<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/rss.css" type="text/css"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
    xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:extra="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
    xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/1.2/basic/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
    <channel rdf:about="http://www.health-policy-systems.com/feeds/latestarticles/journal?quantity=&amp;format=rss&amp;version=">
        <title>Health Research Policy and Systems - Latest Articles</title>
        <link>http://www.health-policy-systems.com</link>
        <description>The latest research articles published by Health Research Policy and Systems</description>
        <dc:date>2010-01-29T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <items>
            <rdf:Seq>
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/8/1/4" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/8/1/3" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/8/1/2" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/8/1/1" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/7/1/31" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/7/1/30" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/7/1/29" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/7/1/28" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/7/1/27" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/7/1/26" />
                            </rdf:Seq>
        </items>
        <extra:info rdf:parseType="Literal">
            <html:div style="font:14px Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
                <html:span style="font-weight:bold">
                    This is an RSS newsfeed from BioMed Central
                </html:span>
                <html:br />
                <html:span style="font-size: 12px;">
                    It is intended to be used with an RSS reader. For more information about RSS newsfeeds from BioMed Central, visit
                    <html:br />
                    <html:a href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/" style="color:#3333CC; font-size:12px;">
                        http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/
                    </html:a>
                    <html:br />
                </html:span>
            </html:div>
        </extra:info>
        <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </channel>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/8/1/4">
        <title>Bridging the gaps among research, policy and practice in ten low- and middle-income countries: development and testing of a questionnaire for researchers</title>
        <description>Background:
A questionnaire could assist researchers, policymakers, and healthcare providers to describe and monitor changes in efforts to bridge the gaps among research, policy and practice. No questionnaire focused on researchers&apos; engagement in bridging activities related to high-priority topics (or the potential correlates of their engagement) has been developed and tested in a range of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
Methods:
Country teams from ten LMICs (China, Ghana, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Laos, Mexico, Pakistan, Senegal, and Tanzania) participated in the development and testing of a questionnaire. To assess reliability we calculated the internal consistency of items within each of the ten conceptual domains related to bridging activities (specifically Cronbach&apos;s alpha). To assess face and content validity we convened several teleconferences and a workshop. To assess construct validity we calculated the correlation between scales and counts (i.e., criterion measures) for the three countries that employed both and we calculated the correlation between different but theoretically related (i.e., convergent) measures for all countries.
Results:
Internal consistency (Cronbach&apos;s alpha) for sets of related items was very high, ranging from 0.89 (0.86-0.91) to 0.96 (0.95-0.97), suggesting some item redundancy. Both face and content validity were determined to be high. Assessments of construct validity using criterion-related measures showed statistically significant associations for related measures (with gammas ranging from 0.36 to 0.73). Assessments using convergent measures also showed significant associations (with gammas ranging from 0.30 to 0.50).
Conclusions:
While no direct comparison can be made to a comparable questionnaire, our findings do suggest a number of strengths of the questionnaire but also the need to reduce item redundancy and to test its capacity to monitor changes over time.</description>
        <link>http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/8/1/4</link>
                <dc:creator>David Cameron</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>John Lavis</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>G Emmanuel Guindon</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Tasleem Akhtar</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Francisco Becerra-Posada</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Godwin Ndossi</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Boungnong Boupha</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Research to Policy and Practice Study Team (rppst)</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Health Research Policy and Systems 2010, 8:4</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2010-01-29T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-4505-8-4</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Health Research Policy and Systems</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-4505</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>4</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2010-01-29T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/8/1/3">
        <title>Bridging the gaps among research, policy and practice in ten low- and middle-income countries: Development and testing of a questionnaire for health-care providers</title>
        <description>Background:
The reliability and validity of instruments used to survey health-care providers&apos; views about and experiences with research evidence have seldom been examined.
Methods:
Country teams from ten low- and middle-income countries (China, Ghana, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Laos, Mexico, Pakistan, Senegal and Tanzania) participated in the development, translation, pilot-testing and administration of a questionnaire designed to measure health-care providers&apos; views and activities related to improving their clinical practice and their awareness of, access to and use of research evidence, as well as changes in their clinical practice that they attribute to particular sources of research evidence that they have used. We use internal consistency as a measure of the questionnaire&apos;s reliability and, whenever possible, we use explanatory factor analyses to assess the degree to which questions that pertain to a single domain actually address common themes. We assess the questionnaire&apos;s face validity and content validity and, to a lesser extent, we also explore its criterion validity.
Results:
The questionnaire has high internal consistency, with Cronbach&apos;s alphas between 0.7 and 0.9 for 16 of 20 domains and sub-domains (identified by factor analyses). Cronbach&apos;s alphas are greater than 0.9 for two domains, suggesting some item redundancy.  Pre- and post-field work assessments indicate the questionnaire has good face validity and content validity.  Our limited assessment of criterion validity shows weak but statistically significant associations between the general influence of research evidence among providers and more specific measures of providers&apos; change in approach to preventing or treating a clinical condition.
Conclusion:
Our analysis points to a number of strengths of the questionnaire - high internal consistency (reliability) and good face and content validity - but also to areas where it can be shortened without losing important conceptual domains.</description>
        <link>http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/8/1/3</link>
                <dc:creator>G Emmanuel Guindon</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>John Lavis</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Boungnong Boupha</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Guang Shi</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Mintou Sidibe</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Botagoz Turdaliyeva</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Research to Policy and Practice Study Team (rppst)</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Health Research Policy and Systems 2010, 8:3</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2010-01-29T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-4505-8-3</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Health Research Policy and Systems</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-4505</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>3</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2010-01-29T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/8/1/2">
        <title>Mobile phone radiation health risk controversy: the reliability and sufficiency of science behind the safety standards
</title>
        <description>There is ongoing discussion whether the mobile phone radiation causes any health effects. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, the International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety and the World Health Organization are assuring that there is no proven health risk and that the present safety limits protect all mobile phone users. However, based on the available scientific evidence, the situation is not as clear. The majority of the evidence comes from in vitro laboratory studies and is of very limited use for determining health risk. Animal toxicology studies are inadequate because it is not possible to &quot;overdose&quot; microwave radiation, as it is done with chemical agents, due to simultaneous induction of heating side-effects. There is a lack of human volunteer studies that would, in unbiased way, demonstrate whether human body responds at all to mobile phone radiation. Finally, the epidemiological evidence is insufficient due to, among others, selection and misclassification bias and the low sensitivity of this approach in detection of health risk within the population. This indicates that the presently available scientific evidence is insufficient to prove reliability of the current safety standards. Therefore, we recommend to use precaution when dealing with mobile phones and, whenever possible and feasible, to limit body exposure to this radiation. Continuation of the research on mobile phone radiation effects is needed in order to improve the basis and the reliability of the safety standards.</description>
        <link>http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/8/1/2</link>
                <dc:creator>Dariusz Leszczynski</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Zhengping Xu</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Health Research Policy and Systems 2010, 8:2</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2010-01-27T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-4505-8-2</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Health Research Policy and Systems</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-4505</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>2</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2010-01-27T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/8/1/1">
        <title>Pattern and determinants of BCG immunisation delays in a sub-Saharan African community</title>
        <description>Background:
Childhood immunisation is recognised worldwide as an essential component of health systems and an indispensable indicator of quality of care for vaccine-preventable diseases. While performance of immunisation programmes is more commonly measured by coverage, ensuring that every child is immunised at the earliest/appropriate age is an important public health goal. This study therefore set out to determine the pattern and predictors of Bacille de Calmette-Guerin (BCG) immunisation delays in the first three months of life in a Sub-Saharan African community where BCG is scheduled at birth in order to facilitate necessary changes in current policy and practices for improved services.
Methods:
A cross-sectional study in which immunisation delays among infants aged 0-3 months attending community-based BCG clinics in Lagos, Nigeria over a 2-year period from July 2005 to June 2007 were assessed by survival analysis and associated factors determined by multivariable logistic regression. Population attributable risk (PAR) was computed for the predictors of delays.
Results:
BCG was delayed beyond three months in 38.8% of all eligible infants. Of 5171 infants enrolled, 3380 (65.4%) were immunised within two weeks and a further 1265 (24.5%) by six weeks. A significantly higher proportion of infants born in hospitals were vaccinated in the first six weeks compared to those born outside hospitals. Undernourishment was predictive of delays beyond 2 and 6 weeks while treated hyperbilirubinaemia was associated with decreased odds for any delays. Lack of antenatal care and multiple gestations were also predictive of delays beyond 6 weeks. Undernourishment was associated with the highest PAR for delays beyond 2 weeks (18.7%)and 6 weeks (20.8%).
Conclusions:
BCG immunisation is associated with significant delays in this setting and infants at increased risk of delays can be identified and supported early possibly through improved maternal uptake of antenatal care. Combining BCG with subsequent immunisation(s) at 6 weeks for infants who missed the BCG may be considered.</description>
        <link>http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/8/1/1</link>
                <dc:creator>Bolajoko Olusanya</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Health Research Policy and Systems 2010, 8:1</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2010-01-20T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-4505-8-1</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Health Research Policy and Systems</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-4505</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>1</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2010-01-20T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/7/1/31">
        <title>Translating research into policy: lessons learned from eclampsia treatment and malaria control in three southern African countries</title>
        <description>Background:
Little is known about the process of knowledge translation in low- and middle-income countries. We studied policymaking processes in Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe to understand the factors affecting the use of research evidence in national policy development, with a particular focus on the findings from randomized control trials (RCTs). We examined two cases: the use of magnesium sulphate (MgSO4) in the treatment of eclampsia in pregnancy (a clinical case); and the use of insecticide treated bed nets and indoor residual household spraying for malaria vector control (a public health case).
Methods:
We used a qualitative case-study methodology to explore the policy making process. We carried out key informants interviews with a range of research and policy stakeholders in each country, reviewed documents and developed timelines of key events. Using an iterative approach, we undertook a thematic analysis of the data.FindingsPrior experience of particular interventions, local champions, stakeholders and international networks, and the involvement of researchers in policy development were important in knowledge translation for both case studies. Key differences across the two case studies included the nature of the evidence, with clear evidence of efficacy for MgSO4 and ongoing debate regarding the efficacy of bed nets compared with spraying; local researcher involvement in international evidence production, which was stronger for MgSO4 than for malaria vector control; and a long-standing culture of evidence-based health care within obstetrics. Other differences were the importance of bureaucratic processes for clinical regulatory approval of MgSO4, and regional networks and political interests for malaria control. In contrast to treatment policies for eclampsia, a diverse group of stakeholders with varied interests, differing in their use and interpretation of evidence, was involved in malaria policy decisions in the three countries.
Conclusion:
Translating research knowledge into policy is a complex and context sensitive process. Researchers aiming to enhance knowledge translation need to be aware of factors influencing the demand for different types of research; interact and work closely with key policy stakeholders, networks and local champions; and acknowledge the roles of important interest groups.</description>
        <link>http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/7/1/31</link>
                <dc:creator>Godfrey Woelk</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Karen Daniels</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Julie Cliff</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Simon Lewin</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Esperanca Sevene</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Benedita Fernandes</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Alda Mariano</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Sheillah Matinhure</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Andrew Oxman</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>John Lavis</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Cecilia Stalsby Lundborg</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Health Research Policy and Systems 2009, 7:31</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-12-30T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-4505-7-31</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Health Research Policy and Systems</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-4505</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>31</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-12-30T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/7/1/30">
        <title>Evidence-informed health policy: are we beginning to get there at last?</title>
        <description>No description available</description>
        <link>http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/7/1/30</link>
                <dc:creator>Stephen Hanney</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Miguel Gonzalez-Block</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Health Research Policy and Systems 2009, 7:30</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-12-22T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-4505-7-30</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Health Research Policy and Systems</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-4505</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>30</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-12-22T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/7/1/29">
        <title>Modeling trends of health and health related indicators in Ethiopia (1995-2008): a time-series study</title>
        <description>Background:
The Federal Ministry of Health of Ethiopia has been publishing Health and Health related indicators of the country annually since 1987 E.C. These indicators have been of high importance in indicating the status of health in the country in those years. However, the trends/patterns of these indicators and the factors related to the trends have not yet been investigated in a systematic manner. In addition, there were minimal efforts to develop a model for predicting future values of Health and Health related indicators based on the current trend.ObjectivesThe overall aim of this study was to analyze trends of and develop model for prediction of Health and Health related indicators. More specifically, it described the trends of Health and Health related indicators, identified determinants of mortality and morbidity indicators and developed model for predicting future values of MDG indicators.
Methods:
This study was conducted on Health and Health related indicators of Ethiopia from the year 1987 E.C to 2000 E.C. Key indicators of Mortality and Morbidity, Health service coverage, Health systems resources, Demographic and socio-economic, and Risk factor indicators were extracted and analyzed. The trends in these indicators were established using trend analysis techniques. The determinants of the established trends were identified using ARIMA models in STATA. The trend-line equations were then used to predict future values of the indicators.
Results:
Among the mortality indicators considered in this study, it was only Maternal Mortality Ratio that showed statistically significant decrement within the study period. The trends of Total Fertility Rate, physician per 100,000 population, skilled birth attendance and postnatal care coverage were found to have significant association with Maternal Mortality Ratio trend. There was a reversal of malaria parasite prevalence in 1999 E.C from Plasmodium Falciparum to Plasmodium Vivax. Based on the prediction from the current trend, the Millennium Development Goal target for under-five mortality rate and proportion of people having access to basic sanitation can be achieved.
Conclusion:
The current trend indicates the need to accelerate the progress of the indicators to achieve MDGs at or before 2015, particularly for Maternal Health and access to safe water supply.</description>
        <link>http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/7/1/29</link>
                <dc:creator>Mulu Abraha</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Tilahun Nigatu</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Health Research Policy and Systems 2009, 7:29</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-12-13T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-4505-7-29</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Health Research Policy and Systems</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-4505</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>29</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-12-13T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/7/1/28">
        <title>Knowledge translation research in population health: establishing a collaborative research agenda</title>
        <description>Background:
Despite the increasing mobilization of researchers and funding organizations around knowledge translation (KT) in Canada and elsewhere, many questions have been only partially answered, particularly in the field of population health. This article presents the results of a systematic process to draw out possible avenues of collaboration for researchers, practitioners and decision-makers who work in the area of KT. The main objective was to establish a research agenda on knowledge translation in population health.
Methods:
Using the Concept Mapping approach, the research team wanted to identify priority themes for the development of research on KT in population health. Mapping is based on multivariate statistical analyses (multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis) in which statements produced during a brainstorming session are grouped in weighted clusters. The final maps are a visual representation of the priority themes of research on KT. Especially designed for facilitating consensus in the understanding and organization of various concepts, the Concept Mapping method proved suitable for achieving this objective.
Results:
The maps were produced by 19 participants from university settings, and from institutions within the health and social services network. Three main perspectives emerge from this operation: (1) The evaluation of the effectiveness of KT efforts is one of the main research priorities; (2) The importance of taking into consideration user contexts in any KT effort; (3) The challenges related to sharing power for decision-making and action-taking among various stakeholder groups. These perspectives open up avenues of collaboration for stakeholders who are involved in research on KT. Besides these three main perspectives, the concept maps reveal three other trends which should be emphasized.
Conclusion:
The Concept Mapping process reported in this article aimed to provoke collective reflection on the research questions that should be studied, in order to foster coherence in research activities in the field of population health. Based on this, it is appropriate to continue to support the development of research projects in KT and the formation of research teams in this field. Research on KT must lead to concrete outcomes within communities that are interested in the question.</description>
        <link>http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/7/1/28</link>
                <dc:creator>Christian Dagenais</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Valery Ridde</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Marie-Claire Laurendeau</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Karine Souffez</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Health Research Policy and Systems 2009, 7:28</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-12-10T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-4505-7-28</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Health Research Policy and Systems</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-4505</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>28</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-12-10T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/7/1/27">
        <title>Priority setting and health policy and systems research </title>
        <description>Health policy and systems research (HPSR) has been identified as critical to scaling-up interventions to achieve the millennium development goals, but research priority setting exercises often do not address HPSR well. This paper aims to (i) assess current priority setting methods and the extent to which they adequately include HPSR and (ii) draw lessons regarding how HPSR priority setting can be enhanced to promote relevant HPSR, and to strengthen developing country leadership of research agendas.Priority setting processes can be distinguished by the level at which they occur, their degree of comprehensiveness in terms of the topic addressed, the balance between technical versus interpretive approaches and the stakeholders involved. When HPSR is considered through technical, disease-driven priority setting processes it is systematically under-valued. More successful approaches for considering HPSR are typically nationally-driven, interpretive and engage a range of stakeholders. There is still a need however for better defined approaches to enable research funders to determine the relative weight to assign to disease specific research versus HPSR and other forms of cross-cutting health research.While country-level research priority setting is key, there is likely to be a continued need for the identification of global research priorities for HPSR. The paper argues that such global priorities can and should be driven by country level priorities.</description>
        <link>http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/7/1/27</link>
                <dc:creator>Michael Ranson</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Sara Bennett</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Health Research Policy and Systems 2009, 7:27</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-12-04T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-4505-7-27</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Health Research Policy and Systems</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-4505</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>27</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-12-04T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/7/1/26">
        <title>Towards building equitable health systems in Sub-Saharan Africa: lessons from case studies on operational research </title>
        <description>Background:
Published practical examples of how to bridge gaps between research, policy and practice in health systems research in Sub Saharan Africa are scarce. The aim of our study was to use a case study approach to analyse how and why different operational health research projects in Africa have contributed to health systems strengthening and promoted equity in health service provision.
Methods:
Using case studies we have collated and analysed practical examples of operational research projects on health in Sub-Saharan Africa which demonstrate how the links between research, policy and action can be strengthened to build effective and pro-poor health systems. To ensure rigour, we selected the case studies using pre-defined criteria, mapped their characteristics systematically using a case study development framework, and analysed the research impact process of each case study using the RAPID framework for research-policy links. This process enabled analysis of common themes, successes and weaknesses.
Results:
3 operational research projects met our case study criteria: HIV counselling and testing services in Kenya; provision of TB services in grocery stores in Malawi; and community diagnostics for anaemia, TB and malaria in Nigeria. Political context and external influences: in each case study context there was a need for new knowledge and approaches to meet policy requirements for equitable service delivery. Collaboration between researchers and key policy players began at the inception of operational research cycles. Links: critical in these operational research projects was the development of partnerships for capacity building to support new services or new players in service delivery. Evidence: evidence was used to promote policy dialogue around equity in different ways throughout the research cycle, such as in determining the topic area and in development of indicators.
Conclusion:
Building equitable health systems means considering equity at different stages of the research cycle. Partnerships for capacity building promotes demand, delivery and uptake of research. Links with those who use and benefit from research, such as communities, service providers and policy makers, contribute to the timeliness and relevance of the research agenda and a receptive research-policy-practice interface. Our study highlights the need to advocate for a global research culture that values and funds these multiple levels of engagement.</description>
        <link>http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/7/1/26</link>
                <dc:creator>Sally Theobald</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Miriam Taegtmeyer</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Stephen Bertel Squire</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jo Crichton</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Bertha Nhlema-Simwaka</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Rachael Thomson</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Ireen Makwiza</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Rachel Tolhurst</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Tim Martineau</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Imelda Bates</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Health Research Policy and Systems 2009, 7:26</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-11-25T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-4505-7-26</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Health Research Policy and Systems</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-4505</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>26</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-11-25T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <cc:License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks" />
    </cc:License>
</rdf:RDF>
