Bridging the Gap: A cluster RCT on Strengthening Evidence Use in Ethiopian Policymaking

Last registered on June 15, 2026
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Bridging the Gap: A cluster RCT on Strengthening Evidence Use in Ethiopian Policymaking
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0017658
Initial registration date
June 08, 2026

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
June 15, 2026, 4:19 PM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Name
Johanna Gather
Affiliation
Centre for Evaluation and Development (C4ED)
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Atika Pasha
PI Affiliation
Centre for Evaluation and Development (C4ED)
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Markus Frölich
PI Affiliation
Uni Mannheim

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2026-02-15
End date
2028-02-01
Keywords
Behavior, Education, Governance, Other
Additional Keywords
evidence-informed policymaking, policy capacity, research uptake, training, co-production, mentoring, public administration, randomized controlled trial, Ethiopia
JEL code(s)
D83 - Search, Learning, Information and Knowledge; H11 Structure, Scope, and Performance of Government
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
Our study evaluates whether structured support can improve the use of research evidence in government policymaking. The intervention targets mid-level policymakers working in trade-related ministries and agencies in Ethiopia, where evidence-informed decision-making is widely seen as im-portant but difficult to implement in practice.
We test two approaches that build on each other. The first approach/treatment focuses on improving access to and understanding of research through targeted training, rapid evidence reviews, and improved access to academic resources. The additional component builds on this by adding mentoring and co-production of policy-relevant outputs, to strengthen ownership, relevance, and practical application of evidence. These approaches are compared to a business-as-usual control group.
The evaluation is implemented as a cluster randomised controlled trial, with government directorates as the unit of randomisation. Outcomes are measured at the individual policymaker level and include knowledge and skills related to interpreting research, attitudes toward evidence use, and observable indicators of evidence use in policy work. Data are collected through surveys, administrative records, and document review at baseline, midline, and endline.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Frölich, Markus, Johanna Gather and Atika Pasha. 2026. "Bridging the Gap: A cluster RCT on Strengthening Evidence Use in Ethiopian Policymaking." AEA RCT Registry. June 15. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.17658-1.0
Sponsors & Partners

Sponsors

Partner

Name
Ethiopian Economics Association (EEA)
Type
none
URL
https://eea-et.org/about/
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
This study evaluates structured approaches to strengthening the use of research evidence in trade-related policymaking within government ministries and agencies in Ethiopia. The interventions target mid-level policymakers working in relevant directorates and aim to improve their capability to access, interpret, and apply research evidence in policy processes.
The study includes two intervention arms in addition to a business-as-usual control group. One intervention arm provides structured capacity-building support, including training on engaging with research evidence and improved access to policy-relevant evidence products. A second intervention arm combines this capacity-building support with additional mentoring and collaborative activities designed to integrate evidence use into ongoing policy workflows. These activities involve interaction with researchers and the co-production of policy-relevant analytical outputs.
The interventions are delivered at the organisational (directorate) level and are designed to complement existing institutional practices rather than replace them. The study assesses impacts on policymakers’ skills, attitudes, and use of evidence in policy analysis and decision-making.
Intervention Start Date
2026-07-26
Intervention End Date
2027-06-30

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
The evaluation distinguishes between confirmatory (primary), secondary, and exploratory (tertiary) research questions. The confirmatory analysis focuses on estimating causal effects of the intervention across these four domains. Within this structure, behavioural uptake of evidence (RQ4) constitutes the primary outcome of interest, while capability (RQ1), opportunity (RQ2), and motivation (RQ3) represent key intermediate outcomes (mechanisms) through which behavioural change is expected to occur. The primary outcome is policymakers’ use of research evidence in their work, while secondary out-comes capture mechanisms aligned with the COM-B framework, including capability (knowledge and skills), opportunity (access to evidence and interaction with researchers), and motivation (atti-tudes and perceived relevance). Data are collected at baseline, midline, and endline through structured surveys, complemented where feasible by administrative and behavioural data such as partici-pation records and policy outputs.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Behavioural uptake of research evidence in policymaking processes constitutes the primary out-come of the study. This domain focuses on observable and self-reported use of evidence and includes:
• Use of research evidence in policy drafts, briefing notes, memos, and analytical documents
• Frequency of citing research evidence in meetings and internal discussions
• Instances of revising or refining policy proposals based on evidence
• Consultation of evidence products (e.g. RERs, databases, evidence digests)
• Frequency of engaging with researchers or commissioning evidence

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary outcomes capture intermediate changes aligned with the theory of change, particularly those related to awareness, understanding, and enabling conditions for evidence use (e.g., RQ1a and mechanism-focused research questions).
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Secondary outcomes are primarily measured through self-reported survey items and are analysed to provide insight into mechanisms underlying observed changes in primary outcomes. They are not the basis for confirmatory causal claims. These include:
• Awareness that evidence can shape different stages of policymaking (agenda-setting, formu-lation, revision)
• Understanding of what constitutes meaningful evidence-informed policymaking beyond symbolic use
• Agreement that ministries should commission or co-produce evidence when gaps exist
• Perceived interaction with researchers and intermediaries
• Perceived organisational support, including leadership, peer norms, and routines

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The study is implemented as a cluster randomized controlled trial. Government directorates within trade-related ministries and agencies are randomly assigned to one of three groups: a control group receiving business-as-usual support, a treatment group receiving structured capacity-building support, and a treatment group receiving capacity-building support combined with mentoring and co-production. Outcomes related to policymakers’ use of research evidence are measured at the individual level using repeated surveys.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Randomisation is done via Stata.
Randomization Unit
Randomization conducted by the research team using a computer-generated random assignment.
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
Up to 60 government directorates (clusters), subject to final eligibility during mapping.
Sample size: planned number of observations
Approximately 350–400 policymakers (individual participants).
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Around 24 directorates in the control group (business-as-usual), 16 directorates receiving the capacity-building and access package, and 20 directorates receiving the full intervention, including mentoring and co-production
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Power calculations account for clustering at the directorate level and assume 80% power and a 5% significance level. Under the planned design of approximately 60 directorates and 300 participants at baseline, the study is powered to detect minimum detectable effect sizes (MDEs) of approximately 0.48 standard deviations for capability outcomes ("Assessment"), 0.47 standard deviations for attitudinal outcomes ("Ratings"), and 0.53 standard deviations for behavioural evidence-use outcomes ("Policy"). These correspond to approximately 3.2%, 0.2%, and 1.2% changes relative to baseline means, respectively. All calculations assume an intra-cluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.10 and account for anticipated attrition.
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Ethiopian Society of Sociologists Social Workers And Anthroplogists
IRB Approval Date
2026-05-16
IRB Approval Number
ESSSWA/L/AA/05930/2026
Analysis Plan

Analysis Plan Documents

EIPM_Bridging the gap_Study protocol and PAP

MD5: 1068d3c7a2039f3ea7255cb1e1f72195

SHA1: c2c54749915f57d19ebb44d6bfd5369f18eb8819

Uploaded At: June 08, 2026