An approach for setting evidence-based and stakeholder-informed research priorities in low- and middle-income countries
Open accessAbstract
e on behalf of the CEBHA+ consortium and cost-effectiveness must also be weighed up, along with personal values and preferences, feasibility, acceptability and equity.To achieve evidence-based decision-making, data from rigorous primary research and evidence syntheses relevant to the African context must expand and translation of evidence into policy and practice must be enhanced.12,13 The Collaboration for Evidence-Based Healthcare and Public Health in Africa (CEBHA+) emerged from the Collaboration for Evidence Based Healthcare in Africa (www.cebha. org).CEBHA+ promotes evidence-based health care principles through (i) identifying relevant and context-sensitive research priorities; (ii) conducting robust, internationally competitive research; and (iii) linking primary research with evidence synthesis, implementation research, policy and practice.Currently, the consortium comprises eight African partners in five countries (Ethiopia, Malawi, Rwanda, South Africa and Uganda), two German partners and two associate part-Abstract To derive evidence-based and stakeholder-informed research priorities for implementation in African settings, the international research consortium Collaboration for Evidence-Based Healthcare and Public Health in Africa (CEBHA+) developed and applied a pragmatic approach.First, an online survey and face-to-face consultation between CEBHA+ partners and policy-makers generated priority research areas.Second, evidence maps for these priority research areas identified gaps and related priority research questions.Finally, study protocols were developed for inclusion within a grant proposal.Policy and practice representatives were involved throughout the process.Tuberculosis, diabetes, hypertension and road traffic injuries were selected as priority research areas.Evidence maps covered screening and models of care for diabetes and hypertension, population-level prevention of diabetes and hypertension and their risk factors, and prevention and management of road traffic injuries.Analysis of these maps yielded three priority research questions on hypertension and diabetes and one on road traffic injuries.The four resulting study protocols employ a broad range of primary and secondary research methods; a fifth promotes an integrated methodological approach across all research activities.The CEBHA+ approach, in particular evidence mapping, helped to formulate research questions and study protocols that would be owned by African partners, fill gaps in the evidence base, address policy and practice needs and be feasible given the existing research infrastructure and expertise.The consortium believes that the continuous involvement of decision-makers throughout the research process is an important means of ensuring that studies are relevant to the African context and that findings are rapidly implemented.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Primary research, evidence synthesis and evidence-based policy and practise are inextricably linked.
“However, given that primary research, evidence synthesis and evidence-based policy and practise are inextricably linked [32], the framework is likely to be equally relevant for primary research.”
From Making sense of complexity in context and implementation: the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework (2017) · cites this paper as [32]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't
Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M. C., Gray, J. A. M., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71 · Cited by 15,769 · see citing works
Lim, S. S., Vos, T., Flaxman, A. D., Danaei, G., Shibuya, K., Adair-Rohani, H., AlMazroa, M. A., Amann, M., Anderson, H. R., Andrews, K. G., et al. (2012) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(12)61766-8 · Cited by 11,805 · see citing works
Self-citationBundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz
(2013) · Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz · doi:10.1007/103.1437-1588 · Cited by 11,769 · see citing works
Yeh, M. (2014) · Journal of Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/jnr.0000000000000065 · Cited by 3,836 · see citing works
Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Greenland, S., Hlatky, M. A., Khoury, M. J., Macleod, M. R., Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Tibshirani, R. (2014) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62227-8 · Cited by 1,597 · see citing works
How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set
Chalmers, I., Bracken, M. B., Djulbegovic, B., Garattini, S., Grant, J., Gülmezoglu, A. M., Howells, D. W., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Oliver, S. (2014) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62229-1 · Cited by 1,436 · see citing works
How Can Research Organizations More Effectively Transfer Research Knowledge to Decision Makers?
LAVIS, J. N., ROBERTSON, D., WOODSIDE, J. M., McLEOD, C. B., & ABELSON, J. (2003) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/1468-0009.t01-1-00052 · Cited by 1,176 · see citing works
Overcoming barriers to health service access: influencing the demand side.
Ensor, T., & Cooper, S. L. (2004) · Health Policy and Planning · doi:10.1093/heapol/czh009 · Cited by 1,027 · see citing works
Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste.
Macleod, M. R., Michie, S., Roberts, I., Dirnagl, U., Chalmers, I., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Salman, R. A.-S., Chan, A.-W., & Glasziou, P. (2014) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62329-6 · Cited by 1,003 · see citing works
Dussault, G., & Franceschini, M. C. (2006) · Human Resources for Health · doi:10.1186/1478-4491-4-12 · Cited by 752 · see citing works
Health in South Africa: changes and challenges since 2009
Mayosi, B. M., Lawn, J. E., van Niekerk, A., Bradshaw, D., Abdool Karim, S. S., & Coovadia, H. M. (2012) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(12)61814-5 · Cited by 555 · see citing works
A checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practice
Viergever, R. F., Olifson, S., Ghaffar, A., & Terry, R. F. (2010) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/1478-4505-8-36 · Cited by 462 · see citing works
On Being a Good Listener: Setting Priorities for Applied Health Services Research
Lomas, J., Fulop, N., GAGNON, D., & Allen, P. W. (2003) · Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/1468-0009.t01-1-00060 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
Uthman, O. A., Wiysonge, C. S., Ota, M. O. C., Nicol, M. P., Hussey, G. D., Ndumbe, P. M., & Mayosi, B. M. (2015) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006340 · Cited by 156 · see citing works
Bryant, J., Sanson‐Fisher, R., Walsh, J., & Stewart, J. (2014) · Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation · doi:10.1186/1478-7547-12-23 · Cited by 135 · see citing works
Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 2. Priority setting
Oxman, A. D., Schünemann, H. J., & Fretheim, A. (2006) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/1478-4505-4-14 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Methoden des Evidence Mappings: Eine systematische Übersichtsarbeit
Schmucker, C., Motschall, E., Antes, G., & Meerpohl, J. J. (2013) · Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz · doi:10.1007/s00103-013-1818-y · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Self-citationDoyle, J., Waters, E., Yach, D., McQueen, D., Francisco, A. D., Stewart, T., Reddy, P., Gulmezoglu, A. M., Galea, G., & Portela, A. G. (2005) · Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.2003.019547 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Global health: the importance of evidence-based medicine
Birbeck, G. L., Wiysonge, C. S., Mills, E. J., Frenk, J., Zhou, X., & Jha, P. (2013) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/1741-7015-11-223 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Guidance on the use of logic models in health technology assessments of complex interventions
Rowher, A., Booth, A., Pfadenhauer, L. M., Brereton, L., Gerdhardus, J., Mozygemba, K., Oortwijn, W., Tummers, M., van der Wilt, G. J., & Rehfuess, E. A. (2016) · Lincoln Repository (University of Lincoln) · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Self-citationWhy Evidence Based Approaches are urgently needed in Africa
Forland, F., Rehfuess, E. A., Klatser, P. R., et al. (2014) · Zeitschrift für Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen · doi:10.1016/j.zefq.2014.10.025 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [19]Den Teufelskreis aus Armut und Krankheit durchbrechen. Press release 075/2015, 2 June 2015. Berlin: BMBF – German Ministry of Education and Research; 2015. Available from: https://www.bmbf.de/de/den-teufelskreis-aus-armut-und-krankheit-durchbrechen-91.html [cited 2015 June 11]. German.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pfadenhauer, L. M., Gerhardus, A., Mozygemba, K., Lysdahl, K. B., Booth, A., Hofmann, B., Wahlster, P., Polus, S., Burns, J., Brereton, L., et al. (2017) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0552-5 · Cited by 1,016 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Rehfuess, E. A., Durão, S., Kyamanywa, P., Meerpohl, J. J., Young, T., Rohwer, A., CEBHA+, O. B. O. T., & consortium
- Affiliations
- Institut für Medizinische Informationsverarbeitung, Biometrie und Epidemiologie (DE)
- South African Medical Research Council (ZA)
- University of Rwanda (RW)
- Cochrane Germany, Freiburg, Germany.
- Stellenbosch University (ZA)
- Corresponding author
- Rehfuess, Eva A
- Venue
- Bulletin of the World Health Organization
- Publisher
- WHO Press
- Published
- 2015-02-12
- Volume
- 94
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 297-305
- ISSN
- 0042-9686 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4794302
- OpenAlex
- W2313052226
- Cited by
- 39
- References
- 22
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3
- FWCI
- 3.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Bulletin of the World Health Organization (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- FreiDok plus (Universitätsbibliothek Freiburg) (submittedVersion)
- SUNScholar (Stellenbosch University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Rwanda
- Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
- Universiteit Stellenbosch
- Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
- Addis Ababa University
- Cochrane South Africa
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Keywords
- research prioritization, stakeholder engagement, evidence mapping, evidence-based health policy, low- and middle-income countries, tuberculosis, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, road traffic injuries, research question formulation, evidence translation
- MeSH terms
- Accidents, Traffic, Africa, Cooperative Behavior, Developing Countries, Diabetes Mellitus, Environment, Health Priorities, Humans, Hypertension, Mental Health, Public Health, Research Design, Tuberculosis, Evidence-Based Practice
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
