Table 7.
Summary of the evaluation of evidence briefs
| Features of briefs produced | Cameroon (n = 99) | Uganda (n = 66) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||
| Overall assessment of satisfaction with the evidence briefs achieving its purpose | 6.2 | 0.8 | 6.3 | 0.9 | |
| Design features of evidence briefs | |||||
| 1. | Described the context for the issue being addressed | 6.3 | 1.2 | 6.2 | 1.4 |
| 2. | Described different features of the problem, including (where possible) how it affects particular groups | 6.1 | 1.2 | 6.0 | 1.4 |
| 3. | Described options for addressing the problem | 6.0 | 1.1 | 5.8 | 1.4 |
| 4. | Described what is known, based on synthesized research evidence, about each of the options and where there are gaps in what is known | 6.0 | 1.0 | 6.0 | 1.4 |
| 5. | Described key implementation considerations | 6.1 | 1.1 | 6.0 | 1.3 |
| 6. | Employed systematic and transparent methods to identify, select, and assess synthesized research evidence | 6.0 | 1.0 | 6.0 | 1.2 |
| 7. | Took quality considerations into account when discussing the research evidence | 6.1 | 1.0 | 6.0 | 1.3 |
| 8. | Took local applicability considerations into account when discussing the research evidence | 6.0 | 1.0 | 6.1 | 1.1 |
| 9. | Took equity considerations into account when discussing the research evidence | 6.2 | 1.1 | 5.8 | 1.1 |
| 10. | Did not conclude with particular recommendations | 5.4 | 1.3 | 5.4 | 1.9 |
| 11. | Employed a graded-entry format (e.g., a list of key messages and a full report) | 6.4 | 1.0 | 6.2 | 1.2 |
| 12. | Included a reference list for those who wanted to read more about a particular systematic review or research study | 6.4 | 1.0 | 6.3 | 1.7 |
| 13. | Was subjected to a review by at least one policymaker, at least one stakeholder, and at least one researcher (called a “merit” review process to distinguish it from “peer” review, which would typically only involve researchers in the review) | 6.4 | 0.8 | 6.1 | 1.3 |
The ratings are on a Likert scale from 1 to 7 (least useful = 1 and most useful = 7) for question 1 to 13. The lowest rating (5.4) was for the briefs not concluding with particular recommendations. These are mean values for seven evidence briefs in Cameroon and three evidence briefs in Uganda.