IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0170367.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Supporting Better Evidence Generation and Use within Social Innovation in Health in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Qualitative Study

Author

Listed:
  • Madeleine Ballard
  • Jenny Tran
  • Fred Hersch
  • Amy Lockwood
  • Pamela Hartigan
  • Paul Montgomery

Abstract

Background: While several papers have highlighted a lack of evidence to scale social innovations in health, fewer have explored decision-maker understandings of the relative merit of different types of evidence, how such data are interpreted and applied, and what practical support is required to improve evidence generation. The objectives of this paper are to understand (1) beliefs and attitudes towards the value of and types of evidence in scaling social innovations for health, (2) approaches to evidence generation and evaluation used in systems and policy change, and (3) how better evidence-generation can be undertaken and supported within social innovation in health. Methods: Thirty-two one-on-one interviews were conducted between July and November 2015 with purposively selected practitioners, policymakers, and funders from low- and middle- income countries (LMICs). Data were analysed using a Framework Analysis Approach. Results: While practitioners, funders, and policymakers said they held outcome evidence in high regard, their practices only bear out this assertion to varying degrees. Few have given systematic consideration to potential unintended consequences, in particular harm, of the programs they implement, fund, or adopt. Stakeholders suggest that better evidence-generation can be undertaken and supported within social innovation in health by supporting the research efforts of emerging community organizations; creating links between practitioners and academia; altering the funding landscape for evidence-generation; providing responsive technical education; and creating accountability for funders, practitioners, and policymakers. Conclusion: How better evidence-generation can be undertaken and supported within social innovation in health is a previously under-operationalised aspect of the policy-making process that remains essential in order to refrain from causing harm, enable the optimization of existing interventions, and ultimately, to scale and fund what works.

Suggested Citation

  • Madeleine Ballard & Jenny Tran & Fred Hersch & Amy Lockwood & Pamela Hartigan & Paul Montgomery, 2017. "Supporting Better Evidence Generation and Use within Social Innovation in Health in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Qualitative Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0170367
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170367
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0170367
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0170367&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0170367?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Glasgow, R.E. & Lichtenstein, E. & Marcus, A.C., 2003. "Why Don't We See More Translation of Health Promotion Research to Practice? Rethinking the Efficacy-to-Effectiveness Transition," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 93(8), pages 1261-1267.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gonot-Schoupinsky, Freda N. & Garip, Gulcan, 2019. "A flexible framework for planning and evaluating early-stage health interventions: FRAME-IT," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    2. Emmanuel Njeuhmeli & Melissa Schnure & Andrea Vazzano & Elizabeth Gold & Peter Stegman & Katharine Kripke & Michel Tchuenche & Lori Bollinger & Steven Forsythe & Catherine Hankins, 2019. "Using mathematical modeling to inform health policy: A case study from voluntary medical male circumcision scale-up in eastern and southern Africa and proposed framework for success," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-15, March.
    3. Finch, Caroline F & Day, Lesley & Donaldson, Alex & Segal, Leonie & Harrison, James E, 2009. "Determining policy-relevant formats for the presentation of falls research evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 207-213, December.
    4. Saria Hassan & Alexis Cooke & Haneefa Saleem & Dorothy Mushi & Jessie Mbwambo & Barrot H. Lambdin, 2019. "Evaluating the Integrated Methadone and Anti-Retroviral Therapy Strategy in Tanzania Using the RE-AIM Framework," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-15, February.
    5. Estabrooks, Carole A. & Norton, Peter & Birdsell, Judy M. & Newton, Mandi S. & Adewale, Adeniyi J. & Thornley, Richard, 2008. "Knowledge translation and research careers: Mode I and Mode II activity among health researchers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6-7), pages 1066-1078, July.
    6. Natalie Bradford & Shirley Chambers & Adrienne Hudson & Jacqui Jauncey‐Cooke & Robyn Penny & Carol Windsor & Patsy Yates, 2019. "Evaluation frameworks in health services: An integrative review of use, attributes and elements," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(13-14), pages 2486-2498, July.
    7. Chen, Huey T., 2010. "The bottom-up approach to integrative validity: A new perspective for program evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 205-214, August.
    8. Rieckmann, Traci R. & Kovas, Anne E. & Cassidy, Elaine F. & McCarty, Dennis, 2011. "Employing policy and purchasing levers to increase the use of evidence-based practices in community-based substance abuse treatment settings: Reports from single state authorities," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 366-374, November.
    9. Holly Blake & Betsy Lai & Emil Coman & Jonathan Houdmont & Amanda Griffiths, 2019. "Move-It: A Cluster-Randomised Digital Worksite Exercise Intervention in China: Outcome and Process Evaluation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-23, September.
    10. Tabia Henry Akintobi & Payam Sheikhattari & Emma Shaffer & Christina L. Evans & Kathryn L. Braun & Angela U. Sy & Bibiana Mancera & Adriana Campa & Stephania T. Miller & Daniel Sarpong & Rhonda Hollid, 2021. "Community Engagement Practices at Research Centers in U.S. Minority Institutions: Priority Populations and Innovative Approaches to Advancing Health Disparities Research," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(12), pages 1-14, June.
    11. Bradley MacDonald & Xanne Janssen & Alison Kirk & Mhairi Patience & Ann-Marie Gibson, 2018. "An Integrative, Systematic Review Exploring the Research, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance of Interventions to Reduce Sedentary Behaviour in Office Workers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-29, December.
    12. Katrien De Cocker & Greet Cardon & Jason A. Bennie & Tracy Kolbe-Alexander & Femke De Meester & Corneel Vandelanotte, 2018. "From Evidence-Based Research to Practice-Based Evidence: Disseminating a Web-Based Computer-Tailored Workplace Sitting Intervention through a Health Promotion Organisation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-11, May.
    13. Frank Puga & Kathleen R. Stevens & Darpan I. Patel, 2013. "Adopting Best Practices from Team Science in a Healthcare Improvement Research Network: The Impact on Dissemination and Implementation," Nursing Research and Practice, Hindawi, vol. 2013, pages 1-7, March.
    14. Adams, Katherine P. & Vosti, Stephen A. & Lybbert, Travis J. & Ayifah, Emmanuel, 2011. "Integrating Economic Analysis with a Randomized Controlled Trial: Willingness-to-Pay for a New Maternal Nutrient Supplement," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103793, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Leah N. Vermont & Christina Kasprzak & Anne Lally & Alicia Claudio & Laurene Tumiel-Berhalter & Lindsey Haynes-Maslow & Alice Ammerman & Samina Raja & Lucia A. Leone, 2022. "A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Research-Tested Mobile Produce Market Model Designed to Improve Diet in Under-Resourced Communities: Rationale and Design for the Veggie Van Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-11, August.
    16. Eileen V Pitpitan & Shirley J Semple & Gregory A Aarons & Lawrence A Palinkas & Claudia V Chavarin & Doroteo V Mendoza & Carlos Magis-Rodriguez & Hugo Staines & Thomas L Patterson, 2018. "Factors associated with program effectiveness in the implementation of a sexual risk reduction intervention for female sex workers across Mexico: Results from a randomized trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-17, September.
    17. Ditte Marie Bruun & Eik Bjerre & Peter Krustrup & Klaus Brasso & Christoffer Johansen & Mikael Rørth & Julie Midtgaard, 2014. "Community-Based Recreational Football: A Novel Approach to Promote Physical Activity and Quality of Life in Prostate Cancer Survivors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-19, May.
    18. Dominic Ehrmann & Nikola Bergis-Jurgan & Thomas Haak & Bernhard Kulzer & Norbert Hermanns, 2016. "Comparison of the Efficacy of a Diabetes Education Programme for Type 1 Diabetes (PRIMAS) in a Randomised Controlled Trial Setting and the Effectiveness in a Routine Care Setting: Results of a Compara," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, January.
    19. Harriet Koorts & Adrian Bauman & Nancy Edwards & William Bellew & Wendy J. Brown & Mitch J. Duncan & David R. Lubans & Andrew J. Milat & Philip J. Morgan & Nicole Nathan & Andrew Searles & Karen Lee &, 2022. "Tensions and Paradoxes of Scaling Up: A Critical Reflection on Physical Activity Promotion," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-16, November.
    20. Chen, Huey T., 2016. "Interfacing theories of program with theories of evaluation for advancing evaluation practice: Reductionism, systems thinking, and pragmatic synthesis," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 109-118.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0170367. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.