Table 1 Comparison of key indicators between the INSP and Policy BUDDIES approach

Stakeholders involved

Frontline policy/programme managers and implementers

Sub-national policymakers

Policy cycle

Improving implementation processes

Policy planning, development and adaptation

Type of research evidence

Systematised tacit knowledge and implementation research findings

Systematic reviews and derivative products of evidence syntheses

Engagement process

Workshops and online communities of peers

Dyads and one-on-one relationship building

Key lessons learned

• Engagement of implementers was critical in the conduct of research that responded to identified challenges, and facilitated greater buy-in and uptake of results

• Peer learning – through sharing of experiences and challenges – facilitated problem solving

• Tacit knowledge important in the formulation of research questions and identification of solutions to implementation barriers

• Use of implementation research findings improved when research is embedded within the program process

• Complex real-world implementation requires continuous dialogue and engagement

• Need to strengthen/support capacities of policy/programme managers and implementers in using implementation research and other forms of knowledge

• Peer support/buddying helped policymakers to value and use research evidence

• Capabilities and opportunities for change should be considered when trying to promote research uptake

• Complexity and evolving nature of policymaking require iterative exchanges

• Collaborations between researchers and policymakers need to be meaningful, equal and built on trust

• Need to strengthen/support capacities of policymakers in using evidence syntheses and other forms of knowledge

• Researchers need to be sensitized to the policy environment and information needs of policymakers

• Institutional support and incentives for using evidence are important barriers/facilitators for policymakers to engage in knowledge generation and use