Behind the Paper: the TB Think Tank’s role and influence on TB policy in South Africa

Today we talk with the authors of a recently published study in PLOS Global Public Health, A formative evaluation of the TB Think Tank’s role and influence on TB policy in South Africa, by Bey-Marrie Schmidt, Chanelle Mulopo, and Lilian Mayieka

What led you to decide on this research question?

The TB Think Tank (TB TT) issued a call for proposals for an independent evaluation of its influence on TB policy in South Africa, and we responded because of our interest in the persistent gap between research evidence and policymaking, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. The study provided an opportunity to explore how a knowledge translation platform supports knowledge exchange, capacity building, and dialogue among diverse TB stakeholders in South Africa. More broadly, we aimed to contribute to the limited evidence base on knowledge translation platforms in low- and middle-income settings and generate insights that could inform similar initiatives elsewhere.

Could you talk us through how you designed your study? What was important for your team as you created the study team?

We designed a qualitative case study to develop an in-depth understanding of how the TB TT functions as a knowledge translation platform. We used in-depth interviews, participant observation during the annual TB TT meeting, and document review to capture both participant perspectives and real-time interactions. We prioritised representation from diverse stakeholders, including researchers, policymakers, clinicians, programme implementers, and civil society, to reflect the platform’s collaborative and multidisciplinary nature. The study team combined expertise in public health, health policy and systems research, qualitative methods, and knowledge translation, and emphasised reflexivity and collaboration, particularly given some members’ familiarity with the TB policy landscape.

What challenges did you encounter during your study?

We encountered relatively few challenges, largely due to strong engagement and support from TB TT members. Participants were generous with their time and provided rich insights during interviews. Although we completed 14 instead of the planned 15 interviews, the depth of the data strengthened the study. A key challenge was managing the richness and complexity of the data, which made analysis more intensive than anticipated, though also particularly rewarding. During participant observation at the TB TT annual meeting, it was sometimes difficult to remain solely in an observer role in such a dynamic setting.

What did you find most striking about your results? How will this research be used?

One of the key findings was the high level of engagement and commitment among TB TT members. Participants demonstrated strong ownership and actively contributed within their task teams and working groups, highlighting the value of collaborative platforms in shaping public health policy and practice. The TB TT also provided an important space for knowledge exchange, bringing together diverse stakeholders to share perspectives, align priorities, and support decision-making. This illustrates how knowledge translation platforms (KTPs) can help bridge gaps between research, policy, and implementation. Overall, the findings offer practical insights into how KTPs function, what enables their success, and where they can be strengthened. The study can inform the development of similar platforms, particularly in low- and middle-income settings, and support improved translation of evidence into policy and practice.

What further research questions need to be addressed in this area?

Our findings highlight several priorities for future research. First, more work is needed to understand how KTPs can be sustainably embedded within government systems and aligned with national priorities to support long-term evidence-informed policymaking. Second, future studies should examine how KTPs generate and sustain policy influence over time, including the mechanisms that enable impact across different contexts. There is also a need to explore how equity considerations can be better integrated into KTPs and KTPs, particularly to ensure the inclusion of marginalised groups, including youth. Finally, although KTPs are increasingly recognised as important mechanisms for bridging research and policy, evidence on what makes them effective across different low- and middle-income country contexts remains limited. Comparative research on governance structures, funding models, and health system integration would be particularly valuable.

Why did you choose PLOS Global Public Health as a venue for your article?

We chose PLOS Global Public Health for its strong commitment to accessible, policy-relevant global health research. As an open-access journal, it ensures our findings are freely available to researchers, policymakers, practitioners, and communities, particularly in settings with limited access to subscription-based publications. The journal’s focus on health equity and on research from low- and middle-income countries closely aligns with our study. Our work examines how KTPs can strengthen evidence-informed policymaking in resource-constrained settings, making PLOS Global Public Health an appropriate venue for dissemination.