Brokering the boundary between science and advocacy

The case of intermittent preventive treatment among infants

Datos Bibliográficos

ID11490750
AutoresV O Cruz (University of London, autor de correspondencia), G Walt (University of London)
Año2013
Volumen28
Número6
Páginas616-625
Fecha de publicación2013-09-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaHealth Policy and Planning (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0268-1080 • E-ISSN: 1460-2237
EditorialOxford University Press (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1093/heapol/czs101
PMID23161588
PMCIDPMC3753881
OpenAlexW2159153635
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas5
Referencias citadas41

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.

Intensive care medicine · Global Maternal and Child Health · Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology · Health Policy Implementation Science · Medicine · Nursing · Pediatrics