policy development cycle. The availability of high-quality and contextualized evidence, including effective dissemination, Ministry of Health institutional capacity to lead the KT process, intervention of the WHO and a regional professional network, the existence of partnerships for KT with mutual trust and availability of funding, tools, and inputs to implement evidence, were the most important facilitatory factors that enhanced the uptake of evidence. Among the barriers that had to be overcome were resistance from implementers, the health system capacity to implement evidence, and financial sustainability. CONCLUSION: The results agree with facilitatory factors identified in the earlier developed MRT, though additional factors emerged. These results refine the earlier MRT stating that high-quality and contextualized evidence will be taken up in policies, leading to evidence-informed policies when the MoH leads the KT process, partnerships are in place for KT, the WHO and regional professional bodies play a role, and funding, tools, and required inputs for implementing evidence are available. en_US
dc.language English en_US
dc.subject Protozoal diseases en_US
dc.subject Malaria en_US
dc.subject Plasmodium falciparum en_US
dc.subject Vectors en_US
dc.subject Mosquitoes en_US
dc.subject Anopheles en_US
dc.subject Control strategies en_US
dc.subject Treatment protocols en_US
dc.subject Policy making en_US
dc.subject Evidence-based management en_US
dc.subject Efficacy en_US
dc.subject Decision making en_US
dc.subject Partnerships en_US
dc.subject Implementation en_US
dc.subject Uganda en_US
dc.subject Africa, East en_US
dc.title Malaria treatment policy change in Uganda: what role did evidence play? en_US
dc.type Article-E en_US
dc.citation.issue 345 en_US
dc.citation.jtitle Malaria Journal en_US
dc.citation.volume 13 en_US
dc.citation.pages 1-17 en_US
dc.citation.jabbreviation Malar J en_US

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record