Assessing policy dialogues and the role of context: Liberian case study before and during the Ebola outbreak

Multisectoral action towards sustainable development goal 3.d and building health systems resilience during and beyond COVID-19: Findings from an INTOSAI development initiative and World Health Organization collaboration

This article is part of the Research Topic 'Health Systems Recovery in the Context of COVID-19 and Protracted Conflict'. As the world faces global health crises such as pandemics, epidemics, climate change and evolving disease burdens and population demographics, building strong and resilient public health systems is of critical importance. The need for an integrated approach to building health system resilience; the widening of inequalities; and fears of vulnerable populations being left behind are critical issues that require Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) enquiry as independent public oversight bodies. Each country has a Supreme Audit Institution with a remit to audit public funds as an effective, accountable, and inclusive institution. Government audits are key components of effective public financial management and Good Governance. SAIs contribute to the quality of government engagement and better state-society relations through their work. As SAIs provide independent external oversight and contribute to follow up and review of national targets linked to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in their respective countries, they can play an important role in national recovery efforts. WHO and INTOSAI Development Initiative (IDI) have been collaborating in facilitating SAIs' audits of strong and resilient national public health systems linked to the national target of SDG 3.d in 40 countries across Africa, Americas, Asia and Oceania between 2021 and 2022. This paper aims to convey key lessons learned from the joint multisectoral collaboration for facilitating the 3.d audits that can contribute to building health systems resilience in ongoing recovery efforts. The collaboration included facilitation of the audits through professional education and audit support using a health systems resilience framework. The 3.d audits are performance audits and follow IDI's SDG Audit Model (ISAM). Following the ISAM implies that the SAI should focus on a whole-of-government approach, policy coherence and integration, and assess both government efforts at 'leaving no one behind' and multi-stakeholder engagement in implementing the chosen national SDG target linked to 3.d. WHO's Health Systems Resilience team has supported IDI and SAIs by delivering training sessions and reviewing working papers and draft reports of the SAIs from a health systems resilience perspective. IDI has provided the technical expertise on performance audits through its technical team and through in-kind contributions from mentors from many SAIs in the regions participating in the audit. In the 3.d audit, SAIs can ask how governments are acting to enhance capacity in some or all of the following, depending on their own national context and risk: forecasting, preventing and preparing for public health emergencies (PHEs) and threatsadapting, absorbing and responding to PHEs and threatsmaintaining essential health services in all contexts (including during emergencies/crises). The audits are expected to highlight current capacities of health systems resilience; the extent to which a whole-of-government approach and policy coherence have been utilised; and government efforts related to multistakeholder engagement and leaving no one behind in building health systems resilience related to progressing towards achieving the national target linked to 3.d by 2030. An overall positive achievement noted was that undertaking a complex health audit in the middle of a pandemic is possible and can contribute to building health systems resilience and recovery efforts. In their review of audit plans, draft summaries, and other work by the SAIs, both WHO and IDI have observed that SAIs have used the training and supplementary materials and applied various parts of it in their audits. This collaboration also demonstrates key considerations needed for successful partnership across multisectoral partners at global, regional and national levels. Such considerations can be applied in different contexts, including socioeconomic and health system recovery, to ensure whole-of-society and whole-of-government action in building health systems resilience and monitoring and evaluation to maintain and accelerate progress towards the national target linked to SDG3.d, health security and universal health coverage (UHC), as well as broader socioeconomic development.

A health-systems journey towards more people-centred care: lessons from neglected tropical disease programme integration in Liberia

BACKGROUND

Neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) are associated with high levels of morbidity and disability as a result of stigma and social exclusion. To date, the management of NTDs has been largely biomedical. Consequently, ongoing policy and programme reform within the NTD community is demanding the development of more holistic disease management, disability and inclusion (DMDI) approaches. Simultaneously, integrated, people-centred health systems are increasingly viewed as essential to ensure the efficient, effective and sustainable attainment of Universal Health Coverage. Currently, there has been minimal consideration of the extent to which the development of holistic DMDI strategies are aligned to and can support the development of people-centred health systems. The Liberian NTD programme is at the forefront of trying to establish a more integrated, person-centred approach to the management of NTDs and provides a unique learning site for health systems decision makers to consider how shifts in vertical programme delivery can support overarching systems strengthening efforts that are designed to promote the attainment of health equity.

METHODS

We use a qualitative case study approach to explore how policy and programme reform of the NTD programme in Liberia supports systems change to enable the development of integrated people-centred services.

RESULTS

A cumulation of factors, catalysed by the shock to the health system presented by the Ebola epidemic, created a window of opportunity for policy change. However, programmatic change aimed at achieving person-centred practice was more challenging. Deep reliance on donor funding for health service delivery in Liberia limits the availability of flexible funding, and the ongoing funding prioritization towards specific disease conditions limits flexibility in health systems design that can shape more person-centred care.

CONCLUSION

Sheikh et al.'s four key aspects of people centred health systems, that is, (1) putting peoples voices and needs first; (2) people centredness in service delivery; (3) relationships matter: health systems as social institutions; and (4) values drive people centred health systems, enable the illumination of varying push and pull factors that can facilitate or hinder the alignment of DMDI interventions with the development of people-centred health systems to support disease programme integration and the attainment of health equity.

Knowledge exchange in crisis settings: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Public health practice and efforts to improve the social determinants of health operate within a climate characterised by multiple and intersecting crises. This includes the Covid-19 pandemic as well as more protracted crises such as climate change and persistent social inequalities that impact health. We sought to understand and compare how knowledge exchange (KE) processes occur across different crises, and how knowledge on improving social determinants of health can be utilised at times of crisis to reduce health inequalities and strengthen public systems.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review to understand how KE on improving social determinants of health can occur across different types of crises (e.g. environmental, pandemics, humanitarian). Relevant studies were identified through electronic searching of Medline, EMBASE, Global Health, Scopus and Web of Science databases.

RESULTS

We identified 86 studies for inclusion in the review. Most studies concerned pandemic or environmental crises. Fewer studies explored KE during technical (e.g. nuclear), terror-related or humanitarian crises. This may reflect a limitation of the searches. Few studies assessed KE as part of longer-term responses to social and economic impacts of crises, with studies more likely to focus on immediate response or early recovery stages. Exchange of research evidence or data with policy or practice contextual knowledge was common but there was variation in the extent that lay (public) knowledge was included as part of KE processes.

CONCLUSION

As ongoing crises continue with significant public health implications, KE processes should appropriately reflect the complexity inherent in crises and foreground health inequalities. Doing so could include the utilisation of systems or complexity-informed methods to support planning and evaluation of KE, a greater focus on KE to support action to address social determinants of health, and the inclusion of a plurality of knowledge-including lived experience-in planning and responding to crises.

An ethical analysis of policy dialogues

BACKGROUND

A policy dialogue is a tool which promotes evidence-informed policy-making. It involves deliberation about a high-priority issue, informed by a synthesis of the best-available evidence, where potential policy interventions are discussed by stakeholders. We offer an ethical analysis of policy dialogues - an argument about how policy dialogues ought to be conceived and executed - to guide those organizing and participating in policy dialogues. Our analysis focuses on the deliberative dialogues themselves, rather than ethical issues in the broader policy context within which they are situated.

METHODS

We conduct a philosophical conceptual analysis of policy dialogues, informed by a formal and an interpretative literature review.

RESULTS

We identify the objectives of policy dialogues, and consider the procedural and substantive values that should govern them. As knowledge translation tools, the chief objective of policy dialogues is to ensure that prospective evidence-informed health policies are appropriate for and likely to support evidence-informed decision-making in a particular context. We identify five core characteristics which serve this objective: policy dialogues are (i) focused on a high-priority issue, (ii) evidence-informed, (iii) deliberative, (iv) participatory and (v) action-oriented. In contrast to dominant ethical frameworks for policy-making, we argue that transparency and accountability are not central procedural values for policy dialogues, as they are liable to inhibit the open deliberation that is necessary for successful policy dialogues. Instead, policy dialogues are legitimate insofar as they pursue the objectives and embody the core characteristics identified above. Finally, we argue that good policy dialogues need to actively consider a range of substantive values other than health benefit and equity.

CONCLUSIONS

Policy dialogues should recognize the limits of effectiveness as a guiding value for policy-making, and operate with an expansive conception of successful outcomes. We offer a set of questions to support those organizing and participating in policy dialogues.

A scoping review of researchers' involvement in health policy dialogue in Africa

BACKGROUND

Improving evidence-informed policy dialogue to support the development and implementation of national health policies is vital, but there is limited evidence on researchers' roles in policy dialogue processes in Africa. The objective of this study is to examine researchers' involvement in health policy dialogue in Africa.

METHODS

The database search of this scoping review was conducted from inception to January 24, 2021, by an expert searcher/librarian to determine the extent of evidence, barriers, and facilitators of researchers' involvement in health policy dialogues in Africa. PROSPERO, Wiley Cochrane Library, OVID Medline, OVID EMBASE, OVID PsycINFO, OVID Global Health, EBSCO CINAHL, BASE (Bielefeld Academic Search Engine), and Google/Google Scholar were searched using key words representing the concepts "policy dialogue", "health", and "Africa". No limits were applied. A narrative summary of results was presented.

RESULTS

There were 26 eligible studies representing 21 African countries. Significant discrepancies in researchers' involvement existed across countries. In 62% of the countries, there was suboptimal involvement of researchers in policy dialogues due to no or partial participation in policy dialogues. Major barriers included limited funding, lack of evidence in the public health field of interest, and skepticism of policymakers. The presence of an interface for exchange, demand for scientific evidence, and donors' funding were the most reported facilitators.

CONCLUSIONS

To improve the uptake of evidence in health policy-making processes, an environment of trust and communication between policymakers and researchers must be established. Policymakers need to demonstrate that they value research, by providing adequate funding, promoting knowledge translation activities, and supporting personal and professional development opportunities for researchers.

The 2013-2016 Ebola epidemic: evaluating communication strategies between two affected countries in West Africa

BACKGROUND

Ebola is a haemorrhagic disease with high fatality rates between 25 and 90%. The 2013-16 Ebola outbreak in West Africa was the largest to date with >28 000 cases and >11 000 fatalities. This outbreak exposed inadequacies in public health agencies and has spurred health officials to re-evaluate the way Ebola virus disease (EVD) epidemics are co-ordinated and communicated.

METHODS

This project compares, using the systematic review method, differences in the communication of EVD in Nigeria and Liberia with data from selected articles analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The most successful communication strategies were community engagement and targeted health-communication to the most at-risk groups. We also highlight the importance of a multi-modal strategy to effectively communicate prevention and management of EVD to affected communities. Secondary to these findings included the relevance of the media, particularly social media tools in managing such serious outbreak situations.

CONCLUSION

This study provides the basis for the development of a theory-based framework to effectively communicate EVD and reduce the negative outcomes observed during the 2013-16 EVD outbreak.

Policy dialogue as a collaborative tool for multistakeholder health governance: a scoping study

Introduction

Health system governance is the cornerstone of performant, equitable and sustainable health systems aiming towards universal health coverage. Global health actors have increasingly been using policy dialogue (PD) as a governance tool to engage with both state and non-state stakeholders. Despite attempts to frame PD practices, it remains a catch-all term for both health systems professionals and researchers.

Method

We conducted a scoping study on PD. We identified 25 articles published in English between 1985 and 2017 and 10 grey literature publications. The analysis was guided by the following questions: (1) How do the authors define PD? (2) What do we learn about PD practices and implementation factors? (3) What are the specificities of PD in low-income and middle-income countries?

Results

The analysis highlighted three definitions of policy dialogue: a knowledge exchange and translation platform, a mode of governance and an instrument for negotiating international development aid. Success factors include the participants’ continued and sustained engagement throughout all the relevant stages, their ability to make a constructive contribution to the discussions while being truly representative of their organisation and their high interest and stake in the subject. Prerequisites to ensuring that participants remained engaged were a clear process, a shared understanding of the goals at all levels of the PD and a PD approach consistent with the PD objective. In the context of development aid, the main challenges lie in the balance of power between stakeholders, the organisational or technical capacity of recipient country stakeholders to drive or contribute effectively to the PD processes and the increasingly technocratic nature of PD.

Conclusion

PD requires a high level of collaborative governance expertise and needs constant, although not necessarily high, financial support. These conditions are crucial to make it a real driver of health system reform in countries’ paths towards universal health coverage.

Lessons Learned from Strategies for Promotion of Evidence-to-Policy Process in Health Interventions in the ECOWAS Region: A Rapid Review

Context:

The West African Health Organization (WAHO) is vigorously supporting evidence-informed policymaking (EIPM) in the countries of West Africa. EIPM is increasingly recognized as one of the key strategies that can contribute to health systems strengthening and the improvement of health outcomes. The purpose of this rapid review is to examine two key examples of evidence-based strategies used to successfully implement health interventions in each of the West African countries and to highlight the lessons learned.

Methods:

A rapid review technique, defined as a type of knowledge synthesis in which systematic review processes are accelerated and methods are streamlined to complete the review more quickly, was used. A PubMed search was conducted using the combination of the following keywords: Health, policy making, evidence, plus name of each of the 15 countries to identify studies that described the process of use of evidence in policymaking in health interventions. Two examples of the publications that fulfilled the study inclusion criteria were selected.

Results:

Among the key processes used by the countries to promote EIPM in health interventions include policy cycle mechanism and political prioritization, rapid response services, technical advisory group and steering committees (SCs), policy dialog, capacity-strengthening mechanisms, local context evidence and operational guidelines, multisectoral action and consultative process.

Conclusion:

Various degrees of success have been achieved in by West African countries in the promotion of EIPM. As the science of EIPM continues to evolve and better understanding of the process is gained among policymakers, more studies on effective strategies to improve the evidence-to-policy process are advocated.

Policy dialogue and participation: a new way of crafting a national health financing strategy in Morocco

BACKGROUND

Policy dialogue for health policies has started to gain importance in recent years, especially for complex issues such as health financing. Moroccan health financing has faced several challenges during the last years. This study aims to document the Moroccan experience in developing a consolidated health financing strategy according to the policy dialogue approach. It especially considers the importance of conceptualising this process in the Moroccan context.

METHOD

We documented the process of developing a health financing strategy in Morocco. It concerned four steps, as follows: (1) summarising health financing evidence in preparation of the policy dialogue; (2) organising the health policy dialogue process with 250 participants (government, private sector, NGOs, civil society, parliamentarians, technical and financial partners); (3) a technical workshop to formulate the strategy actions; and (4) an ultimate workshop for validation with decision-makers. The process lasted 1 year from March 2019 to February 2020. We have reviewed all documents related to the four steps of the process through our active participation in the policy debate and the documentation of two technical workshops to produce the strategy document.

RESULTS

The policy dialogue approach showed its usefulness in creating convergence among all health actors to define a national shared vision on health financing in Morocco. There was a high political commitment in the process and all actors officially adopted recommendations on health financing actions. A strategy document produced within a collaborative approach was the final output. This experience also marked a shift from previous top-down approaches in designing health policies for more participation and inclusion. The evidence synthesis played a crucial role in facilitating the debate. The collaborative approach seems to work in favouring national consensus on practical health financing actions.

CONCLUSION

The policy dialogue process adopted for health financing in Morocco helped to create collective ownership of health financing actions. Despite the positive results in terms of national mobilisation around the health financing vision in Morocco, there is a need to institutionalise the policy dialogue with a more decentralised approach to consider subnational specificities.

Realist evaluation of the role of the Universal Health Coverage Partnership in strengthening policy dialogue for health planning and financing: a protocol

INTRODUCTION

In 2011, WHO, the European Union and Luxembourg entered into a collaborative agreement to support policy dialogue for health planning and financing; these were acknowledged as core areas in need of targeted support in countries' quest towards universal health coverage (UHC). Entitled 'Universal Health Coverage Partnership', this intervention is intended to strengthen countries' capacity to develop, negotiate, implement, monitor and evaluate robust and integrated national health policies oriented towards UHC. It is a complex intervention involving a multitude of actors working on a significant number of remarkably diverse activities in different countries.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The researchers will conduct a realist evaluation to answer the following question: How, in what contexts, and triggering what mechanisms, does the Partnership support policy dialogue for health planning and financing towards UHC? A qualitative multiple case study will be undertaken in Togo, Liberia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Cape Verde, Burkina Faso and Niger. Three steps will be implemented: (1) formulating context-mechanism-outcome explanatory propositions to guide data collection, based on expert knowledge and theoretical literature; (2) collecting empirical data through semistructured interviews with key informants and observations of key events, and analysing data; (3) specifying the intervention theory.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The primary target audiences are WHO and its partner countries; international and national stakeholders involved in or supporting policy dialogues in the health sector, especially in low-income countries; and researchers with interest in UHC, policy dialogue, evaluation research and/or realist evaluation.

Workshop for priority-setting in Aedes aegypti control interventions in Latin America and the Caribbean: a policy dialogue

This article presents the results of a dialogue between decision-makers and experts in Latin America and the Caribbean on priority-setting for interventions and studies on Aedes aegypti control. The article is part of a project that included a systematic review of mosquito control strategies and a qualitative study with key informants from the region. Using a collective deliberative process assisted by the results of the above-mentioned projects, a list of priorities was developed by consensus for the implementation of vector control strategies and the development of key regional research lines. It was agreed that the best strategy is integrated vector management, divided into: (a) chemical control; (b) biological control; (c) environmental management; (d) community participation; and (e) integrated surveillance. The workshop highlighted the crucial role of government leadership and inter-sector coordination between government agencies and civil society stakeholders. The proposed priorities for research lines were: Ae. aegypti vector competence and associated factors; community components of interventions; incorporation of technology into vector control and monitoring; most efficient modalities of integrated surveillance; entomological indicators with the best predictive capacity; and resistance to insecticides. The policy dialogue methodology allowed validating and enriching the results of other levels of research, besides establishing priorities for regional research and control strategies.

A deliberative dialogue as a knowledge translation strategy on road traffic injuries in Burkina Faso: a mixed-method evaluation

Introduction

Deliberative dialogues are increasingly being used, particularly on the African continent. They are a promising interactive knowledge translation strategy that brings together and leverages the knowledge of diverse stakeholders important to the resolution of a societal issue. Following a research project carried out in Burkina Faso on road traffic injuries, a 1-day workshop in the form of a deliberative dialogue was organised in November 2015. The workshop brought together actors involved in road safety, such as researchers, police and fire brigades, health professionals, non-governmental and civil society organisations, and representatives of government structures. The objective was to present the research results, propose recommendations to improve the situation and develop a collective action plan.

Method

To better understand the workshop’s utility and effects, a mixed-method evaluation was conducted. Data were obtained from two questionnaires distributed at the end of the workshop (n = 37) and 14 qualitative interviews with participants 6–10 weeks after the workshop. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the quantitative data, and a thematic analysis was conducted for the qualitative data.

Results

The data revealed several positive impacts of the workshop, such as the acquisition of new knowledge about road safety, the opportunity for participants to learn from each other, the creation of post-workshop collaborations, and individual behaviour changes. However, several challenges were encountered that constrained the potential effects of the workshop, including the limited presence of political actors, the lack of engagement among participants to develop an action plan, and the difficulty in setting up a monitoring committee following the workshop.

Conclusion

While the deliberative workshop is not the standard format for reporting research results in Burkina Faso, this model should be reproduced in different contexts. This interactive knowledge translation strategy is useful to benefit from the experiential knowledge of the various actors and to encourage their involvement in formulating recommendations.

Rebuilding transformation strategies in post-Ebola epidemics in Africa

Rebuilding transformation strategies in post-Ebola epidemics in West Africa requires long-term surveillance and strengthening health system preparedness to disease outbreak. This paper assesses reconstruction efforts from socio-cultural, economic and ecological transformation response approaches and strategies in improving sustainable survivors and affected communities livelihood and wellbeing. A comprehensive approach is required in the recovery and rebuilding processes. Investing in rebuilding transformation requires fostering evidence-based and effective engaging new investors partnership strengthening, financing community-based programmes ownership, novel socio-economic innovations strategies and tools against the evolving and future Ebola epidemics. Thus, there should be improved community partnership, health and economic rebuilding programmes to address mistrust and care underutilization, poverty and care access inequity at all levels. Implementing effective post-Ebola national 'One Health' approach coupled with climate change mitigation and adaptations strategies is urgent public health needs aiming at improving the quality healthcare access, delivery trust and uptake in anticipation of EVD immunization program, productivity and emerging economy.

Harmonisation and standardisation of health sector and programme reviews and evaluations - how can they better inform health policy dialogue?

BACKGROUND

Health sector and programme performance assessments provide a rich source of contextual data directly linked to implementation of programmes and can inform health policy dialogue, planning and resource allocation. In seeking to maximise this opportunity, there are challenges to overcome. A meeting convened by the World Health Organization African Region discussed the strengths, weaknesses and challenges to harmonising and standardising health sector and programme performance assessments, as well as use of evidence from such processes in decision making. This article synthesises the deliberations which emerged from the meeting. Discussing these in light of other literature we propose practical options to standardising health sector and programme performance assessment and improve realisation of using evidence in decision making.

DISCUSSION

Use of evidence generated from health sector and programme performance assessments into regular country processes of sectoral monitoring, dialogue and policy modification is crucial. However, this process faces several challenges. Identified challenges were categorised under several themes, namely the weak institutional capacities for monitoring and evaluation in reference to weak health information systems, a lack of tools and skills, and weak accountability mechanisms; desynchronised planning timeframes between programme and overall health sector strategies; inadequate time to undertake comprehensive and good quality performance assessment; weak mechanisms for following up on implementation of recommendations; lack of effective stakeholder participation; and divergent political aspirations.

CONCLUSION

The question of what performance assessment is for in a country must be asked and answered clearly if the utility of these processes is to be realised. Standardising programme and sector reviews offers numerable opportunities that need to be maximised. Identified challenges need to be overcome through strengthened Ministry of Health leadership, effective stakeholder engagement and institutionalising follow-up mechanisms for agreed recommendations. In addition, health sector performance assessments need to be institutionalised as part of the accountability mechanism, and they must be planned for and funding secured within annual budget and medium term expenditure frameworks.

Harmonisation and standardisation of health sector and programme reviews and evaluations - how can they better inform health policy dialogue?

BACKGROUND

Health sector and programme performance assessments provide a rich source of contextual data directly linked to implementation of programmes and can inform health policy dialogue, planning and resource allocation. In seeking to maximise this opportunity, there are challenges to overcome. A meeting convened by the World Health Organization African Region discussed the strengths, weaknesses and challenges to harmonising and standardising health sector and programme performance assessments, as well as use of evidence from such processes in decision making. This article synthesises the deliberations which emerged from the meeting. Discussing these in light of other literature we propose practical options to standardising health sector and programme performance assessment and improve realisation of using evidence in decision making.

DISCUSSION

Use of evidence generated from health sector and programme performance assessments into regular country processes of sectoral monitoring, dialogue and policy modification is crucial. However, this process faces several challenges. Identified challenges were categorised under several themes, namely the weak institutional capacities for monitoring and evaluation in reference to weak health information systems, a lack of tools and skills, and weak accountability mechanisms; desynchronised planning timeframes between programme and overall health sector strategies; inadequate time to undertake comprehensive and good quality performance assessment; weak mechanisms for following up on implementation of recommendations; lack of effective stakeholder participation; and divergent political aspirations.

CONCLUSION

The question of what performance assessment is for in a country must be asked and answered clearly if the utility of these processes is to be realised. Standardising programme and sector reviews offers numerable opportunities that need to be maximised. Identified challenges need to be overcome through strengthened Ministry of Health leadership, effective stakeholder engagement and institutionalising follow-up mechanisms for agreed recommendations. In addition, health sector performance assessments need to be institutionalised as part of the accountability mechanism, and they must be planned for and funding secured within annual budget and medium term expenditure frameworks.