MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783465548 · doi:10.15171/hpp.2018.08

Promoting evidence informed policymaking for maternal and child health in Nigeria: lessons from a knowledge translation workshop

2017· article· en· W2783465548 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Chigozie Jesse Uneke, Issiaka Sombié, Henry Chukwuemeka Uro-Chukwu, Yagana Gidado Mohammed, Ermel Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion Perspectives · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsLikert scaleKnowledge translationCompetence (human resources)ContextualizationMedical educationNegotiationHealth policyMedicinePsychologyNursingPolitical sciencePublic relationsKnowledge managementPublic healthSocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Knowledge translation (KT) is a process that ensures that research evidence gets translated into policy and practice. In Nigeria, reports indicate that research evidence rarely gets into policy making process. A major factor responsible for this is lack of KT capacity enhancement mechanisms. The objective of this study was to improve KT competence of an implementation research team (IRT), policymakers and stakeholders in maternal and child health to enhance evidence-informed policy making. Methods: This study employed a "before and after" design, modified as an intervention study. The study was conducted in Bauchi, north-eastern Nigeria. A three-day KT training workshop was organized and 15 modules were covered including integrated and end-of-grant KT; KT models,measures, tools and strategies; priority setting; managing political interference; advocacy and consensus building/negotiations; inter-sectoral collaboration; policy analysis, contextualization and legislation. A 4-point Likert scale pre-/post-workshop questionnaires were administered to evaluate the impact of the training, it was designed in terms of extent of adequacy; with "grossly inadequate" representing 1 point, and "very adequate" representing 4 points.Results: A total of 45 participants attended the workshop. There was a noteworthy improvement in the participants’ understanding of KT processes and strategies. The range of the praiseworthiness of participants knowledge of modules taught was from 2.04-2.94, the range for the post workshop mean was from 3.10–3.70 on the 4-point Likert scale. The range of percentage increase in mean for participants’ knowledge at the end of the workshop was from 13.3%–55.2%.Conclusion: The outcome of this study suggests that using a KT capacity building programme e.g., workshop, health researchers, policymakers and other stakeholders can acquire capacity and skill that will facilitate evidence-to-policy link.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.633
GPT teacher head0.672
Teacher spread0.039 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Promotion PerspectivesSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207