# When the messenger is more important than the message: an experimental study of evidence use in francophone Africa

Amandine Fillol, Esther Mcsween-Cadieux, Bruno Ventelou, Marie-Pier Larose, Ulrich Boris Nguemdjo Kanguem, Kadidiatou Kadio, Christian Dagenais, Valéry Ridde

► To cite this version:

Amandine Fillol, Esther Mcsween-Cadieux, Bruno Ventelou, Marie-Pier Larose, Ulrich Boris Nguemdjo Kanguem, et al.. When the messenger is more important than the message: an experimental study of evidence use in francophone Africa. Health Research Policy and Systems, 2022, 20 (1), pp.57. 10.1186/s12961-022-00854-x. hal-03703117

HAL Id: hal-03703117

https://amu.hal.science/hal-03703117

Submitted on 15 Sep 2022

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# When the messenger is more important than the message: an experimental study of evidence use in francophone Africa

# Quand le messager est plus important que le message: étude expérimentale en Afrique francophone sur l'utilisation des connaissances

Amandine Fillol<fnref n="1" />,²*, Esther McSween-Cadieux³, Bruno Ventelou⁴, Marie-Pier Larose⁵,
Ulrich Boris Nguemdjo Kanguem⁴,⁶, Kadidiatou Kadio⁷,⁸, Christian Dagenais⁹ and Valéry Ridde²,¹⁰

**Abstract**

**Background:** Epistemic injustices are increasingly decried in global health. This study aims to investigate whether the source of knowledge influences the perception of that knowledge and the willingness to use it in francophone African health policy-making context.

**Methods:** The study followed a randomized experimental design in which participants were randomly assigned to one of seven policy briefs that were designed with the same scientific content but with different organizations presented as authors. Each organization was representative of financial, scientific or moral authority. For each type of authority, two organizations were proposed: one North American or European, and the other African.

**Results:** The initial models showed that there was no significant association between the type of authority or the location of the authoring organization and the two outcomes (perceived quality and reported instrumental use). Stratified analyses highlighted that policy briefs signed by the African donor organization (financial authority) were perceived to be of higher quality than policy briefs signed by the North American/European donor organization. For both perceived quality and reported instrumental use, these analyses found that policy briefs signed by the African university (scientific authority) were associated with lower scores than policy briefs signed by the North American/European university.

<footnote>*Correspondence: amandinefillol@umontreal.ca</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹ Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health (ESPUM), University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article</footnote>
**Conclusions:** The results confirm the significant influence of sources on perceived global health knowledge and the intersectionality of sources of influence. This analysis allows us to learn more about organizations in global health leadership, and to reflect on the implications for knowledge translation practices.

**Keywords:** Global health, Policy briefs, Structural drivers, Power

**Contexte:** Les injustices épistémiques sont de plus en plus décriées dans le domaine de la santé mondiale. Cette étude vise à déterminer si la source des connaissances influence la perception de ces connaissances et la volonté de les utiliser.

**Méthodes:** L'étude suit un devis expérimental randomisé dans lequel les participant·es ont été assigné·es au hasard à l'une des sept notes politiques conçues avec le même contenu scientifique, mais avec différentes organisations présentées comme autrices. Chaque organisation était représentative d'une autorité financière, scientifique ou morale. Pour chaque type d'autorité, deux organisations étaient proposées : l'une nord-américaine ou européenne, l'autre africaine.

**Résultats:** Les résultats montrent que le type d'autorité et la localisation des organisations autrices ne sont pas significativement associés à la qualité perçue et à l'utilisation instrumentale déclarée. Toutefois, des interactions entre le type d'autorité et la localisation étaient significatives. Ainsi, les analyses stratifiées ont mis en évidence que pour la qualité perçue, les notes de politique signées par l'organisme bailleur (autorité financière) africain obtenaient de meilleurs scores que les notes de politique signées par l'organisme bailleur nord-américain / européen. Tant pour la qualité perçue que pour l'utilisation instrumentale déclarée, ces analyses stratifiées ont révélé que les notes de politique signées par l'université africaine (autorité scientifique) étaient associées à des scores plus faibles que les notes de politique signées par l'université nord-américaine/européenne.

**Interprétation:** Les résultats confirment l'influence significative des sources sur la perception des connaissances en santé mondiale et rappellent l'intersectionnalité de l'influence des sources d'autorité. Cette analyse nous permet à la fois d'en apprendre davantage sur les organisations qui dominent la scène de la gouvernance mondiale en santé et de réfléchir aux implications pour les pratiques d'application des connaissances.

**Mots-clés:** Santé mondiale, Notes de politiques, Déterminants structurels, COVID-19, Pouvoir

## Background

Epistemic power issues are increasingly decried in global health because of their impacts on health inequalities [1–5]. Indeed, legitimation of knowledge is driven by economically dominant individuals or organizations [5–8] and elites guiding global decisions [9]. The lack of social diversity in the scientific, political or public health bodies is already unfair [10], but in addition, it contributes to the development of an *entre-soi* which excludes knowledge based on rationalities other than those commonly accepted. Going beyond traditional issues of social, material and geographical inequalities to explain health inequalities, Bhakuni and Abimbola [11] recently highlighted epistemic injustices in global health. Epistemic injustice was first defined by Fricker [12] as a wrong done to someone in his or her capacity as a knower. She described two types of epistemic injustice: testimonial and hermeneutical. First, testimonial injustice consists of discrediting the knowledge provided by someone due to the listener's prejudices about his or her social characteristics. For example, during the Ebola epidemic in 2014, Lauer [13] highlighted how African experts were discredited by outside speakers and international actors. During

the COVID-19 pandemic, Dalglish [14] decried “the lies given to global health expertise”, as there was a lack of recognition of African and Asian countries’ proactive measures in handling the crisis. Hermeneutical injustice is the impossibility that someone’s interpretation of a social phenomenon is recognized due to the lack of recognition of his or her world view by dominant groups. Bhakuni and Abimbola [11] called it interpretative injustice. For example, Lauer [13] explained that during the 2014 Ebola crisis, in North America, a strike in Sierra Leone was interpreted and mediated as the consequence of the selfish behaviour of health professionals rather than a demonstration against some health centre privatization by British expatriates. This mediatization contributed to devaluing the credibility of health professionals who participated in legitimate international interventions. While these two kinds of injustices are strongly related, the analysis we offer in this article aims to study testimonial injustice in global health. To our knowledge, no study has been conducted to identify testimonial injustices existing in global health. These injustices are often not seen, but they form the backdrop for global health governance and practices. They reveal discrimination against people
which is why we have limited ourselves to these three authorities. We also differentiated the authorities according to their geographical location (North America or Europe versus Africa) because many studies attest to the scientific hegemony of North America or Europe [13, 26, 30, 40, 41], especially in francophone Africa where these countries have a strong presence in the health landscape.

## Objectives and hypotheses

Our main objectives were to study two characteristics of the source of a policy brief: the type of authority and the location of the authority. We analysed (1) whether the type of authority (financial, scientific, moral) of the authoring organization of a policy brief is associated with perceived quality and reported instrumental use, (2) whether the location (North America or Europe versus Africa) of the authoring organization of a policy brief is associated with perceived quality and reported instrumental use, and (3) how the location of these authorities interacts with the type of authority in the prediction of perceived quality and reported instrumental use.

We did not have any hypothesis in regard to the influence of the types of authorities and the interaction between types of authorities and location. These analyses were exploratory given the lack of previous research on the topic among global health francophone African stakeholders.

However, we hypothesized that location would be a significant predictor, where authorities from North American or European countries would be associated with higher levels of perceived quality and reported instrumental use. We focused on these two regions (North America or Europe) because technical and financial partners involved in health decisions in francophone Africa are heavily represented by individuals from these regions. As exists other francophone areas in the world, we chose to focus on North America and Europe because of the financial and material power these countries exert in health policy-making and the influence such power can have on epistemic issues [13, 30, 40, 42, 43].

## Methods

### Study design

The study followed a randomized experimental design in which participants were randomly assigned to one of seven policy briefs that were designed with the same scientific content and visual features; only the authoring organizations were different. One of them contained no authoring organization.

The study was conducted remotely in three stages using a website specifically created for the study purpose (Wix website). A computer version and a mobile version were produced. First, the participant completed a first

questionnaire. Second, the participant was randomly assigned to a policy brief that he or she had to read. The random distribution of the document was achieved using a programming code in HTML language in a window of the site (the code is available on request). Third, after reading the document, the participant completed a second questionnaire.

## Participants

### Study population and sampling process

To be as representative as possible, we used the nine categories of global health actors proposed by Hoffman and Cole [44] to target the study participants: (1) national governments, (2) United Nations entities and international organizations, (3) development banks, (4) public/private partnerships, (5) philanthropic organizations, (6) global civil society and nongovernmental organizations, (7) private industries, (8) professional associations and (9) academic institutions. The countries involved in our study were French-speaking African countries (Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal and Togo) and the main countries involved in development assistance in this region (Belgium, Canada, France and Switzerland). Participants were contacted through our professional networks and through focal points in the countries or organizations. A table was constructed with the nine categories of actors for each country. For each case, one person (colleague, friend) was contacted and asked to transmit the study. Mailing lists and thematic groups on the links between science, policy and health were also used. As people are difficult to reach online, we relied on the snowball effect. People from all professional sectors (healthcare, policy, research, coordination, management, teaching, etc.) working in or with countries in francophone Africa were invited to participate. We expected a sample size between 200 and 300 participants which would allow a sufficient number of participants in the seven different policy brief conditions. Data collection was conducted from January to March 2021. We conducted exploratory analyses to determine whether we had enough participants and chose to stop data collection because of preliminary results that allowed for relevant analyses.

### Intervention

The intervention was the assignment of a policy brief where only the name and logo of the main author vary. To make the study as close to reality as possible, we used an existing policy brief (Additional files 1 and 2). This policy brief presented the results of a scoping review and recommendations related to the effectiveness of containment measures for vector-borne diseases and other emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases.
<table><caption>**Table 1** Summary of variables to be measured and statements used</caption><thead><tr><th>Outcomes</th><th>Dimensions</th><th>Statements</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="6">Perceived quality</td><td>Relevance</td><td>"The content of the document is relevant to my work."</td></tr><tr><td>Legitimacy</td><td>"The content of the paper is consistent with my professional value."<br>"The content of the paper seems to take into account a range of views and not just the author's."</td></tr><tr><td>Credibility</td><td>"The level of detail provided in the document is appropriate."<br>"The methodology presented in the document appears robust."<br>"The rationale presented in the document leading to the recommendations is convincing."</td></tr><tr><td>Visual aspect</td><td>"The visual presentation of the document is attractive."<br>"The length of the document is adequate."</td></tr><tr><td>Comprehension</td><td>"The content of the document is easy to understand."<br>"The proposed recommendations are clear."</td></tr><tr><td>Reported instrumental use</td><td>"Change my opinion on the issue of the effectiveness of measures to contain infectious disease outbreaks."<br>"Change my current policies or practices regarding the topic of containment measures to contain infectious disease outbreaks."<br>"Develop or sponsor new studies on the topic of containment measures to contain infectious disease outbreaks."</td></tr></tbody></table>

Participants did not know what intervention they were assigned to.

## Measures

### Main outcomes

The two main outcomes are the perceived quality of knowledge and its reported instrumental use. Questionnaires are available in Additional file 3.

**Perceived quality of knowledge** The perceived quality of knowledge was measured through a set of statements (n=10) for which participants expressed their level of agreement (Table 1). We identified complementary ways of considering the perceived quality of knowledge in the literature: visual appearance, credibility, legitimacy, relevance and comprehension. We therefore defined several statements to measure each of these constructs, thanks to studies already conducted on credibility [16, 45–48], legitimacy [49] and the visual aspect, relevance and understanding of the brief [17, 50–52]. For example, the following statement was offered to participants: “The content of the document is relevant to my work”, and participants responded on a five-point Likert scale: “Strongly disagree”, “Disagree”, “Agree”, “Somewhat agree”, “Strongly agree” or “Do not know or do not want to answer”. This last option was considered missing data in further analyses. We then assessed whether the set of statements allowed us to calculate an overall quality score. After examining the inter-item correlations and the distribution of each item, we calculated an overall perceived knowledge quality score by averaging the 10 statements (from 1 to 5). Cronbach's

alpha, which measures the internal consistency of the constructs in measuring the perceived quality score, was 0.88.

**Reported instrumental use of knowledge** Self-reported instrumental knowledge use was measured through a set of statements (n=3) for which participants estimated the probability that they would perform different actions (Table 1). For example, they were asked, “Change my opinion on the effectiveness of measures to control infectious disease outbreaks”, and they responded on a five-point Likert scale: “Not at all likely”, “Unlikely”, “Likely”, “Somewhat likely”, “Very likely”, and “Do not know or do not want to answer”. This last option was considered missing data in further analyses. We proposed three items on changes in opinion, policy and practice. We then assessed whether the set of statements allowed us to calculate a score of reported instrumental use. After examining inter-item correlations and the distribution of each item, we calculated a score of reported instrumental knowledge use by averaging three statements (from 1 to 5; Cronbach's alpha was equal to 0.78).

### Confounding variables

The following were considered confounding variables: prior knowledge about the topic of the policy brief before and after reading the policy brief (six questions), knowledge and opinion about the organization presented as the policy brief author (six questions), and sociodemographic, professional, geographical and migratory characteristics of the participants (10 questions).
# Analyses

## Descriptive analyses

Descriptive analyses were conducted to observe the diversity of the sample, the distribution of conditions among participants and the main outcomes (perceived quality and reported instrumental use).

## Main analyses

Are the type of authorities (financial, scientific and moral) and the location (North America or Europe versus Africa) of the authoring organization of a policy brief associated with perceived quality and reported instrumental use? We conducted two linear regression models to observe whether the type of authorities (financial, scientific and moral) and location of the authoring organization were associated with our outcomes (i.e. perceived quality and reported instrumental use). We estimated our outcomes separately in two different models, but type of authorities and location of the authoring organization were entered in the same model, as we aimed to study the unique contribution of each factor. Professional experience (and perceived autonomy in the profession for the outcome reported instrumental use), gender, occupational sector, level of the last degree obtained and region where the last degree was obtained were systematically included in the models as covariates even when they were not significant, as they are among the socio-professional factors that are strongly related to the research question [17]. Knowing or not knowing the authoring organization was also included as a covariate. We believe that knowledge of the organization is a potential intervening variable that can explain the relationships between the authoring organization and the different dependent variables.

How the type of authority (financial, scientific and moral) of authoring organization interacts with the location of these authorities (North America or Europe versus Africa) in the prediction of perceived quality and reported instrumental use? First, we added an interaction term to our previous linear regression models between the variables of type of authority and the location of these authorities. We tested separately, in two different models, these interactions in relation to perceived quality and reported instrumental use. When we detected a significant interaction at the 10% significance level, we carried out stratified analyses where we regressed the location of the authorities on the perceived quality and reported instrumental use according to the type of authority of the authoring organizations (financial, scientific, moral).

# Results

## Descriptive analyses

### Participant characteristics

The sample consisted of 233 participants, the majority of whom were aged between 26 and 45 years (64%, n=148/233) and were male (68%, n=159/233). The majority had a graduate degree (88%, n=205/233). The professions represented were mainly project leaders, managers or coordinators (30%, n=70/233), researchers (24%, n=57/233) and health professionals (18%, n=43/233). Their experience ranged from 0 to over 25 years. Regarding geographical distribution, the main birthplaces were France (23%, n=54/233), Mali (15%, n=35/233), Burkina Faso (11%, n=25/233) and Benin (10%, n=22/233). For education, the main places where the highest degree was obtained were France (35%, n=82/233) or Mali (10%, n=24/233). More than one third of the participants were born, educated and lived in West or Central Africa (36%, n=88/233), and less than a fifth were born, educated and lived in Europe or North America (16%, n=39/233). A small percentage of participants (13%, n=31/233) were born and resided in West or Central Africa and obtained their highest degree in Europe or North America. Finally, less than one tenth (8%, n=20/233) were born and graduated with their highest degree in Europe or North America and lived in West or Central Africa at the time of the survey. A detailed description of the participants is presented in Additional file 4.

### Distribution of conditions among participants and outcome description

Policy briefs signed by the African donor organization were the least frequently assigned to the participants (n=24) and policy briefs not signed by any author were the most frequently assigned to the participants (n=39) (Table 2).

Participants rated the policy brief as adequate in terms of quality (mean: 3.909/5, standard deviation: 0.687). In terms of reported instrumental use, participants mainly reported that they would be likely to use the policy brief (mean: 3.379/5, standard deviation: 1.024) (Table 2).

For perceived quality, the lowest score was assigned to a policy brief signed by the African university (mean: 3.625/5, standard deviation: 0.562), and the highest score was assigned to a policy brief signed by the North American/European university (mean: 4196/5, standard deviation: 0.554). For reported instrumental use, the lowest score was assigned to a policy brief signed by the African university (mean: 2.922/5, standard deviation: 1.038), and the highest score was assigned to a policy brief signed by
<table><caption>**Table 2** Intervention distribution and outcome description</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="3">Perceived quality score</th><th colspan="3">Reported instrumental use score</th></tr><tr><th>n</th><th>Mean (/5)</th><th>Standard deviation</th><th>n</th><th>Mean (/5)</th><th>Standard deviation</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Authoring organization</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Donor organizations</td><td>63</td><td>4.005</td><td>0.547</td><td>64</td><td>3.339</td><td>1.086</td></tr><tr><td>North American/European donor organization</td><td>30</td><td>3.943</td><td>0.460</td><td>31</td><td>3.226</td><td>1.023</td></tr><tr><td>African donor organization</td><td>33</td><td>4.062</td><td>0.617</td><td>33</td><td>3.444</td><td>1.148</td></tr><tr><td>International organization</td><td>56</td><td>3.944</td><td>0.803</td><td>57</td><td>3.705</td><td>0.897</td></tr><tr><td>North American/European office of international organization</td><td>33</td><td>4.073</td><td>0.813</td><td>33</td><td>3.849</td><td>0.791</td></tr><tr><td>African office of international organization</td><td>23</td><td>3.759</td><td>0.768</td><td>24</td><td>3.507</td><td>1.009</td></tr><tr><td>Universities</td><td>72</td><td>3.926</td><td>0.623</td><td>72</td><td>3.301</td><td>1.060</td></tr><tr><td>North American/European university</td><td>38</td><td>4.196</td><td>0.554</td><td>38</td><td>3.640</td><td>0.973</td></tr><tr><td>African university</td><td>34</td><td>3.625</td><td>0.562</td><td>34</td><td>2.922</td><td>1.038</td></tr><tr><td>No author</td><td>37</td><td>3.657</td><td>0.791</td><td>39</td><td>3.111</td><td>0.938</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>228</td><td>3.909</td><td>0.687</td><td>232</td><td>3.379</td><td>1.024</td></tr></tbody></table>

the North American/European office of the international organization (mean: 3.849/5, standard deviation: 0.791) (Table 2).

## Main analyses

*Are the type of authority and the location of the authoring organization of a policy brief associated with the perceived quality of knowledge?* An initial model found that perceived quality was not significantly associated with the type of authority or the location of the authoring organization. Knowledge of the organization was not significantly associated with the perceived quality score.

The perceived quality score was significantly increased by 0.423 when participants graduated from a North America/European institution compared to those who graduated from an African institution ($\beta$=0.423, 95% CI=0.082 to 0.764, $P$=0.015) (Table 3).

*Are the type of authority and the location of the authoring organization of a policy brief associated with reported instrumental use?* An initial model found that perceived quality was not significantly associated with the type of authority or the location of the authoring organization. Knowledge of the organization was not significantly associated with the perceived quality score.

The reported instrumental use score was significantly lower by 0.496 when participants were coordinators/managers of health programmes and lower by 0.542 when they were research professionals compared to health professionals (respectively $\beta$=-0.496, 95% CI=-0.992 to -0.001, $P$=0.050 and $\beta$=-0.542, 95% CI=-1.057 to -0.281, $P$=0.039). It was also significantly lower by 0.542 when participants had a postgraduate level of education

compared to participants with a university level less than or equal to the first cycle ($\beta$=0.542, 95% CI=-1.025 to -0.584, $P$=0.028). Participants who graduated from an African university reported a higher score of instrumental use by 0.739 compared to those who graduated from a European or North American university ($\beta$=0.739, 95% CI=0.839 to 1.089, $P$<0.001) (Table 4).

*How the type of authority of authoring organization interacts with the location of these authorities in the prediction of perceived quality?* We found that the interaction between international organizations and location was not significant ($\beta$=-0.004, 95% CI=-0.754 to 0.763, $P$=0.991), but the interaction between universities and location was significant ($\beta$=-1.517, 95% CI=-2.225 to -0.810, $P$<0.001). Therefore, we performed a stratified analysis by type of authority of the authoring organization.

## Donor organization

The first stratified model revealed that the perceived quality score was increased by 0.510 when participants received policy briefs signed by the African donor organization compared to those who received policy briefs signed by the North American/European donor organization ($\beta$=0.510, 95% CI=0.061-0.960, $P$=0.027) (Table 5). In other words, for a mean score of perceived quality for policy briefs signed by the North American/European donor organization equal to 3.943 (Table 2), the score of perceived quality was 12.9% higher for participants who received policy briefs signed by the African donor organization.
<table><caption>**Table 3** Associations between type of authority and location of the authoring organization, and perceived quality of knowledge</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>β</th><th>Perceived quality<br>[95% CI]</th><th>P value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Intervention</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Type of authority of authoring organization</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Donor organization (financial authority)</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>International organization (moral authority)</td><td>-0.227</td><td>[-0.612; 0.158]</td><td>0.248</td></tr><tr><td>University (scientific authority)</td><td>-0.073</td><td>[-0.448; 0.303]</td><td>0.704</td></tr><tr><td>Location of authoring organization</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Europe or North America</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>Africa</td><td>-0.508</td><td>[-0.246; 0.348]</td><td>0.738</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Confounding variable</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Prior knowledge of the organization</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Does not know the organization</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>Knows the organization</td><td>0.213</td><td>[-0.179; 0.605]</td><td>0.287</td></tr><tr><td>Experience in the profession</td><td>-0.092</td><td>[-0.238; 0.055]</td><td>0.221</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>-0.120</td><td>[-0.443; 0.203]</td><td>0.468</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Profession</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Health professionals</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>-0.165</td><td>[-0.695; 0.366]</td><td>0.542</td></tr><tr><td>Coordination/management of programmes</td><td>-0.262</td><td>[-0.742; 0.217]</td><td>0.284</td></tr><tr><td>Research professionals</td><td>-0.328</td><td>[-0.822; 0.167]</td><td>0.194</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Level of study</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>University level less than or equal to first cycle</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>University level second cycle (MD)</td><td>0.073</td><td>-0.390</td><td>0.536</td></tr><tr><td>University level postgraduate (PhD)</td><td>-0.339</td><td>-0.809</td><td>0.130</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Region of graduation</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Europe or North America</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>Africa</td><td>0.423</td><td>[0.082; 0.764]</td><td>0.015*</td></tr><tr><td>R<sup>2</sup></td><td colspan="3">Value 0.155</td></tr><tr><td>Adjusted R<sup>2</sup></td><td colspan="3">0.077</td></tr></tbody></table>

### International organization

There were no significant differences by location of authoring organization for policy briefs signed by international organization (Table 5).

### University

The third stratified model revealed that perceived quality score was lower by 0.886 when participants received policy briefs signed by the African university compared to those who received policy briefs signed by the North American/European university (β = -0.886, 95% CI = -1.361 to -0.412, P = 0.001) (Table 4). In other words, for a mean score of perceived quality for policy briefs signed by the North American/European university

equal to 4.196 (Table 2), the score of perceived quality was 21.1% lower for participants who received policy briefs signed by the African university.

How the type of authority of authoring organization interacts with the location of these authorities in the prediction of reported instrumental use? We found that the interaction between international organizations and location was not significant (β = -0.057, 95% CI = -0.815 to 0.702, P = 0.883), but the interaction between universities and location was significant (β = -1.110, 95% CI = -1.822 to 0.398, P = 0.002). Therefore, we performed a stratified analysis by type of authority of the authoring organization.
<table><caption>**Table 4** Associations between authoring organization and reported instrumental use of knowledge</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>β</th><th>Reported instrumental use<br>[95% CI]</th><th>P value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Intervention</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Type of authority of authoring organization</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Donor organization (financial authority)</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>International organization (moral authority)</td><td>0.161</td><td>[-0.234; 0.557]</td><td>0.420</td></tr><tr><td>University (scientific authority)</td><td>-0.128</td><td>[-0.514; 0.259]</td><td>0.514</td></tr><tr><td>Location of authoring organization</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Europe or North America</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>Africa</td><td>-0.083</td><td>[-0.390; 0.224]</td><td>0.593</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Confounding variable</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Prior knowledge of the organization</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Does not know the organization</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>Knows the organization</td><td>0.145</td><td>[-0.268; 0.558]</td><td>0.489</td></tr><tr><td>Perceived autonomy in the profession</td><td>0.751</td><td>[-0.051; 0.202]</td><td>0.242</td></tr><tr><td>Experience in the profession</td><td>0.166</td><td>[-0.133; 0.166]</td><td>0.827</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>-0.322</td><td>[-0.650; 0.005]</td><td>0.053</td></tr><tr><td>Profession</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Health professionals</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>-0.463</td><td>[-1.009; 0.823]</td><td>0.095</td></tr><tr><td>Coordination/management of programmes</td><td>-0.496</td><td>[-0.992; -0.001]</td><td>0.050*</td></tr><tr><td>Research professionals</td><td>-0.542</td><td>[-1.057; -0.281]</td><td>0.039*</td></tr><tr><td>Level of study</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>University level less than or equal to first cycle</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>University level second cycle (MD)</td><td>-0.205</td><td>[-0.682; 0.271]</td><td>0.395</td></tr><tr><td>University level postgraduate (PhD)</td><td>-0.542</td><td>[-1.025; -0.584]</td><td>0.028*</td></tr><tr><td>Region of graduation</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Europe or North America</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>Africa</td><td>0.739</td><td>[0.389; 1.089]</td><td>0.000*</td></tr><tr><td>R<sup>2</sup></td><td>0.323</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Adjusted R<sup>2</sup></td><td>0.253</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

### Donor organization

There were no significant differences by location of authoring organization for policy briefs signed by donor organizations (Table 6).

### International organization

There were no significant differences by location of authoring organization for policy briefs signed by the international organization (Table 6).

### University

The third stratified model revealed that reported instrumental use score was lower by 0.670 when participants received policy briefs signed by the African university compared to those who received the policy briefs signed

by the North American/European university (β = -0.670, 95% CI = -1.265 to -0.748, P = 0.028) (Table 6). In other words, for a mean score of reported instrumental use for policy briefs signed by the North American/European university equal to 3.640 (Table 2), the score of perceived quality was 18.4% lower for participants who received policy briefs signed by the African university.

## Discussion

### Summary of results

Initial linear regression models showed that the type of authority (financial, scientific, moral) and the location (North America/Europe, Africa) of the policy brief
<table><caption>**Table 5** Associations between location of authoring organization and perceived quality, stratified by sector of authoring organization</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>β</th><th>Perceived quality<br>[95% CI]</th><th>P value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Donor organizations (financial authority)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Intervention</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Location of authoring organization</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Europe or North America</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>Africa</td><td>0.510</td><td>[0.061 to 0.960]</td><td>0.027*</td></tr><tr><td>Confounding variable</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Prior knowledge of the organization</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Does not know the organization</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>Knows the organization</td><td>0.413</td><td>[-0.473 to 1.300]</td><td>0.350</td></tr><tr><td>Experience in the profession</td><td>0.084</td><td>[-0.180 to 0.348]</td><td>0.520</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>-0.171</td><td>[-0.658 to 0.317]</td><td>0.482</td></tr><tr><td>Profession</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Health professionals</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>-0.523</td><td>[-1.256 to 0.211]</td><td>0.157</td></tr><tr><td>Coordination/management of programmes</td><td>-0.209</td><td>[-0.871 to 0.454]</td><td>0.454</td></tr><tr><td>Research professionals</td><td>-0.591</td><td>[-1.441 to 0.260]</td><td>0.260</td></tr><tr><td>Level of study</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>University level less than or equal to first cycle</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>University level second cycle (MD)</td><td>0.505</td><td>[-0.231 to 1.241]</td><td>0.172</td></tr><tr><td>University level postgraduate (PhD)</td><td>0.582</td><td>[-0.148 to 1.312]</td><td>0.114</td></tr><tr><td>Region of graduation</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Europe or North America</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>Africa</td><td>0.377</td><td>[-0.130 to 0.883]</td><td>0.140</td></tr><tr><td>R<sup>2</sup></td><td>0.337</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Adjusted R<sup>2</sup></td><td>0.141</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Regional offices of international organization (moral authority)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Intervention</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Location of authoring organization</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Europe or North America</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>Africa</td><td>0.581</td><td>[-0.093 to 1.256]</td><td>0.089</td></tr><tr><td>Confounding variable</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Prior knowledge of the organization</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Does not know the organization</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>Knows the organization</td><td>0.123</td><td>[-0.763 to 1.008]</td><td>0.780</td></tr><tr><td>Experience in the profession</td><td>-0.361</td><td>[-0.714 to -0.009]</td><td>0.045*</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>-0.655</td><td>[-1.287 to -0.024]</td><td>0.042*</td></tr><tr><td>Profession</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Health professionals</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>0.207</td><td>[-1.062 to 1.477]</td><td>0.742</td></tr><tr><td>Coordination/management of programmes</td><td>-0.590</td><td>[-1.612 to 0.442]</td><td>0.255</td></tr><tr><td>Research professionals</td><td>-0.694</td><td>[-1.718 to 0.330]</td><td>0.177</td></tr><tr><td>Level of study</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>University level less than or equal to first cycle</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 5** (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>β</th><th>Perceived quality<br>[95% CI]</th><th>P value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>University level second cycle (MD)</td><td>0.247</td><td>[-0.641 to 1.135]</td><td>0.576</td></tr><tr><td>University level postgraduate (PhD)</td><td>-0.590</td><td>[-1.454 to 0.274]</td><td>0.174</td></tr><tr><td>Region of graduation</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Europe or North America</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>Africa</td><td>0.655</td><td>[-0.982 to 1.409]</td><td>0.086</td></tr><tr><td>R<sup>2</sup></td><td>0.506</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Adjusted R<sup>2</sup></td><td>0.361</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Universities (scientific authority)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Intervention</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Location of authoring organization</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Europe or North America</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>Africa</td><td>-0.886</td><td>[-1.361 to -0.412]</td><td>0.001*</td></tr><tr><td>Confounding variable</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Prior knowledge of the organization</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Does not know the organization</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>Knows the organization</td><td>0.210</td><td>[-0.280 to 0.700]</td><td>0.393</td></tr><tr><td>Experience in the profession</td><td>-0.124</td><td>[-0.334 to 0.086]</td><td>0.239</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>-0.056</td><td>[-0.629 to 0.516]</td><td>0.843</td></tr><tr><td>Profession</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Health professionals</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>-0.505</td><td>[-1.327 to 0.317]</td><td>0.222</td></tr><tr><td>Coordination/management of programmes</td><td>-0.289</td><td>[-1.045 to 0.467]</td><td>0.446</td></tr><tr><td>Research professionals</td><td>-0.287</td><td>[-1.101 to 0.438]</td><td>0.429</td></tr><tr><td>Level of study</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>University level less than or equal to first cycle</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>University level second cycle (MD)</td><td>-0.450</td><td>[-1.323 to 0.425]</td><td>0.305</td></tr><tr><td>University level postgraduate (PhD)</td><td>-0.910</td><td>[-1.811 to -0.010]</td><td>0.048*</td></tr><tr><td>Region of graduation</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Europe or North America</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>Africa</td><td>-0.039</td><td>[-0.639 to 0.560]</td><td>0.896</td></tr><tr><td>R<sup>2</sup></td><td>0.375</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Adjusted R<sup>2</sup></td><td>0.230</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

authoring organization were not significantly associated with perceived quality and reported instrumental use.

Stratified analyses highlighted that policy briefs signed by the African donor organization were perceived to be of higher quality than policy briefs signed by the North American/European donor organization. These analyses also found that policy briefs signed by the African university were associated with lower scores for both perceived

quality and reported instrumental use than policy briefs signed by the North American/European university.

With respect to social characteristics, results show that participants who graduated in Africa both perceived better quality and reported more instrumental use than participants who graduated in North America/Europe. For reported use, the results show that participants working as coordinators or managers of health programmes
<table><caption>**Table 6** Associations between location of authoring organization and reported instrumental use of knowledge, stratified by sector of authoring organization</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>β</th><th>Reported instrumental use<br>[95% CI]</th><th>P value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Donor organizations (financial authority)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Intervention</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Location of authoring organization</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Europe or North America</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>Africa</td><td>0.373</td><td>[-0.119 to 0.865]</td><td>0.132</td></tr><tr><td>Confounding variable</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Prior knowledge of the organization</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Does not know the organization</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>Knows the organization</td><td>1.064</td><td>[-0.906 to 2.219]</td><td>0.070</td></tr><tr><td>Perceived autonomy in the profession</td><td>-0.010</td><td>[-0.203 to 0.182]</td><td>0.913</td></tr><tr><td>Experience in the profession</td><td>0.239</td><td>[0.040 to 0.617]</td><td>0.027</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>-0.582</td><td>[-1.100 to -0.641]</td><td>0.029*</td></tr><tr><td>Profession</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Health professionals</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>-0.793</td><td>[-1.632 to 0.464]</td><td>0.063</td></tr><tr><td>Coordination/management of programmes</td><td>-0.381</td><td>[-1.116 to 0.535]</td><td>0.298</td></tr><tr><td>Research professionals</td><td>-0.505</td><td>[-1.410 to 0.400]</td><td>0.264</td></tr><tr><td>Level of study</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>University level less than or equal to first cycle</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>University level second cycle (MD)</td><td>0.150</td><td>[-0.639 to 0.940]</td><td>0.701</td></tr><tr><td>University level postgraduate (PhD)</td><td>-0.279</td><td>[-1.052 to 0.493]</td><td>0.466</td></tr><tr><td>Region of graduation</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Europe or North America</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>Africa</td><td>1.099</td><td>[0.574 to 1.624]</td><td>0.000*</td></tr><tr><td>R<sup>2</sup></td><td>0.644</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Adjusted R<sup>2</sup></td><td>0.518</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Regional offices of international organization (moral authority)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Intervention</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Location of authoring organization</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Europe or North America</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Africa</td><td>0.458</td><td>[-0.074 to 0.990]</td><td>0.089</td></tr><tr><td>Confounding variable</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Prior knowledge of the organization</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Does not know the organization</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Knows the organization</td><td>0.225</td><td>[-0.464 to 0.915]</td><td>0.510</td></tr><tr><td>Perceived autonomy in the profession</td><td>-0.010</td><td>[-0.227 to 0.208]</td><td>0.928</td></tr><tr><td>Experience in the profession</td><td>-0.368</td><td>[-0.638 to -0.098]</td><td>0.009*</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>-0.470</td><td>[-0.952 to 0.011]</td><td>0.055</td></tr><tr><td>Profession</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Health professionals</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>-0.248</td><td>[-1.214 to 0.718]</td><td>0.605</td></tr><tr><td>Coordination/management of programmes</td><td>-0.856</td><td>[-1.643 to -0.068]</td><td>0.034*</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 6** (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>β</th><th>Reported instrumental use<br>[95% CI]</th><th>P value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Research professionals</td><td>-0.962</td><td>[-1.762 to -1.162]</td><td>0.020*</td></tr><tr><td>Level of study</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>University level less than or equal to first cycle</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>University level second cycle (MD)</td><td>-0.357</td><td>[-1.075 to 0.296]</td><td>0.256</td></tr><tr><td>University level postgraduate (PhD)</td><td>-0.449</td><td>[-1.123 to 0.225]</td><td>0.184</td></tr><tr><td>Region of graduation</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Europe or North America</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Africa</td><td>0.357</td><td>[-0.230 to 0.944]</td><td>0.225</td></tr><tr><td>R<sup>2</sup></td><td>0.549</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Adjusted R<sup>2</sup></td><td>0.394</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Universities (scientific authority)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Intervention</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Location of authoring organization</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Europe or North America</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Africa</td><td>-0.670</td><td>[-1.265 to -0.748]</td><td>0.028*</td></tr><tr><td>Confounding variable</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Prior knowledge of the organization</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Does not know the organization</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Knows the organization</td><td>0.038</td><td>[-0.601 to 0.677]</td><td>0.906</td></tr><tr><td>Perceived autonomy in the profession</td><td>0.183</td><td>[-0.068 to 0.435]</td><td>0.148</td></tr><tr><td>Experience in the profession</td><td>-0.057</td><td>[-0.325 to 0.211]</td><td>0.669</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>-0.185</td><td>[-0.905 to 0.536]</td><td>0.608</td></tr><tr><td>Profession</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Health professionals</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>-0.325</td><td>[-1.360 to 0.710]</td><td>0.530</td></tr><tr><td>Coordination/management of programmes</td><td>-0.538</td><td>[-1.493 to 0.417]</td><td>0.262</td></tr><tr><td>Research professionals</td><td>-0.514</td><td>[-1.441 to 0.412]</td><td>0.269</td></tr><tr><td>Level of study</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>University level less than or equal to first cycle</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>University level second cycle (MD)</td><td>-0.299</td><td>[-1.403 to 0.804]</td><td>0.587</td></tr><tr><td>University level postgraduate (PhD)</td><td>-0.316</td><td>[-1.453 to 0.820]</td><td>0.577</td></tr><tr><td>Region of graduation</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Europe or North America</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Africa</td><td>0.530</td><td>[-0.270 to 1.330]</td><td>0.188</td></tr><tr><td>R<sup>2</sup></td><td>0.313</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Adjusted R<sup>2</sup></td><td>0.129</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

and research professionals reported less use than health professionals, and similarly postgraduate participants reported less than participants with university study level less than or equal to the first cycle.

**Reputation heuristics and unfair evaluation of knowledge**

We believe that “reputation heuristics”, which have been studied in other contexts, can lead to unfair evaluation of online information [47], and consequently to testimonial injustice. We saw that the knowledge contained in policy briefs signed by the African donor organization was
perceived to be of higher quality than those signed by the North American/European donor organization, and the opposite trend was observed for policy briefs signed by universities. This difference could have been explained by a “knowledge bias”, which would have made it possible to associate an organization that one knows with a better perception of its activities, but this was not the case.

### Lack of confidence in the North American/European donor organization?

The involvement of foreign donor organizations in francophone African countries has long been strongly criticized. Indeed, on the one hand, the financial and political stakes raise questions about the value underlying the interventions of “external partners” in this historical area. On the other hand, the lack of knowledge of the terrain and the interventions they implement lead to a questioning of their legitimacy [53]. There is also a problem of capitalizing on acquired knowledge and experience to promote learning and improve practices [54]. There is distrust about the links between policy and knowledge production [55, 56], which was observed in particular in the processes of knowledge used for the fight against COVID-19 that are not specific to the context between France and West Africa. Specific distrust exists regarding the intervention of external agencies in this region, which could undermine the perception of quality or the willingness to use the policy notes signed by the northern donor organizations. Despite the increased visibility of northern donor organizations in the francophone African landscape, their presence is not associated with a better perception of the quality of knowledge production or the willingness to use it.

### A vicious cycle between testimonial and interpretative injustices for francophone African universities?

Francophone African universities, suffering from a lack of public investment, may be victims of a decline in scientific authority [57]. The low recognition of francophone African universities in scientific activities is often due to (among other things) a lack of professors and researchers, a lack of doctoral training and a lack of social recognition of the research activity [58–60]. In the most widely used world university rankings (such as the Shanghai Ranking or the Times Higher Education), these universities are not even listed. When they are listed, they do not appear before the 2000th place. These rankings, rather than providing an idea of the levels of universities, exclude some from the institutional research landscape [61]. This is not a brutal and material exclusion, but a soft and diffuse one because of the development of a hierarchy of universities and knowledge. The problem is that even though the lack of public investment is a structural determinant of

knowledge production quality, the generalization of the representation of the low quality of knowledge or research activity in francophone African universities can lead to a vicious cycle between interpretative, testimonial and social injustices. Indeed, because of their low capacity to mobilize financial resources and their weak international influence, francophone African universities have little influence on the agendas of global governance, and the “monetary” use of knowledge may reinforce the mutual dependence of epistemic and social injustices.

### A “monetary” use of knowledge?

While the policy briefs signed by the North American/European donor organization were perceived as being of lower quality, they were not reported as being less used than the policy briefs signed by the African donor organization. When considering the use of knowledge in the political sector, knowledge may be evaluated on the basis of the author’s reputation [62] or the degree of agreement with the author [49] rather than the knowledge content. This may be explained by the idea that knowledge presented by organizations with financial authority is more useful in advancing an idea, putting an issue on the agenda or organizing resistance to a policy [63], particularly in the “development arena” [64]. Indeed, often referred to as “technical and financial partners”, donor and international organizations participate in national health committees in francophone African countries [65] in the same way as national organizations, which gives them power in the development of health policies. At the same time, universities, already suffering underinvestment from public policies, are being supplanted by consultancy activities in the production of knowledge [59, 66–68], which contributes to the decline in the monetary value of the knowledge produced by universities. The “deep core” of neoliberalism also plays out at this level. Indeed, it both guides the education sector in the same way that it guides the health sector, influencing the criteria for university rankings [61, 69], and participates in the commodification of knowledge to be increasingly “useful” [27]. Individuals may seek to use knowledge that they find more useful, in a monetary sense, particularly in the development or global health arena. While this “monetization” of knowledge use can strengthen the authority of dominant organizations, even if the quality of knowledge is perceived as poor, it is detrimental to organizations that do not have financial or moral power, and it can serve to reinforce the intersectionality of normative, financial and epistemic powers.

### Limits and implications for knowledge translation

It would be useful to complement this quantitative analysis with a qualitative study to compare the
explanations given by stakeholders for these results. Indeed, this study is exploratory, and it is still difficult to propose rigorous explanations of the results. In addition, this study was offered online in a context where containment measures during the COVID-19 pandemic were being implemented in several countries. Currently, the flow of information via digital means has increased. Participants may not have taken the necessary care to complete the questionnaire thoroughly. The topic of containment effectiveness was chosen intentionally to increase the willingness of the individuals contacted to participate. The method of contact, through mailing lists and focal points, may have also had an impact on the sample, which is not as diverse as if participants had been contacted through national sampling frames or institutional directories. It is also possible that the fact that the first author of this analysis presented herself as a doctoral student and member of a northern research institute to increase participation in the survey may have influenced the perceived source of the policy briefs. It would have been very interesting to increase the number of scenarios with a larger number of organizations, but the number of participants would not have allowed for statistically sound analyses. A last limit is that we did not ensure that the participants had no previous knowledge of the policy brief, and if they recognized the name of the authoring organization, it may have had an influence on the results.

This analysis permits us to both learn more about organizations in global health leadership and reflect on the implications for knowledge translation practices. We have seen that participants with their highest degree from African universities are more likely to report using knowledge than those with their highest degree from institutions in Europe or North America, and similarly for men versus women or graduate versus postgraduate. This difference in attitude might be better understood through further qualitative analysis. This could allow us to try to adapt strategies that consider the rationalities of individuals according to their social characteristics, rather than strategies by context, without considering the differences between social groups [70]. In addition, a larger number of participants would have allowed us to examine interactions between regions of education, gender and authoring organizations to better understand how and why individuals use or do not use knowledge and the dynamics with organizational authority issues in the global health context.

## Conclusion

The results confirm the significant influence of sources on perceived global health knowledge. This study is exploratory, and further analysis would be useful to better

understand the dynamics between authoring organization representation, perceived quality and knowledge use to take them into account in knowledge translation strategies.

## Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-022-00854-x.

**Additional file 1:** Policy brief initial version (available on: https://36671ce8-37d7-4c16-9292-45ae340934dc.filesusr.com/ugd/a01b06_85eeaabf27084f02abe52517c705ef66.pdf).

**Additional file 2:** First and last page of modified policy brief.

**Additional file 3:** Survey.

**Additional file 4:** Description of the participants.

## Acknowledgements

This study would not have been successful without the contributions of all UNISSAHEL project members and all the people who participated in the "snowball effect" for disseminating the study. We truly thank them for having made this study possible. We also thank Dr Sedric Degbo, who disseminated the study through his platform that centralizes West African health professionals (www.remaapp.com).

## Author contributions

The idea for the article was put forward by VR, CD and AF. The design of the method was discussed by the same three people, BV, KK and EMC, and then implemented by AF and EMC. The recruitment of participants was mainly done by VR and AF. Data were collected and analysed by AF,UBNK, MPL and BV. The analysis proposals were discussed among the different authors. The first draft was written by AF and reread and commented on by the coauthors several times before final submission to the journal. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

## Funding

The research project is part of the UNISSAHEL programme (Universal Health Coverage in Sahel), funded by the Agence Française de développement (AFD) Group. This work was also supported by the Franch National Research Agency Grant ANR-17-EURE-0020 and by the Excellence Initiative of Aix-Marseille University - A*MIDEX and by the Excellence Initiative of Aix-Marseille University - A*MIDEX.

## Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to the necessity of authoring organization anonymity but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

## Declarations

### Ethics approval and consent to participate

When the invitation to participate in the survey was emailed out, there was a link to read the tool presented and take a questionnaire on the WIX platform that helps secure data in connection with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The GDPR aims to protect the fundamental right to privacy and personal data protection of European Union (EU) citizens. To avoid bias in the experiment, two information and consent forms were presented at the beginning and end of the experiment. The latter mentioned the link to the basic policy note, without modifying the organizations presented as authors but also the real objective of the study, which was not presented in the first questionnaire. At the end of the second information form, the participant could click on "accept" or leave the page if they did not want their data to be used. No data were recorded without the participant clicking the "accept" button. This study is part of a thesis for which the protocol was submitted to the Health and Science Research Ethics Committee of the University of Montreal. The final certificate was obtained on 17 June 2020 (CERES-18-127-D).
**Consent for publication**

Not applicable.

**Competing interests**

Most authors work on project financing by a European donor organization and are members (students, professors) of universities. That could influence scientific processes. However, diversifying among organizations is a way to diminish these influences, as well as the anonymity of authoring organizations in this article. The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

**Author details**

¹Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health (ESPUM), University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada. ²CEPED, Université Paris cité - French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD), Paris, France. ³Department of School and Social Adaptation Studies, Faculty of Education, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada. ⁴French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), Aix-Marseille School of Economics, Aix Marseille University, Marseille, France. ⁵INVEST Flagship Research Center/ Department of Psychology and Speech-Language Pathology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland. ⁶URMITE, French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), Aix-Marseille School of Economics - French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD), Dakar-Hann, Senegal. ⁷Institute for Research in Health Sciences (IRSS), National Center for Scientific and Technologic Research, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. ⁸RESILIENCE, French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD), Paris, France. ⁹Department of Psychology, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada. ¹⁰Institut de santé et développement, Université Cheikh Anta Diop, Dakar, Senegal.

Received: 17 January 2022 Accepted: 12 April 2022

Published online: 26 May 2022

**References**

1. Abimbola S, Asthana S, Montenegro C, et al. Addressing power asymmetries in global health: imperatives in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. PLOS Med. 2021;18(4).

2. Barnett M, Duvall R. Power in global governance. In: Barnett M, Duvall R, editors. Power in global governance. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2005. p. 1–32.

3. Forman L. The ghost is the machine: how can we visibilize the unseen norms and power of global health? Comment on « navigating between stealth advocacy and unconscious dogmatism: the challenge of researching the norms, politics and power of global health ». Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015;5(3):197–9.

4. Shiffman J. Knowledge, moral claims and the exercise of power in global health. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2014;3(6):297–9.

5. Shiffman J. Global health as a field of power relations: a response to recent commentaries. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015;4(7):497–9.

6. Engebretsen E, Heggen K. Powerful concepts in global health Comment on « knowledge, moral claims and the exercise of power in global health ». Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015;4(2):115–7.

7. Hanefeld J, Walt G. Knowledge and networks—key sources of power in global health. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015;4(2):119–21.

8. Shiffman J. Networks and global health governance: introductory editorial for health policy and planning supplement on the emergence and effectiveness of global health networks. Health Policy Plan. 2016;31(Suppl 1):i1-2.

9. Horton R. Offline: The pretensions of global health elites. The Lancet. 2020;395(10225):672.

10. Ridde V, Ouedraogo S, Yaya S. Closing the diversity and inclusion gaps in francophone public health: a wake-up call. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(2):e005231.

11. Bhakuni H, Abimbola S. Epistemic injustice in academic global health. Lancet Glob Health. 2021;9(10):e1465–70.

12. Fricker M. Epistemic injustice: power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 2007.

13. Lauer H. How epistemic injustice in the global health arena undermines public health care delivery in Africa. In: 25th International Congress of History of Science and Technology; 23–29 June 2017; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

14. Dalglish SL. COVID-19 gives the lie to global health expertise. The Lancet. 2020;395(10231):1189.

15. Sanz-Menéndez L, Cruz-Castro L. The credibility of scientific communication sources regarding climate change: a population-based survey experiment. Public Underst Sci. 2019;28(5):534–53.

16. Michalovich A, Hershkovitz A. Assessing YouTube science news' credibility: the impact of web-search on the role of video, source, and user attributes. Public Underst Sci. 2020;29(4):376–91.

17. Beynon P, Chapoy C, Gaarder M, Masset E. What difference does a policy brief make? London: Institute of Development Studies and the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation; 2012.

18. Javdani M, Chang H-J. Who said or what said? Estimating ideological bias in views among economists. Canada: University of British Columbia; 2019.

19. Birn A-E. Philanthrocapitalism, past and present: the Rockefeller Foundation, the Gates Foundation, and the setting(s) of the international/global health agenda. Hypothesis. 2014;12(1).

20. Fillol A, Ridde V. Gouvernance globale et utilisation des connaissances pour l'action. Rev Francoph Rech Sur Transf L'utilisation Connaiss. 2020;4(2).

21. Hoffman SJ, Røttingen J-A. Split WHO in two: strengthening political decision-making and securing independent scientific advice. Public Health. 2014;128(2):188–94.

22. Lee K, Pang T. WHO: retirement or reinvention? Public Health. 2014;128(2):119–23.

23. Global Health 50/50. Power, privilege and priorities [Internet]. London: Global Health 50/50;2020.

24. Abimbola S. The foreign gaze: authorship in academic global health. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(5):e002068.

25. Velin L, Lartigue J-W, Johnson SA, et al. Conference equity in global health: a systematic review of factors impacting LMIC representation at global health conferences. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(1):e003455.

26. Dübgen F, Skupien S. New approaches to scientific dependency and extraversion: southern theory, epistemic justice and the quest to decolonise academia. In: Dübgen F, Skupien S, editors. Paulin Hountondji: African philosophy as critical universalism. London: Springer International Publishing; 2019. p. 109–34.

27. Ndofirepi A. African universities on a global ranking scale: legitimation of knowledge hierarchies? South Afr J High Educ. 2017;31(1).

28. Tonda J. L'impossible décolonisation des sciences sociales africaines. Mouvements. 2012;72(4):108–19.

29. Gautier L, Karambé Y, Dossou J-P, Samb OM. Rethinking development interventions through the lens of decoloniality in sub-Saharan Africa: the case of global health. Glob Public Health. 2020;0(0):1–14.

30. Santos B de S. Beyond abyssal thinking: from global lines to ecologies of knowledges. Rev Fernand Braudel Cent. 2007;30(1):45–89.

31. Lavis JN, Permanand G, Oxman AD, Lewin S, Fretheim A. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 13: preparing and using policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009;7(Suppl 1):S13.

32. Arnaudot D, Dagenais C. Use and effectiveness of policy briefs as a knowledge transfer tool: a scoping review. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2021;8(1):1–14.

33. Cash D, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Jäger J. Salience, credibility, legitimacy and boundaries: linking research, assessment and decision making. Rochester: Social Science Research Network; 2002.

34. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, et al. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2003;100(14):8086–91.

35. Dunn G, Laing M. Policy-makers perspectives on credibility, relevance and legitimacy (CRELE). Environ Sci Policy. 2017;76:146–52.

36. Beyer JM, Trice HM. The utilization process: a conceptual framework and synthesis of empirical findings. Adm Sci Q. 1982;27(4):591–622.

37. Weiss CH. The many meanings of research. Public Adm Rev. 1979;39:426–31.

38. Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, et al. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26(1):13–24.
39. Gautier L, Tosun J, De Allegri M, Ridde V. How do diffusion entrepreneurs spread policies? Insights from performance-based financing in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Dev. 2018;110:160–75.

40. Affun-Adegbulu C, Adegbulu O. Decolonising Global (Public) Health: from Western universalism to Global pluriversalities. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5(8):e002947.

41. Eichbaum QG, Adams LV, Evert J, Ho M-J, Semali IA, van Schalkwyk SC. Decolonizing global health education: rethinking institutional partnerships and approaches. Acad Med J Assoc Am Med Coll. 2020;96(3):329–35.

42. Godrie B, Dos Santos M. Présentation: inégalités sociales, production des savoirs et de l'ignorance. Sociol Sociétés. 2017;49(1):7–31.

43. Santos B de S. Cognitive justice in a global world: prudent knowledges for a decent life. Minneapolis (US): Lexington Books; 2007.

44. Hoffman SJ, Cole CB. Defining the global health system and systematically mapping its network of actors. Glob Health. 2018;14(1):1–19.

45. Gaziano C, McGrath K. Measuring the concept of credibility. Journal Q. 1986;63(3):451–62.

46. McCroskey JC, Holdridge W, Toomb JK. An instrument for measuring the source credibility of basic speech communication instructors. Speech Teach. 1974;23(1):26–33.

47. Metzger MJ, Flanagin AJ, Eyal K, Lemus DR, McCann RM. Credibility for the 21st century: integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. Ann Int Commun Assoc. 2003;27(1):293–335.

48. Meyer P. Defining and measuring credibility of newspapers: developing an index. Journal Q. 1988;65(3):567–74.

49. Akerlof K, Lemos M, Cloyd E, Heath E. Who Isn't Biased? Perceived Bias as a Dimension of Credibility in Communication of Science with Policymakers. In: Iowa State Univ Summer Symp Sci Commun, 2018; Iowa (US).

50. Buljan I, Malički M, Wager E, Puljak L, Hren D, Kellie F, et al. No difference in knowledge obtained from infographic or plain language summary of a Cochrane systematic review: three randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:86–94.

51. Dagenais C, Ridde V. Policy brief as a knowledge transfer tool: to “make a splash”, your policy brief must first be read. Gac Sanit. 2018;32:203–5.

52. Jones N, Walsh C. Policy briefs as a communication tool for development research. London: Overseas development institute; 2008.

53. Olivier de Sardan J-P. De Barkhane au développement : la revanche des contextes [Internet]. 22 July 2021 [cited]. In AOC media—Analyse Opinion Critique [online]. Paris, 2021. Available on: https://aoc.media/analyse/2021/06/13/de-barkhane-au-developpement-la-revanche-des-contextes/.

54. Pacquement F. Histoire de l'Agence Française de Développement en Côte d'Ivoire. Illustrated. Paris: Karthala; 2016.

55. Hughes CE. Evidence-based policy or policy-based evidence? The role of evidence in the development and implementation of the Illicit Drug Diversion Initiative. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2007;26(4):363–8.

56. Parkhurst JO. The politics of evidence: from evidence-based policy to the good governance of evidence. New York: Routledge; 2017.

57. Akam M. Le marché de l'expertise et la place du socioanthropologue : le chercheur en sciences sociales en Afrique. Illustrations camerounaises. Bull APAD. 1994;(7).

58. Loua S. Efficacité interne de l'enseignement supérieur malien [thesis]. Lyon: Institut des Sciences et Pratiques d'Education et de Formation; 2012.

59. La MB. crise de l'enseignement supérieur en Afrique francophone: une analyse pour les cas du Burkina Faso, du Cameroun, du Congo, et de la Côte d'Ivoire. J High Educ Afr Rev Enseign Supér En Afr. 2006;4(1):69–86.

60. Marou Sama KM. Les carrières des chercheurs et les politiques d'enseignement supérieur et de recherche au Niger [thesis]. Paris: Université Paris-Est; 2016.

61. Kuditshini JT. Mondialisation et développement démocratique : vers la re-légitimation du rôle du secteur public de la recherche scientifique et technique en Afrique. In: Conférence Guy Mhone sur «Les réformes du secteur public en Afrique: Rétrospective et perspectives»; 2013 ; Zomba (Malawi).

62. Delahais T, Lacouette-Fougère C. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. Analysis of the contribution of 65 evaluations to the modernisation of public action in France. Evaluation. 2019;25(2):131–48.

63. Ingold J, Monaghan M. Evidence translation: an exploration of policy makers' use of evidence. Policy Polit. 2016;44(2):171–90.

64. Olivier de Sardan J-P. Anthropologie et développement. Essai en socioanthropologie du changement social. Paris: Karthala; 1995.

65. Moha M, Ridde V. La conférence nationale sur la gratuité des soins au Niger: des interactions nécessaires. In Olivier de Sardan J-P, et Ridde V, editors. Une politique publique de santé et ses contradictions: la gratuité des soins au Burkina Faso, au Mali et au Niger. Paris: Karthala; 2014.

66. Kuditshini JT. Mondialisation et développement démocratique: vers la re-légitimation du rôle du secteur public de la recherche scientifique et technique en Afrique. In: Les réformes du secteur public en République démocratique du Congo. Codesria. Dakar; 2013. p. 58.

67. Olivier de Sardan J-P. Promouvoir la recherche face à la consultation Autour de l'expérience du LASDEL (Niger-Bénin). Cahiers d'Études africaine. 2011;51:511–28.

68. Yapi-Diahou A. Research and the challenge of expertise in Africa. CODESRJA Bulletin. 2005;4:3.

69. Taylor P, Braddock R. International university ranking systems and the idea of university excellence. J High Educ Policy Manag. 2007;29(3):245–60.

70. Lapalme J, Haines-Saah R, Frohlich KL. More than a buzzword: how intersectionality can advance social inequalities in health research. Crit Public Health. 2020;30(4):494–500.

## Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Ready to submit your research? Choose BMC and benefit from:

* fast, convenient online submission

* thorough peer review by experienced researchers in your field

* rapid publication on acceptance

* support for research data, including large and complex data types

* gold Open Access which fosters wider collaboration and increased citations

* maximum visibility for your research: over 100M website views per year

At BMC, research is always in progress.

Learn more biomedcentral.com/submissions

BMC