Background: Evidence in various forms - whether it is primary research, evidence mapping, or evidence synthesis products - needs to be perceived as useful in order to be used by decision makers. It is therefore important to understand how engagement occurs that facilitates research uptake; who the actors are that drive these processes; and, where the strengths and gaps lie.

Objectives: This presentation brings together findings from a series of 25 maps on the evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) landscape(s) in Africa.

Methods: EIDM-landscape mapping, which, in this instance, was commissioned by the Africa Evidence Network, involves a graphic representation and description of the key stakeholders in the evidence and policy landscape in a particular environment, such as a country or sector. It maps the key role players in the production of research (e.g. universities, research councils and think tanks); role players in the use of research (e.g. government, NGOs, professional bodies); and intermediaries (e.g. knowledge brokers, donor organisations, networks). In addition, landscape maps attempt to represent the relationship and evidence flow between these actors by using arrows and other descriptive graphics.

Results: This landscape-map series is the first of its kind and follows on EIDM maps produced by the UJ-BCURE programme on South Africa and Malawi. The series is unique in its diversity and comprehensiveness and consists of maps from 10 different African countries as well as 2 maps that span more than one country. The maps furthermore cover a wide range of sectors such as health and the environment; as well as evidence use by particular groups (such as Parliamentarians in Uganda, Malawi and Tunisia).

The presentation will also highlight which actors across these landscapes have evidence-synthesis capacity, drawing on a recent Africa-wide survey conducted by the Africa Evidence Network.

Conclusions: Understanding the EIDM landscape and identifying strengths and bottlenecks provides a basis for discussions on how to strengthen these formal and informal evidence-use systems and support the capacity of the actors who engage in it.