Table 1

Comparison of case studies-PMTCT and SMC–in Uganda




Status of policy

PMTCT policy adopted in 2001

SMC policy formulation in progress (2009)

Stage in R-2-P processes in 2009

Policy implementation stage

Analysis of policy feasibility and agenda setting

Type of research evidence generated

Implementation level evidence of effectiveness

Proof of concept for SMC – multi-country clinical trials (Rakia, Kisumu and Orange Farm)

Methods used for generating evidence

Large cohorts of program beneficiaries, i.e. children and mothers enrolled in PMTCT programs

Multi-country randomized clinical trial; country level acceptability surveys; service availability services

Objectives of the researchers’ policy engagement

To improve the national policy implementation approaches; Changes to cost-effective approaches

To establish global policy guidelines; establish national SMC programs; mobilize funds for SMC programs

Influential decision-making audiences

National technical level decision makers (MOH WHO, UNAIDS, UNICEF and EGPAF); Makerere College of Health Sciences

Mostly global multilateral agencies e.g. WHO, UNAIDS, Gates Foundation and NIH; MOH and political leaders i.e. president’s opinion about SMC

Secondary audiences

Implementers of PMTCT programs; Funding agencies of PMCTC programs; WHO and UNAIDS (validation of their guidelines)

National level leaders, technical decision makers, media practitioners; general public; HIV funding agencies; Implementers (e.g. hospital managers and surgeons)

Methods for engaging national level decision makers

Researchers are integrated into decision-making fora e.g. PMTCT National Advisory Committee and committees

Transactional or “arms-length” engagement methods by researchers e.g. occasional dissemination events, policy briefings and mass media.

Ssengooba et al. BMC International Health and Human Rights 2011 11(Suppl 1):S13   doi:10.1186/1472-698X-11-S1-S13

Open Data