The highest rating (6.6) was for the dialogue addressing a high-priority policy issue in Cameroon and the lowest rating (5.7) was for the dialogue providing an opportunity to discuss who might do what differently.
The respondents largely agreed that the briefs achieved their purpose of presenting the available research evidence on a high-priority policy issue in order to inform a policy dialogue where research evidence would be just one input to the discussion.
A total of 26 crosscutting high priority policy issues were identified at country- and regional-level.
Concerning the availability of evidence, only a quarter of respondents reported that research evidence on high priority policy issues was very frequently/frequently available to policymakers.
The answer to this challenge might be found in focused responses using high priority policy issues for communities and working environmental remediation, mitigation, and restoration into existing dialogues.
In fact, more than half of respondents indicated that evidence on high priority policy issues was very rarely/rarely disseminated to policymakers, including articles or reports about primary research and policy briefs.
Additionally, participants emphasized the need for researchers to better align their research with high priority policy issues in their countries and accelerate their efforts in disseminating research evidence and making it readily accessible for policymaking (Table 4).
They found that KTE activities were not frequently undertaken by policy makers and researchers in these countries, that research evidence about high priority policy issues was rarely made available, and that the interaction between policy makers and researchers was limited and mostly informal [ 19].
Furthermore, respondents reported that policymakers very rarely/rarely identified or created places for utilizing research evidence in decision-making acquired research evidence on high priority policy issues, or participated in training to develop their capacity to find and use evidence and assess its quality and local applicability (Table 2).
Most respondents indicated that research evidence about high priority policy issues was rarely made available to policymakers, interaction between policymakers and researchers was limited and mostly informal, and that policymakers rarely identified or created places for utilizing research evidence in decision-making.
