Search

The barriers and facilitators of conducting knowledge translation (KT) activities are well-established but less is known about the institutional forces that drive these barriers, particularly in low resource settings. Understanding organizational readiness has been used to assess and address such barriers but the employment of readiness assessments has largely been done in high-income countries. We conducted a qualitative study to describe the institutional needs and barriers in KT specific to academic institutions in low- and middle-income countries. We conducted a review of the grey and published literature to identify country health priorities and established barriers and facilitators for KT. Key-informant interviews (KII) were conducted to elicit perceptions of institutional readiness to conduct KT, including experiences with KT, and views on motivation and capacity building. Participants included representatives from academic institutions and Ministries of Health in six countries (Bangladesh, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Nigeria). We conducted 18 KIIs, 11 with members of academic institutions and 7 with policymakers. KIIs were analysed using a deductive and inductive coding approach. Our findings support many well-documented barriers including lack of time, skills and institutional support to conduct KT. Three additional institutional drivers emerged around soft skills and the complexity of the policy process, alignment of incentives and institutional missions, and the role of networks. Participants reflected on often-lacking soft-skills needed by researchers to engage policy makers. Continuous engagement was viewed as a challenge given competing demands for time (both researchers and policy makers) and lack of institutional incentives to conduct KT. Strong networks, both within the institution and between institutions, were described as important for conducting KT but difficult to establish and maintain. Attention to the cross-cutting themes representing barriers and facilitators for both individuals and institutions can inform the development of capacity building strategies that meet readiness needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Since its inception in 1988, the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) has partnered with 200 countries to vaccinate over 2.5 billion children against poliomyelitis. The polio eradication approach has adapted to emerging challenges and diverse contexts. Knowledge assets gained from these experiences can inform implementation of future health programs, but only if efforts are made to systematically map barriers, identify strategies to overcome them, identify unintended consequences, and compare experiences across country contexts., Methods: A sequential explanatory mixed methods design, including an online survey followed by key informant interviews (KIIs), was utilized to map tacit knowledge derived from the polio eradication experience from 1988 to 2019. The survey and KIIs were conducted between September 2018 and March 2019. A cross-case comparison was conducted of two study countries, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Ethiopia, which fit similar epidemiological profiles for polio. The variables of interest (implementation barriers, strategies, unintended consequences) were compared for consistencies and inconsistencies within and across the two country cases., Results: Surveys were conducted with 499 and 101 respondents, followed by 23 and 30 KIIs in the DRC and Ethiopia, respectively. Common implementation barriers included accessibility issues caused by political insecurity, population movement, and geography; gaps in human resources, supply chain, finance and governance; and community hesitancy. Strategies for addressing these barriers included adapting service delivery approaches, investing in health systems capacity, establishing mechanisms for planning and accountability, and social mobilization. These investments improved system infrastructure and service delivery; however, resources were often focused on the polio program rather than strengthening routine services, causing community mistrust and limiting sustainability., Conclusions: The polio program investments in the DRC and Ethiopia facilitated program implementation despite environmental, system, and community-level barriers. There were, however, missed opportunities for integration. Remaining pockets of low immunization coverage and gaps in surveillance must be addressed in order to prevent importation of wild poliovirus and minimize circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus. Studying these implementation processes is critical for informing future health programs, including identifying implementation tools, strategies, and principles which can be adopted from polio eradication to ensure health service delivery among hard-to-reach populations. Future disease control or eradication programs should also consider strategies which reduce parallel structures and define a clear transition strategy to limit long-term external dependency.