↓ Skip to main content

Role and use of evidence in policymaking: an analysis of case studies from the health sector in Nigeria

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
188 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Role and use of evidence in policymaking: an analysis of case studies from the health sector in Nigeria
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12961-015-0049-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Obinna Onwujekwe, Nkoli Uguru, Giuliano Russo, Enyi Etiaba, Chinyere Mbachu, Tolib Mirzoev, Benjamin Uzochukwu

Abstract

Health policymaking is a complex process and analysing the role of evidence is still an evolving area in many low- and middle-income countries. Where evidence is used, it is greatly affected by cognitive and institutional features of the policy process. This paper examines the role of different types of evidence in health policy development in Nigeria. The role of evidence was compared between three case studies representing different health policies, namely the (1) integrated maternal neonatal and child health strategy (IMNCH); (2) oral health (OH) policy; and (3) human resource for health (HRH) policy. The data was collected using document reviews and 31 in-depth interviews with key policy actors. Framework Approach was used to analyse the data, aided by NVivo 10 software. Most respondents perceived evidence to be factual and concrete to support a decision. Evidence was used more if it was perceived to be context-specific, accessible and timely. Low-cost high-impact evidence, such as the Lancet series, was reported to have been used in drafting the IMNCH policy. In the OH and HRH policies, informal evidence such as experts' experiences and opinions, were reported to have been useful in the policy drafting stage. Both formal and informal evidence were mentioned in the HRH and OH policies, while the development of the IMNCH was revealed to have been informed mainly by more formal evidence. Overall, respondents suggested that formal evidence, such as survey reports and research publications, were most useful in the agenda-setting stage to identify the need for the policy and thus initiating the policy development process. International and local evidence were used to establish the need for a policy and develop policy, and less to develop policy implementation options. Recognition of the value of different evidence types, combined with structures for generating and using evidence, are likely to enhance evidence-informed health policy development in Nigeria and other similar contexts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 188 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 188 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 21%
Researcher 26 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 12%
Student > Postgraduate 8 4%
Student > Bachelor 7 4%
Other 30 16%
Unknown 56 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 21%
Social Sciences 27 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 12%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 4%
Other 23 12%
Unknown 61 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 December 2017.
All research outputs
#3,163,456
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#476
of 1,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,092
of 283,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#5
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,215 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 283,719 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.