Identifying advocacy strategies, challenges and opportunities for increasing domestic health policy and health systems research funding in Nigeria: Perspectives of researchers and policymakers

Analysis of funding landscape for health policy and systems research in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: A scoping review of the literature over the past decade

BACKGROUND

Health policy and systems research (HPSR) can strengthen health systems and improve population health outcomes. In the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR), there is limited recognition of the importance of HPSR and funding remains the main challenge. This study seeks to: (1) assess the reporting of funding in HPSR papers published between 2010 and 2022 in the EMR, (2) examine the source of funding in the published HPSR papers in the EMR and (3) explore variables influencing funding sources, including any difference in funding sources for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related articles.

METHODS

We conducted a rapid scoping review of HPSR papers published between 2010 and 2022 (inclusively) in the EMR, addressing the following areas: reporting of funding in HPSR papers, source of funding in the published HPSR papers, authors' affiliations and country of focus. We followed the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines for conducting scoping reviews. We also conducted univariate and bivariate analyses for all variables at 0.05 significance level.

RESULTS

Of 10,797 articles screened, 3408 were included (of which 9.3% were COVID-19-related). More than half of the included articles originated from three EMR countries: Iran (n = 1018, 29.9%), the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (n = 595, 17.5%) and Pakistan (n = 360, 10.6%). Approximately 30% of the included articles did not report any details on study funding. Among articles that reported funding (n = 1346, 39.5%), analysis of funding sources across all country income groups revealed that the most prominent source was national (55.4%), followed by international (41.7%) and lastly regional sources (3%). Among the national funding sources, universities accounted for 76.8%, while governments accounted for 14.9%. Further analysis of funding sources by country income group showed that, in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, all or the majority of funding came from international sources, while in high-income and upper-middle-income countries, national funding sources, mainly universities, were the primary sources of funding. The majority of funded articles' first authors were affiliated with academia/university, while a minority were affiliated with government, healthcare organizations or intergovernmental organizations. We identified the following characteristics to be significantly associated with the funding source: country income level, the focus of HPSR articles (within the EMR only, or extending beyond the EMR as part of international research consortia), and the first author's affiliation. Similar funding patterns were observed for COVID-19-related HPSR articles, with national funding sources (78.95%), mainly universities, comprising the main source of funding. In contrast, international funding sources decreased to 15.8%.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to address the reporting of funding and funding sources in published HPSR articles in the EMR. Approximately 30% of HPSR articles did not report on the funding source. Study findings revealed heavy reliance on universities and international funding sources with minimal role of national governments and regional entities in funding HPSR articles in the EMR. We provide implications for policy and practice to enhance the profile of HPSR in the region.

Politics-evidence conflict in national health policy making in Africa: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Generally, public health policy-making is hardly a linear process and is characterized by interactions among politicians, institutions, researchers, technocrats and practitioners from diverse fields, as well as brokers, interest groups, financiers and a gamut of other actors. Meanwhile, most public health policies and systems in Africa appear to be built loosely on technical and scientific evidence, but with high political systems and ideologies. While studies on national health policies in Africa are growing, there seems to be inadequate evidence mapping on common themes and concepts across existing literature.

PURPOSE

The study seeks to explore the extent and type of evidence that exist on the conflict between politics and scientific evidence in the national health policy-making processes in Africa.

METHODS

A thorough literature search was done in PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, Dimensions, Taylor and Francis, Chicago Journals, Emerald Insight, JSTOR and Google Scholar. In total, 43 peer-reviewed articles were eligible and used for this review.

RESULT

We found that the conflicts to evidence usage in policy-making include competing interests and lack of commitment; global policy goals, interest/influence, power imbalance and funding, morals; and evidence-based approaches, self-sufficiency, collaboration among actors, policy priorities and existing structures. Barriers to the health policy process include fragmentation among actors, poor advocacy, lack of clarity on the agenda, inadequate evidence, inadequate consultation and corruption. The impact of the politics-evidence conflict includes policy agenda abrogation, suboptimal policy development success and policy implementation inadequacies.

CONCLUSIONS

We report that political interests in most cases influence policy-makers and other stakeholders to prioritize financial gains over the use of research evidence to policy goals and targets. This situation has the tendency for inadequate health policies with poor implementation gaps. Addressing these issues requires incorporating relevant evidence into health policies, making strong leadership, effective governance and a commitment to public health.

The V-BRCH Project: Strengthening HIV Research Capacity in Nigeria through Intensive Workshops in Implementation Science and Grant Writing

As persons with HIV live longer as the result of antiretroviral therapy, morbidity from HIV-associated noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) is increasing. The Vanderbilt-Nigeria Building Research Capacity in HIV and Noncommunicable Diseases program is a training platform created with the goal of training a cohort of successful Nigerian investigators to become leaders in HIV-associated NCD research. We describe survey findings from two week-long workshops in Kano, Nigeria, where trainees received instruction in implementation science and grant writing. Surveys assessed participants' self-perceived knowledge and confidence in topics taught during these workshops. Thirty-seven participants (all assistant professors) attended the implementation science workshop; 30 attended the grant-writing workshop. Response rates for the implementation science workshop were 89.2% for the preworkshop survey and 91.9% for the postworkshop survey. For the grant-writing workshop, these values were 88.2% and 85.3%, respectively. Improvement in participant knowledge and confidence was observed in every domain measured for both workshops. On average, a 101.4% increase in knowledge and a 118.0% increase in confidence was observed across measured domains among participants in the implementation science workshop. For the grant-writing workshop, there was a 68.8% increase in knowledge and a 70.3% increase in confidence observed. Participants rated the workshops and instructors as effective for both workshops. These workshops improved participants' knowledge and competence in implementation science and grant writing, and provide a model for training programs that aim to provide physician scientists with the skills needed to compete for independent funding, conduct locally relevant research, and disseminate research findings.

Institutional roles, structures, funding and research partnerships towards evidence-informed policy-making: a multisector survey among policy-makers in Nigeria

BACKGROUND

Evidence-informed policy-making aims to ensure that the best and most relevant evidence is systematically generated and used for policy-making. The aim of this study was to assess institutional structures, funding, policy-maker perspectives on researcher-policy-maker interactions and the use of research evidence in policy-making in five states in Nigeria.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study carried out among 209 participants from two geopolitical zones in Nigeria. Study participants included programme officers/secretaries, managers/department/facility heads and state coordinators/directors/presidents/chairpersons in various ministries and the National Assembly. A pretested semi-structured self-administered questionnaire on a five-point Likert scale was used to collect information on institutional structures for policy and policy-making in participants' organizations, the use of research evidence in policy and policy-making processes, and the status of funding for policy-relevant research in the participants' organizations. Data were analysed using IBM SPSS version 20 software.

RESULTS

The majority of the respondents were older than 45 years (73.2%), were male (63.2) and had spent 5 years or less (74.6%) in their present position. The majority of the respondents' organizations had a policy in place on research involving all key stakeholders (63.6%), integration of stakeholders' views within the policy on research (58.9%) and a forum to coordinate the setting of research priorities (61.2%). A high mean score of 3.26 was found for the use of routine data generated from within the participants' organizations. Funding for policy-relevant research was captured in the budget (mean = 3.47) but was inadequate (mean = 2.53) and mostly donor-driven (mean = 3.64). Funding approval and release/access processes were also reported to be cumbersome, with mean scores of 3.74 and 3.89, respectively. The results showed that capacity existed among career policy-makers and the Department of Planning, Research and Statistics to advocate for internal funds (mean = 3.55) and to attract external funds such as grants (3.76) for policy-relevant research. Interaction as part of the priority-setting process (mean = 3.01) was the most highly rated form of policy-maker-researcher interaction, while long-term partnerships with researchers (mean = 2.61) had the lower mean score. The agreement that involving policy-makers in the planning and execution of programmes could enhance the evidence-to-policy process had the highest score (mean = 4.40).

CONCLUSION

The study revealed that although institutional structures such as institutional policies, fora and stakeholder engagement existed in the organizations studied, there was suboptimal use of evidence obtained from research initiated by both internal and external researchers. Organizations surveyed had budget lines for research, but this funding was depicted as inadequate. There was suboptimal actual participation of policy-makers in the co-creation, production and dissemination of evidence. The implementation of contextually relevant and sustained mutual institutional policy-maker-researcher engagement approaches is needed to promote evidence-informed policy-making. Thus there is a need for institutional prioritization and commitment to research evidence generation.

Engaging stakeholders to identify gaps and develop strategies to inform evidence use for health policymaking in Nigeria

Introduction

recent efforts to bridge the evidence-policy gap in low-and middle-income countries have seen growing interest from key audiences such as government, civil society, international organizations, private sector players, academia, and media. One of such engagement was a two-day virtual participant-driven conference (the convening) in Nigeria. The aim of the convening was to develop strategies for improving evidence use in health policy. The convening witnessed a participant blend of health policymakers, researchers, political policymakers, philanthropists, global health practitioners, program officers, students, and the media.

Methods

in this study, we analyzed conversations at the convening with the aim to disseminate findings to key stakeholders in Nigeria. The recordings from the convening were transcribed and analyzed inductively to identify emerging themes, which were interpreted, and inferences are drawn.

Results

a total of 630 people attended the convening. Participants joined from 13 countries. Participants identified poor collaboration between researchers and policymakers, poor community involvement in research and policy processes, poor funding for research, and inequalities as key factors inhibiting the use of evidence for policymaking in Nigeria. Strategies proposed to address these challenges include the use of participatory and embedded research methods, leveraging existing systems and networks, advocating for improved funding and ownership for research, and the use of context-sensitive knowledge translation strategies.

Conclusion

overall, better interaction among the various stakeholders will improve the evidence generation, translation, and use in Nigeria. A road map for the dissemination of findings from this conference has been developed for implementation across the strata of the health system.

Halting COVID-19 Requires Collective, Decentralized, and Community-Led Responses

Many global health organizations are reliant on the funding provided by a few dozen high-income countries, making them fiscally insecure and fragile, especially during times of global crises. The COVID-19 pandemic could be an opportunity to move away from this status quo to a more decentralized, multipolar, and community-led approach. The global health community can take four immediate steps in response to the pandemic to start that paradigm shift now: support more regional and country-specific responses, convince national and regional business houses and philanthropies to make up for response funding shortfalls, leverage public health advocacy to improve investments in public health infrastructure, and put community leaders and members at the frontlines of mitigation efforts.