Skip to main content

Opportunities and disconnects in the use of primary research on schistosomiasis and soil-transmitted helminths for policy and practice: results from a survey of researchers

Journal of Public Health Policy volume 42, pages 402–421 (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

Even with efforts to facilitate use of evidence in health policy and practice, limited attention has been paid to researchers’ perspectives on use of their research in informing public health policy and practice at local, national, and global levels. We conducted a systematic literature search to identify published primary research related to schistosomiasis or soil-transmitted helminths, or both. We then surveyed corresponding authors. Results indicate differences by locations of authors and in conduct of research, especially for research conducted in low- and middle-income countries. Our findings exemplify disparities in research leadership discussed elsewhere. Researchers’ perspectives on the use of their work suggest limited opportunities and ‘disconnects’ that hinder their engagement with policy and other decision-making processes. These findings highlight a need for additional efforts to address structural barriers and enable engagement between researchers and decision-makers.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Orton L, Lloyd-Williams F, Taylor-Robinson D, O’Flaherty M, Capewell S. The use of research evidence in public health decision making processes: systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(7):e21704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Oliver K, Lorenc T, Innvær S. New directions in evidence-based policy research: a critical analysis of the literature. Health Res Policy Syst. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-12-34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. The CN, Theory T-C, Utilization K. Am Behav Sci. 1979;22(3):459–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Weiss CH. The many meanings of research utilization. Public Adm Rev. 1979;39(5):426–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Sebba, Judy. Enhancing impact on policy-making through increasing user engagement in research. In: Saunders L, editor. Educational research and policy-making:  exploring the border country between research and policy. London: Routledge, 2007. p. 151–67.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Oliver KA, de Vocht F. Defining ‘evidence’ in public health: a survey of policymakers’ uses and preferences. Eur J Public Health. 2017;27(suppl_2):112–7.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Sibley KM, Roche PL, Bell CP, Temple B, Wittmeier KDM. A descriptive qualitative examination of knowledge translation practice among health researchers in Manitoba, Canada. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Holmes B, Scarrow G, Schellenberg M. Translating evidence into practice: the role of health research funders. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Campbell DM, Redman S, Rychentnik L, Cooke M, Zwi AB, Jorm L. Increasing the use of evidence in health policy: practice and views of policy makers and researchers. Australia and New Zealand Health Policy. 2009;6(1).

  11. Davies J, Mullan Z. Research capacity in Africa—will the sun rise again? Lancet Glob Health. 2016;4(5):287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Beran D, Byass P, Gbakima A, Kahn K, Sankoh O, Tollman S, et al. Research capacity building—obligations for global health partners. Lancet Glob Health. 2017;5(6):e567–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Rees CA, Lukolyo H, Keating EM, Dearden KA, Luboga SA, Schutze GE, et al. Authorship in paediatric research conducted in low- and middle-income countries: parity or parasitism? Trop Med Int Health. 2017;22(11):1362–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Keiser J, Utzinger J, Tanner M, Singer BH. Representation of authors and editors from countries with different human development indexes in the leading literature on tropical medicine: survey of current evidence. BMJ. 2004;328(7450):1229–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jacobsen KH. Patterns of co-authorship in international epidemiology. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2009;63(8):665–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chersich MF, Blaauw D, Dumbaugh M, Penn-Kekana L, Dhana A, Thwala S, et al. Local and foreign authorship of maternal health interventional research in low- and middle-income countries: systematic mapping of publications 2000–2012. Glob Health. 2016;12(1):35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kelaher M, Ng L, Knight K, Rahadi A. Equity in global health research in the new millennium: trends in first-authorship for randomized controlled trials among low- and middle-income country researchers 1990–2013. Int J Epidemiol. 2016;45(6):2174–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mweemba O, Matenga TFL, Corbin JH. Authorship and partnerships in health promotion research: issues of erasure, ownership and inequity in knowledge production. Health Promot Int. 2019;34(6):1071–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wight D, Ahikire J, Kwesiga JC. Consultancy research as a barrier to strengthening social science research capacity in Uganda. Soc Sci Med. 2014;1(116):32–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Murunga VI, Oronje RN, Bates I, Tagoe N, Pulford J. Review of published evidence on knowledge translation capacity, practice and support among researchers and research institutions in low- and middle-income countries. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Rees CA, Keating EM, Dearden KA, Haq H, Robison JA, Kazembe PN, et al. Importance of authorship and inappropriate authorship assignment in paediatric research in low- and middle-income countries. Trop Med Int Health. 2019;24(10):1229–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Luna Puerta L, Bartlam B, Smith HE. Researchers’ perspectives on public involvement in health research in Singapore: The argument for a community-based approach. Health Expect Int J Public Particip Health Care Health Policy. 2019;22(4):666–75.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Huckel Schneider C, Milat AJ, Moore G. Barriers and facilitators to evaluation of health policies and programs: policymaker and researcher perspectives. Eval Program Plann. 2016;1(58):208–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Burchett HED, Mayhew SH, Lavis JN, Dobrow MJ. The usefulness of different types of health research: perspectives from a low-income country. Evid Policy. 2015;1(11):19–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Burchett HED, Dobrow MJ, Lavis JN, Mayhew SH. The applicability and transferability of public health research from one setting to another: a survey of maternal health researchers. Glob Health Promot. 2013;20(1):16–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Bundy DA, Appleby LJ, Bradley M, Croke K, Hollingsworth TD, Pullan R, Turner HC, de Silva N. Mass deworming programs in middle childhood and adolescence. Disease control priorities (Volume 8): child and adolescent health and development. Washington DC:  International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank; 2017 Nov 20.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hotez PJ, Fenwick A, Savioli L, Molyneux DH. Rescuing the bottom billion through control of neglected tropical diseases. Lancet Lond Engl. 2009;373(9674):1570–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Majid MF, Kang SJ, Hotez PJ. Resolving ‘worm wars’: An extended comparison review of findings from key economics and epidemiological studies. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019;13(3):e0006940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Global Burden of Disease Collaborative Network. Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 (GBD 2017) Results. [Internet]. Seattle, WA, USA: Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME); 2018. Available from: http://ghdx.healthdata.org/gbd-results-tool

  30. Strange K. Authorship: why not just toss a coin? Am J Physiol Cell Physiol. 2008;295(3):C567–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Smith E, Williams-Jones B. Authorship and responsibility in health sciences research: a review of procedures for fairly allocating authorship in multi-author studies. Sci Eng Ethics. 2012;18(2):199–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Baerlocher MO, Newton M, Gautam T, Tomlinson G, Detsky AS. The meaning of author order in medical research. J Invest Med Off Publ Am Fed Clin Res. 2007;55(4):174–80.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Avula J, Avula H. Authors, authorship order, the moving finger writes. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2015;19(3):258–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Henriksen D. The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013). Scientometrics. 2016;107(2):455–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Weeks WB, Wallace AE, Kimberly BCS. Changes in authorship patterns in prestigious US medical journals. Soc Sci Med. 2004;59(9):1949–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Johal J, Loukas M, Oskouian RJ, Tubbs RS. “Political co-authorships” in medical science journals. Clin Anat. 2017;30(6):831–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Marušić M, Božikov J, Katavić V, Hren D, Kljaković-Gašpić M, Marušić A. Authorship in a small medical journal: a study of contributorship statements by corresponding authors. Sci Eng Ethics. 2004;10(3):493–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Rodriguez-Esteban R, Vishnyakova D, Rinaldi F. Revisiting the decay of scientific email addresses. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Wren JD, Grissom JE, Conway T. E-mail decay rates among corresponding authors in MEDLINE. EMBO Rep. 2006;7(2):122–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Buse K, Mays N, Walt G. Making health policy. UK: McGraw-hill education; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hanney SR, Gonzalez-Block MA, Buxton MJ, Kogan M. The utilisation of health research in policy-making: concepts, examples and methods of assessment. Health Res Policy Syst. 2003;13(1):2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Haynes A, Turner T, Redman S, Milat AJ, Moore G. Developing definitions for a knowledge exchange intervention in health policy and program agencies: reflections on process and value. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2015;18(2):145–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Jacob RR, Allen PM, Ahrendt LJ, Brownson RC. Learning about and using research evidence among public health practitioners. Am J Prev Med. 2017;52(3, Supplement 3):304–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Colton D, Covert RW. Designing and constructing instruments for social research and evaluation. New York: Wiley; 2015. p. 563.

    Google Scholar 

  45. SCImago. SJR - SCImago Journal & Country Rank [Portal] [Internet]. [cited 2020 Oct 8]. Available from: https://www.scimagojr.com/.

  46. World Health Organization. WHO Regional offices [Internet]. [cited 2020 Jul 17]. Available from: https://www.who.int/about/who-we-are/regional-offices.

  47. World Bank. World Bank Country and Lending Groups – Country Classification Data [Data set]. 2020 [cited 2020 Oct 8]. Available from: https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups.

  48. Almeida C, Báscolo E. Use of research results in policy decision-making, formulation, and implementation: a review of the literature. Cad Saúde Pública. 2006;22:S7-19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Shroff Z, Aulakh B, Gilson L, Agyepong IA, El-Jardali F, Ghaffar A. Incorporating research evidence into decision-making processes: researcher and decision-maker perceptions from five low- and middle-income countries. Health Res Policy Syst. 2015;30(13):70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Allotey P, Reidpath DD, Pokhrel S. Social sciences research in neglected tropical diseases 1: the ongoing neglect in the neglected tropical diseases. Health Res Policy Syst. 2010;8(1):32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. World Health Organization. What is Evidence-Informed Policy-making and EVIPNet? [Internet]. Evidence-Informed Policy Network. World Health Organization; [accessed 2021 July 2]. Available from: https://www.euro.who.int/en/data-and-evidence/evidence-informed-policy-making/evidence-informed-policy-network-evipnet.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Firoz Lalji Institute for Africa, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE, UK

    Cristin A. Fergus & Georgina Pearson

  2. Department of International Development, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK

    Cristin A. Fergus

  3. Institute for Global Health and Development, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, UK

    Georgina Pearson

Authors
  1. Cristin A. Fergus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Georgina Pearson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cristin A. Fergus.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 67 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fergus, C.A., Pearson, G. Opportunities and disconnects in the use of primary research on schistosomiasis and soil-transmitted helminths for policy and practice: results from a survey of researchers. J Public Health Pol 42, 402–421 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271-021-00294-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271-021-00294-x

Keywords

  • Evidence and decision-making
  • Health policy
  • Schistosomiasis
  • Soil-transmitted helminths