Willing but unable? Knowledge producers and users’ knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) in translating research evidence into health policy and practice in Guinea, 2025
This 2025 mixed-methods study in Guinea reveals a paradox where health stakeholders hold positive attitudes toward evidence-informed decision-making yet face significant structural barriers, such as poor communication channels and misaligned incentives, which severely limit the actual translation of research into health policy and practice.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
In the complex world of public health, a simple idea often guides the work: decisions about how to treat people and manage hospitals should be based on the best available facts. This concept, known as evidence-informed decision-making, suggests that when leaders choose which medicines to buy or which clinics to build, they should look at what scientific studies have proven to work. It is a straightforward principle, yet in many parts of the world, a gap exists between the research scientists produce and the choices policymakers make. This disconnect is particularly acute in low- and middle-income countries, where health systems face constant pressure from disease outbreaks and limited resources. When research findings remain locked in academic journals instead of shaping real-world policies, opportunities to save lives and improve care are missed. The challenge is not usually a lack of good science, but rather the difficulty of connecting the people who generate knowledge with the people who hold the power to act on it.
A new study from Guinea, a French-speaking nation in West Africa, investigates exactly why this connection often fails. The researchers set out to understand the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of two specific groups: the people who create health research, such as university professors and lab scientists, and the people who use that research to make laws and health plans, such as government officials and ministry directors. The team surveyed 173 health system stakeholders and conducted in-depth interviews with 48 key figures in the capital city, Conakry. They wanted to know if these groups were willing to work together and, if so, what was stopping them from doing so. The study, conducted over seven months in 2025, reveals a striking contradiction. While almost everyone interviewed expressed a strong desire to collaborate and agreed that research should guide policy, the actual use of scientific evidence in daily decision-making remains very limited.
The findings paint a picture of a system where good intentions are blocked by structural walls. On one side, the researchers who produce the data are eager to help. Nearly all of them believe their role includes working with government officials to apply their findings. On the other side, the decision-makers are equally willing; every single government official interviewed said they wanted to be more involved in research translation efforts. Despite this shared enthusiasm, the two groups rarely meet. The study found that the main barrier is a simple lack of contact. There are no formal bridges or regular meeting places where scientists and officials can exchange ideas. Without a structured way to connect, researchers struggle to find out what problems officials are trying to solve, and officials often do not know where to find the answers scientists have already discovered.
This separation leads to a cycle of missed opportunities. The researchers tend to focus on writing long, technical papers for academic journals because that is what helps them advance their careers. They rarely write short, clear summaries known as policy briefs, which are designed to be easily read by busy government leaders. When they do try to share their work, they often use language that is too complex for non-experts to understand. Conversely, the government officials often feel that the research presented to them does not match their immediate political priorities or that the recommendations are too expensive to implement. A significant portion of the officials reported that they resist using research findings because the studies seem to expose weaknesses in the health system, which can feel like a personal criticism rather than a helpful suggestion.
The study also highlights a cultural hesitation around modern communication tools. Many researchers avoid using social media platforms like LinkedIn or Facebook to share their work, viewing them as unscientific or unreliable spaces. They prefer traditional journals, fearing that posting findings online might lead to their work being stolen or misunderstood. This reluctance means that potentially useful information stays hidden from the public and from the officials who could use it. Furthermore, the lack of funding plays a critical role. Researchers often have to pay for their own studies, and without financial support from the government, they cannot afford to translate their complex data into the user-friendly formats that policymakers need. Similarly, officials often lack the budget to implement the recommendations, even when they agree with them.
The researchers concluded that the problem is not a lack of motivation. The people involved are not unwilling; they are unable. The system itself is not set up to turn their willingness into action. There are no institutional rewards for scientists who write policy briefs, and there are no formal platforms that force scientists and officials to talk to each other regularly. The study suggests that fixing this requires more than just training individuals; it demands a change in the system's architecture. This includes creating permanent spaces for dialogue, reforming academic rules to value policy work as much as journal articles, and providing the financial resources needed to turn research into action. Until these structural barriers are removed, the valuable knowledge produced in Guinea's universities will likely continue to sit on shelves, while the health policies that affect millions of people are made without the benefit of the best available science.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.