MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416099061 · doi:10.3389/frhs.2025.1629317

Closing the gap between implementation science and policy in Nigeria: lessons from the Nigeria implementation science alliance using a nominal group technique

2025· article· en· W4416099061 on OpenAlexaff
Tonia C. Onyeka, Babayemi O. Olakunde, Otoyo Toyo, Ijeoma Uchenna Itanyi, Andy Eyo, Dina Patel, John Olajide Olawepo, Patrick Dakum, Prosper Okonkwo, Michael Obiefune, John Oko, Bolanle Oyeledun, Ayodotun Olutola, Ibrahim Bola Gobir, Oniyire Adetiloye, Nguavese Torbunde, Muyi Aina, Sidney Sampson, Hamisu M. Salihu, Joseph Olisa, Vidya Vedham, Mark Parascandola, Patti E. Gravitt, Gregory A. Aarons, Echezona E. Ezeanolue

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Health Services · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicHistory and advancements in chemistry
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClosing (real estate)Corporate governanceAllianceKey (lock)Knowledge translationCapacity buildingNominal group technique

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Knowledge translation in healthcare has been of keen interest to researchers, practitioners, policymakers and administrators as it seeks to confront complex health issues within communities by closing the gap between knowledge generation through research and knowledge application. A paucity of information exists regarding nature of the relationship between Nigerian implementation science researchers and policymakers in the sphere of knowledge translation. This study aimed to identify and discuss barriers to successful engagement between implementation researchers and policymakers as well as to identify strategies for successful engagement between both parties in Nigeria. Methods: A modified Nominal Group Technique was conducted with 259 diverse health research stakeholders attending the 7th Nigeria Implementation Science Alliance conference in Abuja, Nigeria, to identify barriers to knowledge translation in Nigerian healthcare settings. Results: Lack of interest in non-aligned priorities of implementation researchers and policymakers, knowledge and capacity gap in stakeholder engagement, and non-existence of engagement framework were ranked as the top three barriers. Developing and sustaining an effective engagement framework, aligning researcher-policymaker interests through collaborative research projects, and joint capacity-building were ranked the topmost facilitators of researcher-policymaker engagement. Conclusion: This study highlights key barriers to research-to-policy engagement in Nigeria, namely the need for structured engagement frameworks, alignment of priorities, and targeted capacity development, and proposes actionable strategies to address them. Sustainable impact will depend on dedicated financing, governance reforms, and institutional changes, supported by long-term partnerships and robust evaluation systems to advance knowledge translation and improve health outcomes.

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)0.146
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.132
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.772

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1460.132
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.008
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0020.013
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.380 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Health ServicesSame topicHistory and advancements in chemistryFrench-language works237,207