Table 3

Example of the content analysis process for the study




-PMTCT National Advisory Committee was chaired by the scientist that carried out the Niverapine study

-The PMTCT National Advisory Committee was the main decision-making body

-The first author was also a member of this PMTCT National Advisory Committee

-Both implementers and research agencies benefited from sharing the decision space

Shared platforms for learning and decision making

Lessons learnt from PMTCT

-The PMTCT National Advisory Committee commissioned a pilot study to learn about the operations feasibility

-A national pilot was established to examine the feasibility of implementing PMTCT

-Pilots aimed to assess how integration of PMTCT into ANC might affect the acceptability

Pilots to assess feasibility of Interventions

-History of shared decision-making platform

-Sustained collaboration with research agencies like MUJHU, JCRC and PIDC.

-Integration of technocrats, basic and operations research scientists along with funding agencies interested

-PMTCT National Advisory Committee used research to quickly adjust the guidelines to stop single dose Niverapine when it failed

Evolution of Agencies to undertake Operational research

-700,000 pregnant women are screened annually

-Many babies remained HIV negative

-The faces of these babies and smiles of grateful mothers are common

-Beneficiaries often in media reports

-It is harder now to find HIV positive babies

-When people see this change they are more willing to implement the policy

Visibility of the Benefits of PMTCT

-SMC policy audiences were primarily global, the nature of policy decision had tight connections to global agencies like WHO, UNAIDS and NIH.

-SMC research in Uganda, Kenya and South Africa was funded by global stakeholders

-WHO called us, we shared our results with other experts

Global vis-à-vis National Policy Process

Lessons learnt from SMC

-The demand for a series of addition research evidence

-MoH discuss translation of SMC evidence into policy

-Feasibility questions emerged

-We are also looking at cultural sensitivity

Demand for feasibility research

-SMC benefits happen when a large number has undertaken the service

-Benefits are difficult to visualize by the policymakers

-Researchers envision complexity of this process

-Can existing services to shoulder circumcision

Less visible evidence for SMC

-Sharp differences in values prevail among researchers, policy makers & media

-Contribution to science, career development… member of big scientific network

-Driven by the need to find simpler and cost-effective solution

-Motivated by the duty to inform the public

-Maintain the interest of the audience

Incentives and values

Evidence that drives policy

The main rationale for researcher-policy maker communication was:

-PM driven by the need to share positive findings from research

-Researchers’ attitudes were not favorable to active engagement and dissemination

-Delays in dissemination process “dancing in the corridors”

-Media prefer evidence from a locally recognized expert

Communication among groups

-Evidence judged as useful for decision making

-We want randomized controlled trials

-Decision makers assigned more weight to research that addresses operational problems

-Emphasizes the number of the population affected

Strengths of evidence

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

Open Data