Health
Dr. Rhoda Wanyenze explains how researchers can work more effectively with policymakers
Published
3 years agoon
By
Mak Editor
In advance of the World Health Summit Regional Meeting, we spoke with the Dean of Makerere University School of Public Health about how researchers and academics build trust and gain influence with decision makers
Ahead of this year’s World Health Summit Regional Meeting, we spoke with Dr. Rhoda Wanyenze, the Dean of Makerere University School of Public Health, about the theme of this year’s event – bridging the science-to-policy gap for global health.
Dr. Rhoda Wanyenze, who has collaborated with government health officials to develop evidence-based policies from HIV to COVID-19 and maternal and child health, said that researchers and policymakers can, among other things, “interpret the data together, make sure the interpretation is appropriate, and tease out the actions they’re going to take.”
Dr. Wanyenze, who is also a principal investigator for Exemplars in Global Health’s COVID-19 research, added: “Let the primary focus not just be the publication [of the research], but also, responding to [policymakers] needs and giving them information that they can use.”
Across sub-Saharan Africa, research institutions have been partnering with policymakers to help inform policy decisions for decades. For example, the Infectious Diseases Research Institute in Uganda and the Uganda Virus Research Institute supported the Ministry of Health through the COVID-19 pandemic and recent Ebola outbreak. In fact, during the 2022 Ebola epidemic, the Uganda Virus Research Institute repurposed some of its research laboratories to support the government’s disease response and diagnostics efforts.
Many of the continent’s universities, including the School of Public Health at the University of Kinshasa, the Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences in Tanzania, the Cheikh Anta Diop University of Dakar, and the University of Zimbabwe, also have strong collaborative relationship with health officials. The University of Zimbabwe, for example, embeds some of its students within the country’s Ministry of Health.
The Makerere University School of Public Health has a similar track record of partnering with and helping inform policymakers in Uganda. To explore how researchers and academics can establish mutually beneficial relationships with policymakers ahead of the World Health Summit Regional Meeting on April 13 in Washington, D.C., Dr. Wanyenze offered her thoughts in an interview
Researchers often struggle to identify the best moment to reach out to policymakers. What does your experience tell you?
Dr. Wanyenze: You don’t wait until you’ve conceptualized the questions, then go to them when you are at the tail-end or when you are presenting the findings. After you present, they’ll ask, Did you also do this?’ And you’ll say, “No, I didn’t.’ And then they’ll ask, ‘Did you also do that?’ And you’ll say, ‘No, I didn’t do that either.’
Sometimes I find that we make a lot of assumptions about what they need to know. Before we even begin to craft our research questions, we need to understand what they’re struggling with and ensure that we are aligned to their needs as we gather evidence.
I’ll give you an example: several years ago, we were beginning to work out how we can move from traditional HIV testing methods to self-testing. We were working on designing a randomized controlled trial to test the effect of this. We had to speak with the Ministry of Health to understand: what is it that they worry about? What is it that would make them not want to adopt this policy?
We also didn’t have just the [Ugandan] Ministry of Health, we had other stakeholders, including people living with HIV, women living with HIV, and we could hear their voices loudly. ‘People will fight. We shall have divorces. We shall have violence.’ We had to think through carefully, if we are going to do this trial, we have to have sufficient mechanisms to deal with potential risks.
At the same time, we must collect this information in a bit more detail so that at the end of the day, we are not just saying, ‘This trial works,’ but we are saying, ‘It won’t cause harm, or if it causes harm, this is how you can mitigate it.’ We had to carefully do this trial with sufficient safety nets to respond to these issues. We had to think about the referral resources, for example, should we have any violence.
Then they told us, ‘We want to know the cost.’ Initially, we had not planned to include costing, but we had to integrate something that can support them to be able to make that decision.
Another example is research my team did on the impact of COVID on maintaining essential health services in Uganda. We presented to the Ministry of Health and its partners our proposed objectives and selected disease indicators to track in the maintenance of essential health services. They informed us that other partners were already working on some of the indicators such as HIV, TB, and maternal health. Rather than duplicate these indicators, they advised us to focus on other indicators which had not been addressed. We agreed to reorient the focus with the resources we had, to harmonize our work with other partners and ensure responsiveness to the needs of the Ministry of Health. Later, when the EHS continuity committee published updated guidelines on maintaining essential health services, it included recommendations based on our research.
How do you manage policymakers’ shifting needs and incorporate their feedback throughout the lifetime of your research?
Dr. Wanyenze: Interim feedback loops are critical to being sensitive to their needs. The challenge is you might not be funded to do everything they ask you to do, but sometimes you find things that are easy to integrate without necessarily spending much. It might involve a few more questions that you can address, with the resources that you have, and produce additional evidence that is needed by the ministry. The benefits are tremendous. By engaging them, they develop a sense of ownership. So that they feel, ‘This is our research.’ And they actually begin to say, ‘When are you giving us the results?’
How should researchers think about reporting out their results to policymakers?
Dr. Wanyenze: Working with policymakers through interpreting the implications of your work is really important. It can help when planning how to disseminate the work so that it is more meaningful.
For one project funded by the Global Fund – a partnership to enhance analytical capacity and data use in Eastern and Southern Africa called PERSuADE – we prioritized the areas for analysis with the Ministry of Health and then we worked with their teams and generated the evidence they needed. Then we were able to track what actions they’ve taken based on the findings.
If you work with the Ministry of Health and any other partners and you use their data or involve them in the data collection, analysis and interpretation, make sure that you include them as co-authors. A common challenge we have experienced is researchers who work with the ministries and other stakeholders publishing the findings without including them as authors or even informing them and sharing the findings.
How do things change if you are working with routine data the government collects?
Dr. Wanyenze: If you are working with data that the government routinely collects, you need to be engaged with policymakers in terms of how you’re going to use that data and that you are actually going to add value and do a good quality analysis that will help them answer their questions. Also, you need to be clear that you will not use their data for anything else without their permission. Sometimes researchers will get this data and they’re flying off and doing other things than what was originally agreed upon. And before you know it, they’ve published it without the government knowing. You need to ensure trust and a partnership that’s respectful.
What advice do you have for research organizations that currently do not have a relationship with the government but want to develop one. How can they establish a mutually beneficial and respectful relationship?
Dr. Wanyenze: Whether you want to work with a ministry of health or an NGO, the process is the same. You need to engage with them to clarify the partnership and expectations. There has to be benefit to the ministry or the NGO to want to work with you. The benefit often will be that you’re generating evidence that will add value to their decisions in a timely manner. You need to be responsive to their needs, to the extent possible.
How can researchers balance the need for quality research, which takes time, and the needs of policymakers, who often have pressing and time-sensitive needs.
Dr. Wanyenze: Timeliness is very important, but it should not compromise quality of the research. Sometimes the research takes long, and researchers will share their findings with policymakers when the findings have been overtaken by events and are no longer relevant. We sometimes prioritize some of their most critical questions and share preliminary findings as we finalize analyses for the rest of the study objectives and papers. Holding back the dissemination until the papers are written is a missed opportunity—we lose the opportunity for feedback from stakeholders to enhance the interpretation of the findings and to use the findings.
by Exemplars News — Originally published by exemplars.health
See original article here;
You may like
-
Uganda’s HIV Treatment Gains Bring the Youth Gap into Focus
-
MakSPH reseachers calls for health data to be used in decisions
-
UPHIA 2025 Shows Uganda’s HIV Status Awareness Gap Despite Strong Treatment Outcomes
-
Beyond Map Size: Africa’s Agency Should Not Be Funded by Other People
-
WIN-WIN Call for Proposals: Wetland Restoration in the Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area
-
MakCHS Lecturer selected for Global Atlantic Fellowship to Advance Brain Health Equity
Health
Uganda’s HIV Treatment Gains Bring the Youth Gap into Focus
Published
16 hours agoon
October 5, 2026
Uganda’s latest national HIV survey reveals lower viral suppression among adolescents and young adults living with HIV than among older adults, even as the country records substantial improvements in controlling the virus. The findings come from Uganda Population-Based HIV Impact Assessment (UPHIA 2025), a national household survey examining HIV prevalence and whether people living with the virus know their status, receive treatment, and achieve viral suppression.
Releasing the preliminary UPHIA 2025 findings at the Uganda Media Centre on 1 October 2026, Minister of Health Hon. Dr. Chris Baryomunsi called for earlier prevention and testing, particularly among adolescent girls and young women, alongside support for treatment adherence. “We must reach out to the young people, ensure that they have information, they test, take treatment, and adhere to the treatment guidance,” he urged.
Hon. Baryomunsi recalled how fear had discouraged testing during his university years: “I remember when we were at university, we went for testing at the university hospital. We sat there for three hours. Some of us left without even testing because it was scary.” Today, he explained, “even if you test HIV positive, you can be initiated on treatment, and you live normally like the rest of those who don’t have HIV.”

UPHIA 2025 was locally led under the Ministry of Health’s overall leadership, with Makerere University School of Public Health serving as the prime implementer, a role ICAP at Columbia University held in the previous two surveys. The Uganda Bureau of Statistics led sampling, while the Uganda Virus Research Institute and National Health Laboratory and Diagnostic Services led laboratory operations. Regional referral hospitals and local governments supported implementation, and the U.S. government provided US$10 million through PEPFAR, along with technical assistance from the U.S. CDC.
UPHIA collected data from July to September 2025 among people aged 15 and above, including those outside routine treatment services. Of 6,283 eligible households, 94.4% completed interviews. Researchers interviewed 13,801 people and tested 13,477 for HIV.
Testing followed Uganda’s national algorithm, with laboratory confirmation of positive samples, viral-load measurement, and checks for antiretroviral medicines to establish treatment use. Researchers weighted the estimates to account for the sampling design. Participants received counselling and results, and those who tested positive were referred for treatment.
Hon. Baryomunsi thanked participants and their families for welcoming survey staff and contributing their time, information and samples, without which the national evidence would not have been available.

National progress and the youth gap
The survey estimated HIV prevalence, which means the proportion of people living with HIV, at 5.9% among those aged 15 and above, corresponding to about 1.496 million people in this age group nationwide. Prevalence was 7.3% among women and 4.1% among men, ranging from 1.3% in Karamoja to 8% in the South Western region.
Among people aged 15 and above living with HIV, 86% had achieved viral suppression, meaning a low amount of HIV in the blood, measured in UPHIA as fewer than 1,000 copies per millilitre. Suppression stood at 69.3% among adolescents and young adults aged 15–24 living with HIV, compared with 89.9% among those aged 50 and above. These estimates cover people living with HIV regardless of whether they know their status or receive treatment.

HIV prevalence among people aged 15–24 was 1.5%, including 2% among young women and 1% among young men. Among young women, prevalence was 1.3% at ages 15–19 and 2.8% at ages 20–24. These differences support attention to earlier prevention and testing, although they do not establish when infections occurred.
The highest prevalence estimates occurred among middle-aged adults: 15.7% among women aged 40–44 and 11.7% among men aged 45–49. Lower suppression among young people therefore requires attention alongside the higher HIV prevalence among middle-aged adults. Comparing the same age group across both surveys, viral suppression among people aged 15–64 increased from 74.9% in 2020–21 to 86.1% in 2025, while HIV prevalence remained at 5.9%.

Diagnosis and the path to 2030
The treatment results identify diagnosis as the main national gap. Among people aged 15 and above living with HIV, 85.3% knew their status. Of those aware, 99.1% were receiving treatment; among those receiving treatment, 96.5% had achieved suppression.
The 95-95-95 targets aimed for 95% of people living with HIV to know their status, 95% of those diagnosed to receive treatment, and 95% of those receiving treatment to achieve viral suppression by 2025. Among people aged 15 and above, Uganda exceeded the treatment and suppression targets, while diagnosis remained below target. UNAIDS’s Global AIDS Strategy 2026–2031 retains these targets towards ending AIDS as a public health threat by 2030.
According to WHO, viral suppression protects health and helps prevent HIV transmission. Uncontrolled HIV weakens the immune system, increasing the risk of serious illness. With continued treatment as prescribed, sexual transmission risk is negligible when HIV remains suppressed but detectable, and zero when undetectable. The Uganda AIDS Commission estimated over 34,000 new HIV infections in 2025, underscoring the importance of early diagnosis, timely treatment, and sustained suppression alongside other prevention measures.

The demographic stakes are substantial. People aged 15–24 constituted 21.2% of Uganda’s population in the 2024 census. The country’s Fourth National Development Plan, covering 2025–2030, prioritises a healthy, knowledgeable, skilled and productive population and reducing HIV through primary health care. Protecting young people’s health, therefore, supports their participation in education, work, and national development; UPHIA helps identify where services need greater attention.
Turning evidence into action
The study’s conclusions identify three priorities: sustain treatment outcomes, find people unaware of their status, and improve suppression among younger people. Permanent Secretary Dr. Diana Atwine connected the findings to the Ministry’s planning.
“We do believe that these results are a true reflection of what is happening in our country as far as the HIV status is concerned, and we do believe that it will give us a very clear direction and the roadmap that we are going to take in the next five years to target and to get our targets achieved.”

Acting on these priorities requires funding for services and research. Hon. Baryomunsi outlined plans to target resources where needs are greatest, strengthen district services and align partner support with government priorities. Responding to journalists’ questions, he noted the government’s intention to increase domestic funding for the HIV response, including research.
“The HIV/AIDS response, including research and surveys such as this one, has largely been funded by partners in the past. The government of Uganda is committed to allocating more resources from our domestic budget to support the response and research,” he noted.
For the first time in the UPHIA series, the survey assessed selected noncommunicable disease indicators among people aged 15 and above: 15.5% had elevated blood pressure, 24.8% were overweight or obese, and 0.9% had raised random blood glucose. These screening findings align with the Ministry’s integration agenda and Hon. Baryomunsi’s call to bring HIV and chronic care services together to address people’s wider health needs.
Speaking at the release of the preliminary results, U.S. Embassy Chargé d’Affaires Mikael (Mika) Cleverley described UPHIA 2025 as the first Population-Based HIV Impact Assessment worldwide fully led and implemented by the country itself.

“The study was led by Ugandan scientists, Ugandan managers, Ugandan public servants, Ugandan field teams, from design to data collection to analysis. And this is what two decades of focused strategic U.S. foreign investments in the public health sector was meant to produce, is to reinforce Ugandan leadership and Ugandan-led efforts.”
At the survey launch on 29 May 2025, MakSPH Dean Prof. Rhoda Wanyenze highlighted the partnership’s contribution: “The partnership between Makerere University and CDC has not only helped build national capacity in surveillance and epidemiology, but has also strengthened our ability to lead high-quality, large-scale national surveys.”

The Dean added: “After two decades of joint work, we are proud that UPHIA is now a fully Ugandan-led effort. This is critical to the sustainability of the skills and knowledge generation to inform our local response.”
UPHIA 2025 shows how far Uganda’s HIV response has advanced and where gaps remain. As the country works towards ending AIDS as a public health threat by 2030, reaching young people with testing, treatment, and continued care will be essential to extending those gains.

Read the full UPHIA 2025 summary results here:
Health
MakSPH reseachers calls for health data to be used in decisions
Published
4 days agoon
October 2, 2026
Health experts from across Africa have called for stronger use of routine health data in planning, supervision and service delivery, noting that although countries are generating large amounts of health information, much of it is still not being used.
The call came during a webinar hosted by the Makerere University School of Public Health (MakSPH) in partnership with The Global Fund under the theme “From National Dashboards to District Action: Strengthening Subnational Data Use for Planning, Supervision and Service Delivery.”
The webinar brought together health information specialists, policymakers and practitioners from Uganda, Kenya, Zimbabwe and Ethiopia to share experiences and lessons on using subnational data for evidence based decision making.
Kenya’s journey from data collection to action
In her keynote address, Dr Helen Kiarie, Head of the Monitoring and Evaluation Division at Kenya’s Ministry of Health, urged health practitioners and policymakers to move beyond routine reporting and use data to improve health outcomes.
“The bottleneck is no longer collecting data. It is turning routine data into decisions and decisions into action,” Dr Kiarie said.
Drawing on Kenya’s experience, she pointed to the country’s shift from paper based reporting systems to digital platforms, noting that more than 95% of public health facilities have been digitised.
According to Dr Kiarie, Kenya has developed National Data Analytics Guidelines to support evidence based decision making across the health system. The guidelines set out a structured approach to data analysis, interpretation and dissemination so that the information generated can be used.
She said building a culture of data use requires leadership that asks for evidence, regular performance reviews, public dashboards, mentorship programmes, and the integration of data into planning and budgeting.
Community data improving maternal health
Dr Kiarie gave practical examples of how data can shape health outcomes.
In Kwale County, community health promoters used household level data to identify and follow up pregnant women, encouraging them to attend antenatal care services and deliver at health facilities.
As a result, skilled birth attendance increased from 50 per cent in 2022 to 85 per cent, while reported home deliveries fell from 808 to 248.
She also pointed to Kenya’s efforts to link digital health data with health financing systems, saying better documentation and data quality have strengthened accountability and increased reimbursements to health facilities.
She added that real time maternal and perinatal death surveillance systems are helping health authorities identify gaps in care, assign responsibility and take corrective action to prevent avoidable deaths.
“Data has moved beyond documenting losses to becoming an instrument for preventing the next avoidable death,” Dr Kiarie said.
Addressing data quality challenges
Despite major investments in digital health systems, Dr Kiarie acknowledged that data quality challenges remain.
She cited system downtimes, the parallel use of paper and digital records, limited access to some digital platforms, and resistance to change among some health workers as barriers to data quality and use.
Still, she said Kenya’s data quality has improved considerably through digitisation and continued investment in governance, analytics capacity and quality assurance.
Regional experiences and lessons
The webinar also included a panel discussion with experts from Uganda, Zimbabwe and Ethiopia, who shared experiences on strengthening data use at district and facility level.
The discussion pointed to the importance of strong leadership, timely information, digital infrastructure and feedback mechanisms that help health workers and managers make informed decisions with the data available.
Participants agreed that health information systems should do more than serve as reporting tools. They should also support decision making where services are delivered.
Moving from information to impact
Speaking during the webinar, Prof. Rhoda Wanyenze, Dean of Makerere University School of Public Health (MAKSPH), commended countries for progress in strengthening health information systems and encouraging data use.
She urged practitioners and researchers to go beyond documenting challenges and start capturing examples of how data informed decisions are improving programmes and health outcomes.
“It would be really good for us to dig deeper in terms of what decisions we have actually made and what we would not have known or done differently if we did not have the data,” she said.
In his closing remarks, Dr Wodimu Ayele of The Global Fund said the value of data lies in its ability to improve service delivery, inform decision making and strengthen accountability.
He called on countries to keep investing in data quality, analytics capacity and health information systems, while making sure evidence generated at all levels leads to measurable improvements in health outcomes.
Health
UPHIA 2025 Shows Uganda’s HIV Status Awareness Gap Despite Strong Treatment Outcomes
Published
5 days agoon
October 1, 2026
Uganda has released the preliminary findings of the 2025 Uganda Population-Based HIV Impact Assessment (UPHIA 2025), a national household survey that provides a current picture of the country’s HIV response and selected non-communicable disease indicators.
At the Uganda Media Centre today, 1 October 2026, the Minister of Health, Hon. Dr Chris Baryomunsi, released the preliminary results and said the evidence would guide policy, resource allocation and service improvement, with particular attention to people and communities with the greatest gaps. He urged Ugandans to know their HIV status, use prevention services and, when diagnosed, start treatment promptly and adhere to it.

Among adults aged 15 years and above, HIV prevalence was 5.9 percent, including 7.3 percent among women and 4.1 percent among men. Among adults aged 15–64, prevalence was also 5.9 percent, unchanged from 2020/21. Across the country, prevalence ranged from 1.3 percent in Karamoja to 8.0 percent in the South Western region. Of adults living with HIV, 85.3 percent knew their status; 99.1 percent of those aware were on treatment; and 96.5 percent of those on treatment had achieved viral load suppression. HIV-status awareness remains the central gap in the 95-95-95 cascade.
The survey also measured selected non-communicable disease indicators for the first time. Elevated blood pressure affected 15.5 percent of adults, while 24.8 percent had overweight or obesity and 0.9 percent had raised blood glucose.

Conducted from July to September 2025, UPHIA 2025 was the first population-based HIV impact assessment to be fully country-led. The Ministry of Health provided overall leadership, while Makerere University School of Public Health served as the prime implementing organisation, working with UVRI, UBOS, regional referral hospitals and local governments. PEPFAR funded the survey through the U.S. CDC.
Watch the UPHIA 2025 preliminary results launch:
https://www.youtube.com/live/QfHFBaJ-L-w
Read the UPHIA 2025 summary results:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nElGNwgcAcZyAo9CLCQKRpO2jJgyxjSc/view?usp=drive_link
Trending
-
General2 weeks agoCall for Applications: RLRH Graduate Traineeship Programme
-
General5 days agoStatement on Concerns Circulating Regarding a Member of Academic Staff
-
Natural Sciences2 weeks agoFrom World’s Worst Water Weed to Worth: Makerere Researchers Turn Water Hyacinth into Valuable Products
-
Research2 weeks agoCall for Makerere Staff PhD Completion Grant Applications, 2026-27
-
Engineering, Art & Tech2 weeks agoPublic Art Talk Sparks Dialogue on Contemporary Art Practices at MTSIFA