TY - JOUR T1 - Bridging the ‘two communities’: how an emerging primary healthcare global research consortium can help achieve universal health coverage in low and middle-income countries JF - BMJ Global Health JO - BMJ Global Health DO - 10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001573 VL - 4 IS - Suppl 8 SP - e001573 AU - Ejemai Amaize Eboreime Y1 - 2019/08/01 UR - http://gh.bmj.com/content/4/Suppl_8/e001573.abstract N2 - Summary boxThe quantity of knowledge produced by the research community in Low and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) has increased substantially in recent years.Knowledge producers may consider their research relevant for the policy and practice community but knowledge consumers often question the utility of this research in real-world policymaking.Bridging the gap between these ‘two communities’ is critical to attaining universal health coverage and sustainable development goals through high performing primary healthcare (PHC) systems.An emerging PHC global research consortium can help bridge this gap and produce acceptable contextual evidence for PHC performance improvements in LMICs.We had done so much work, earned recognition, but solved nobody’s problem.           (Dr Abhay Bang)1 World leaders reconvened at the 40th anniversary of the 1978 Alma Ata declaration to renew their commitment to primary healthcare (PHC) as the key to attaining Health for All, the goals of universal health coverage (UHC) and the sustainable development goals (SDGs).2 Among affirmations made was the commitment to apply knowledge in order to support multisectoral stakeholder collaborations to strengthen PHC systems. The Declaration of Astana recognised that effective knowledge generation and translation strategies focused on PHC are critical to attaining these global goals. This recognition echoes a global call for evidence-informed healthcare policy and decision-making for over two decades.3 However, one challenge is Nathan Caplan’s theorised ‘two communities’: the research community (knowledge producers) and the policy/practice community (knowledge consumers), each with intrinsically different perspectives and priorities.4 The association between evidence and policy is not always rational or sequential, given that researchers may not produce the evidence and knowledge needed, policymakers may not always choose to take evidence-informed actions, or may choose to use evidence in ways unacceptable to researchers such as to support predetermined positions or decisions.5 The recent World Report on Health Policy and … ER -