Stakeholders’ individual and organizational capacity to acquire, assess, adapt and apply evidence for maternal, neonatal and child health in policymaking in Burkina Faso
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: In Burkina Faso, the systematic use of research evidence in maternal, newborn and child health (MNCH) decision-making is not yet institutionalized despite previous initiatives to promote the evidence to policy link. This study aimed to assess individual and organizational capacities of MNCH stakeholders for evidence-to-policy link in Burkina Faso. Methods: The design was a cross-sectional study conducted during a national MNCH stakeholders’ engagement event organised in Ouagadougou in November 2015 by Burkina Faso Ministry of Health. A self-assessment survey using structured pre-tested questionnaire was administered to assess participants’ individual and organisational capacities to acquire, appraise, adapt and apply evidence in decision-making. Results: The mean rating (MNR) for individual knowledge about initiating/conducting research and ability to access and use existing research evidence ranged from 2.76-2.96 on the scale of 5. The MNR of the capacity to assess the authenticity, validity, reliability, quality and applicability of research evidence ranged from 2.72 to 3.08. Respondents rated their organizational level of research incentives including availability of research grants, in-service research training, and provision of research facilities very low (MNR=1.60). The MNR of organizational capacity to initiate research, source for research evidence, assess the validity and applicability of research evidence, and incentives to encourage the application of research evidence ranged from 2.16 to 2.76. Conclusion: The outcome of this study demonstrates the urgent need for capacity enhancement at individual level for MNCH stakeholders in Burkina Faso and the creation of enabling environment for promotion of evidence use at organizational level, through research incentives.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".