Limits...
Brokering the boundary between science and advocacy: the case of intermittent preventive treatment among infants.

Cruz VO, Walt G - Health Policy Plan (2012)

Bottom Line: One issue that has been little addressed is about the boundaries between research and advocacy: how far scientists do, or should, promote particular findings to policy makers and others.Using a framework that emphasizes the interplay of interests, institutions and ideas, it provides an example of how a network of committed researchers and funders attempted to follow a rational policy process, but faced conflicts and fundamental questions about their roles in generating scientific evidence and influencing global health policy.In an era of ever more and larger researcher groups and consortia, the findings offer insights and lessons to those engaged in the process of knowledge translation.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Global Health and Development, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK. oliveiracruzvaleria@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
The process of translating research into policy has gained considerable attention in recent years and a number of studies have investigated the nexus between the two 'worlds' of research and policy. One issue that has been little addressed is about the boundaries between research and advocacy: how far scientists do, or should, promote particular findings to policy makers and others. This article analyses a particular intervention in malaria control and the Consortium set up to accelerate its potential implementation. Using a framework that emphasizes the interplay of interests, institutions and ideas, it provides an example of how a network of committed researchers and funders attempted to follow a rational policy process, but faced conflicts and fundamental questions about their roles in generating scientific evidence and influencing global health policy. In an era of ever more and larger researcher groups and consortia, the findings offer insights and lessons to those engaged in the process of knowledge translation.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Timeline of selected malaria control interventions: evidence and policy recommendations
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3753881&req=5

czs101-F1: Timeline of selected malaria control interventions: evidence and policy recommendations

Mentions: The increase in funding brought new and more investigators into the malaria field, providing opportunities for research, and led to greater discussion about the paucity of interventions against malaria. At the end of the 1990s, there were limited tools that were recommended by WHO and that countries could implement for malaria treatment and control. Chloroquine was still the most utilized drug for treatment of malaria in Africa, in spite of known, large-scale resistance (Shretta et al. 2000). But moves by African Ministries of Health towards using SP, which was widely available, inexpensive and more efficacious, were slow (Shretta et al. 2000; Williams et al. 2004). Tanzania, for example, only introduced SP in 2001. Thus, when the positive findings were reported in 2001 from the IPTi study in Ifakara, Tanzania, there were only a few interventions for malaria control (see Figure 1).Figure 1


Brokering the boundary between science and advocacy: the case of intermittent preventive treatment among infants.

Cruz VO, Walt G - Health Policy Plan (2012)

Timeline of selected malaria control interventions: evidence and policy recommendations
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3753881&req=5

czs101-F1: Timeline of selected malaria control interventions: evidence and policy recommendations
Mentions: The increase in funding brought new and more investigators into the malaria field, providing opportunities for research, and led to greater discussion about the paucity of interventions against malaria. At the end of the 1990s, there were limited tools that were recommended by WHO and that countries could implement for malaria treatment and control. Chloroquine was still the most utilized drug for treatment of malaria in Africa, in spite of known, large-scale resistance (Shretta et al. 2000). But moves by African Ministries of Health towards using SP, which was widely available, inexpensive and more efficacious, were slow (Shretta et al. 2000; Williams et al. 2004). Tanzania, for example, only introduced SP in 2001. Thus, when the positive findings were reported in 2001 from the IPTi study in Ifakara, Tanzania, there were only a few interventions for malaria control (see Figure 1).Figure 1

Bottom Line: One issue that has been little addressed is about the boundaries between research and advocacy: how far scientists do, or should, promote particular findings to policy makers and others.Using a framework that emphasizes the interplay of interests, institutions and ideas, it provides an example of how a network of committed researchers and funders attempted to follow a rational policy process, but faced conflicts and fundamental questions about their roles in generating scientific evidence and influencing global health policy.In an era of ever more and larger researcher groups and consortia, the findings offer insights and lessons to those engaged in the process of knowledge translation.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Global Health and Development, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK. oliveiracruzvaleria@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
The process of translating research into policy has gained considerable attention in recent years and a number of studies have investigated the nexus between the two 'worlds' of research and policy. One issue that has been little addressed is about the boundaries between research and advocacy: how far scientists do, or should, promote particular findings to policy makers and others. This article analyses a particular intervention in malaria control and the Consortium set up to accelerate its potential implementation. Using a framework that emphasizes the interplay of interests, institutions and ideas, it provides an example of how a network of committed researchers and funders attempted to follow a rational policy process, but faced conflicts and fundamental questions about their roles in generating scientific evidence and influencing global health policy. In an era of ever more and larger researcher groups and consortia, the findings offer insights and lessons to those engaged in the process of knowledge translation.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus