Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Researcher and policymaker dialogue: the Policy BUDDIES Project in Western Cape Province, South Africa
  1. Taryn Young1,
  2. Jessica C Shearer2,
  3. Celeste Naude1,
  4. Tamara Kredo3,
  5. Charles S Wiysonge1,
  6. Paul Garner4
  1. 1 Centre for Evidence-based Health Care, Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa
  2. 2 Health Systems Innovation and Delivery, PATH, Seattle, Washington, USA
  3. 3 Cochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council, Tygerberg, South Africa
  4. 4 Centre for Evidence Synthesis in Global Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK
  1. Correspondence to Professor Taryn Young; tyoung{at}


Dialogue and exchange between researchers and policy personnel may increase the use of research evidence in policy. We piloted and evaluated a programme of formalised dialogue between researchers and provincial health policymakers in South Africa, called the buddying programme. An external evaluation examined implementation and short-term impact, drawing on documents, in-depth interviews with policymakers, a researcher buddies focus group and our own reflection on what we learnt. We set up buddying with seven policymakers and five researchers on six policy questions. Researchers knew little about policymaking or needs of policymakers. Policymakers respected the contact with researchers, respected researchers’ objectivity and appreciated the formalised approach. Having policymaker champions facilitated the dialogue. Scenarios for policy questions and use were different. One topic was at problem identification stage (contraceptives and HIV risk), four at policy formulation stage (healthy lifestyles, chronic illness medication adherence, integrated care of chronic illness and maternal transmission of HIV to infants) and one at implementation stage (task shifting). Research evidence were used to identify or solve a policy problem (two scenarios), to legitimise a predetermined policy position (three scenarios) or the evidence indirectly influenced the policy (one scenario). The formalised dialogue required in this structured buddying programme took time and commitment from both sides. The programme illustrated the importance of researchers listening, and policymakers understanding what research can offer. Both parties recognised that the structured buddying made the dialogue happen. Often the evidence was helpful in supporting provincial policy decisions that were in the roll-out phase from the national government.

  • evidence-informed policy
  • policymaking
  • research use
  • engagement
  • dialogue
  • decision making
  • knowledge translation

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Handling editor Valery Ridde

  • Contributors TY: led the conceptualisation and implementation of the Policy BUDDIES project. CN, TK, CW, PG: were part of the project implementation. JS: conducted the independent evaluation of the project. TY: drafted the manuscript and all authors provided input. All authors have approved the manuscript.

  • Funding This project was supported by the Alliance for Health Policy and System Research, World Health Organisation. Paul Garner, Taryn Young and Celeste Naude were partly supported by the Effective Health Care Research Consortium funded by UK aid from the UK Government for the benefit of developing countries (grant: 5242).

  • Disclaimer The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect UK government policy.

  • Competing interests Taryn Young, Celeste Naude, Tamara Kredo, Charles Wiysonge and Paul Garner are identified with Cochrane. All receive grant money from public bodies based on activities related to producing systematic reviews and promoting their uptake.

  • Ethics approval Stellenbosch University Health Research Ethics Committee provided ethical approval (N13/02/021). All participants gave written informed consent.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.