Policy dialogue to improve health outcomes in low income countries: what are the issues and way forward?

Challenges for research uptake for health policymaking and practice in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

An estimated 85% of research resources are wasted worldwide, while there is growing demand for context-based evidence-informed health policymaking. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), research uptake for health policymaking and practice is even lower, while little is known about the barriers to the translation of health evidence to policy and local implementation. We aimed to compile the current evidence on barriers to uptake of research in health policy and practice in LMICs using scoping review.

METHODS

The scoping review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses-extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Both published evidence and grey literature on research uptake were systematically searched from major databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL (EBSCO), Global Health (Ovid)) and direct Google Scholar. Literature exploring barriers to uptake of research evidence in health policy and practice in LMICs were included and their key findings were synthesized using thematic areas to address the review question.

RESULTS

A total of 4291 publications were retrieved in the initial search, of which 142 were included meeting the eligibility criteria. Overall, research uptake for policymaking and practice in LMICs was very low. The challenges to research uptake were related to lack of understanding of the local contexts, low political priority, poor stakeholder engagement and partnership, resource and capacity constraints, low system response for accountability and lack of communication and dissemination platforms.

CONCLUSION

Important barriers to research uptake, mainly limited contextual understanding and low participation of key stakeholders and ownership, have been identified. Understanding the local research and policy context and participatory evidence production and dissemination may promote research uptake for policy and practice. Institutions that bridge the chasm between knowledge formation, evidence synthesis and translation may play critical role in the translation process.

[Health policy dialogue to strengthen nursing in UruguayDiálogo político-sanitário para o fortalecimento da enfermagem no Uruguai]

This article presents the experience of the health policy dialogue on nursing held in Uruguay in 2021, based on the theory of change. Four working groups were held, with the participation of 725 people. The points discussed included: the shortage of registered nurses to implement programs and cover functions at all levels of health care; the poor visibility of the healthcare impact of the activities carried out; insufficient financial resources for undergraduate and postgraduate training; and poor integration of nurses in management teams and policy decision-making spaces in the country. Participants expressed the need to implement the national nursing development plan so that the country can: reduce the shortage of professionals; invest in job creation to meet the demand for professional care; improve staffing of services at all levels of care; improve working conditions; create new spaces for nurses by expanding their role through postgraduate training, while continuously improving the quality of training. Participants emphasized the need to increase intersectoral coordination in the areas of governance, regulation, and management, and to step up efforts to increase investment in health professionals in Uruguay.

Developing technical support and strategic dialogue at the country level to achieve Primary Health Care-based health systems beyond the COVID-19 era

This article is part of the Research Topic 'Health Systems Recovery in the Context of COVID-19 and Protracted Conflict'. Pursuing the objectives of the Declaration of Alma-Ata for Primary Health Care (PHC), the World Health Organization (WHO) and global health partners are supporting national authorities to improve governance to build resilient and integrated health systems, including recovery from public health stressors, through the long-term deployment of WHO country senior health policy advisers under the Universal Health Coverage Partnership (UHC Partnership). For over a decade, the UHC Partnership has progressively reinforced, via a flexible and bottom-up approach, the WHO's strategic and technical leadership on Universal Health Coverage, with more than 130 health policy advisers deployed in WHO Country and Regional Offices. This workforce has been described as a crucial asset by WHO Regional and Country Offices in the integration of health systems to enhance their resilience, enabling the WHO offices to strengthen their support of PHC and Universal Health Coverage to Ministries of Health and other national authorities as well as global health partners. Health policy advisers aim to build the technical capacities of national authorities, in order to lead health policy cycles and generate political commitment, evidence, and dialogue for policy-making processes, while creating synergies and harmonization between stakeholders. The policy dialogue at the country level has been instrumental in ensuring a whole-of-society and whole-of-government approach, beyond the health sector, through community engagement and multisectoral actions. Relying on the lessons learned during the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak in West Africa and in fragile, conflict-affected, and vulnerable settings, health policy advisers played a key role during the COVID-19 pandemic to support countries in health systems response and early recovery. They brought together technical resources to contribute to the COVID-19 response and to ensure the continuity of essential health services, through a PHC approach in health emergencies. This policy and practice review, including from the following country experiences: Colombia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Lao PDR, South Sudan, Timor-Leste, and Ukraine, provides operational and inner perspectives on strategic and technical leadership provided by WHO to assist Member States in strengthening PHC and essential public health functions for resilient health systems. It aims to demonstrate and advise lessons and good practices for other countries in strengthening their health systems.

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.

Multisectoral action for health in low-income and middle-income settings: how can insights from social science theories inform intragovernmental coordination efforts?

There is consensus in global health on the need for multisectoral action (MSA) to address many contemporary development challenges, but there is limited action. Examples of issues that require coordinated MSA include the determinants of health conditions such as nutrition (malnutrition and obesity) and chronic non-communicable diseases. Nutrition, tobacco control and such public health issues are regulated separately by health, trade and treasury ministries. Those issues need to be coordinated around the same ends to avoid conflicting policies. Despite the need for MSA, why do we see little progress? We investigate the obstacles to and opportunities for MSA by providing a government perspective. This paper draws on four theoretical perspectives, namely (1) the political economy perspective, (2) principal–agent theory, (3) resource dependence theory and (4) transaction cost economics theory. The theoretical framework provides complementary propositions to understand, anticipate and prepare for the emergence and structuring of coordination arrangements between government organisations at the same or different hierarchical levels. The research on MSA for health in low/middle-income countries needs to be interested in a multitheory approach that considers several theoretical perspectives and the contextual factors underlying coordination practices.

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.

How actors, processes, context and evidence influenced the development of Malawi's Health Sector Strategic Plan II

Health sector strategic plans are health policies outlining health service delivery in low- and middle- income countries, guiding health sectors to meet health needs while maximizing resources. However, little research has explored the formulation of these plans. This study utilized qualitative methods to explore the formulation of Malawi's Health Sector Strategic Plan II, including processes utilized, actors involved, important contextual factors and the use of evidence-based decision-making. Thirteen semi-structured key informant interviews with health policy actors were conducted to explore perceptions and experiences of formulating the policy. Data analysis used an inductive-deductive approach and interpretation of the data was guided by an adapted version of the Walt and Gilson Health Policy Triangle. Our results indicate that HSSP II formulation was complex and inclusive but that the Ministry of Health may have given up ownership of the formulation process to development partners to ensure their continued involvement. Disagreements between actors centered around inclusion of critical services in the Essential Health Package and selection of performance-based financing as purchasing strategy. Resource constraints and the Cashgate Scandal are critical contextual elements influencing the formulation and content of the policy. Evidence-based decision-making contributed to the plan's development despite respondents' divergent opinions regarding evidence availability, quality and the weight that evidence carried. The study raises questions regarding the roles of policy actors during health policy formulation, the inclusivity of health policy processes and their potential influence on government ownership of health policy, as well as the use of evidence in developing health sector strategic plans.

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.

Shaping Policy on Chronic Diseases through National Policy Dialogs in CHRODIS PLUS

Policy dialogs are deliberative dialogue that gather policy makers and relevant stakeholders from across disciplines to discuss a topic of mutual interest. They typically serve as a single element in a broader policymaking cycle, either informing the content of new policy or forming a component of policy evaluation and review. In the joint action CHRODIS PLUS, national policy dialogs were conducted in fourteen EU Member States. The aim of the dialogs was to identify new policies or changes to existing policies and legislation that are capable of tackling major risk factors for chronic disease, to strengthen health promotion and prevention programs and to ensure health systems are equipped to respond to priority issues within the chronic diseases field. In this paper, we present the CHRODIS PLUS policy dialog methodology, as well as results and lessons learnt from three national policy dialogs held in Ireland, Portugal and Spain. After discussion of the results, we conclude that the CHRODIS PLUS methodology is an effective mechanism to provoke deliberative discussion around chronic disease prevention and management in different countries. However, it is essential to ensure adequate human and financial resources—as well as political commitment—to accomplish objectives set out during the policy dialogs. We argue that priority-setting across sectors can improve the resilience of health systems and opportunities for investment in Health in All Policies (HiAP), both at European Union and Member State levels.

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.

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.

Facilitators and strategies to implement clinical pharmacy services in a metropolis in Northeast Brazil: a qualitative approach

Background

Clinical Pharmacy Services (CPS) are a reality in many health systems around the world. However, there are few studies that discuss the facilitators and the strategies to implement CPS in healthcare systems. In this way, the objective of this study was to identify the facilitators and strategies involved in the CPS implementation process in some public health units in a metropolis in the Northeast Brazil.

Methods

A qualitative study was carried out with health-system pharmacists and managers who experienced the implementation of CPS. Therefore, focus groups were conducted with pharmacists, and the interviews with the managers. The discussions were carried out through semi-structured scripts and were recorded in audio and videos, after the signature of the consent form. The recordings were transcribed and analyzed independently through content analysis, followed by consensus meetings between researchers.

Results

Two focus groups were conducted, with an average of seven pharmacists per group, and five interviews with local health managers. Participants reported 39 facilitators who were related to the categories: local healthcare network, healthcare team, pharmacists and implementation process of the CPS. And 21 strategies attributed to the following categories: local healthcare network, pharmacists and implementation process of the CPS.

Conclusions

This study identified facilitators and strategies of the implementation of CPS. Most of the positive experiences were related to the clinical skills and proactive attitudes of pharmacists. These findings may support pharmacists and health managers to implement CPS in health systems.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3403-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

What we have learnt (so far) about deliberative dialogue for evidence-based policymaking in West Africa

Policy decisions do not always take into account research results, and there is still little research being conducted on interventions that promote their use, particularly in Africa. To promote the use of research evidence in Africa, deliberative dialogue workshops are increasingly recommended as a means to establish evidence-informed dialogue among multiple stakeholders engaged in policy decision-making. In this paper, we reflect on our experiences of conducting national workshops in six African countries, and we propose operational recommendations for those wishing to organise deliberative dialogue. Our reflective and cross-sectional analysis of six national deliberative dialogue workshops in which we participated shows there are many specific challenges that should be taken into account when organising such encounters. In conclusion, we offer operational recommendations, drawn from our experience, to guide the preparation and conduct of deliberative workshops.

Coordination of the health policy dialogue process in Guinea: pre- and post-Ebola

Background

Policy dialogue can be defined as an iterative process that involves a broad range of stakeholders discussing a particular issue with a concrete purpose in mind. Policy dialogue in health is increasingly being recognised by health stakeholders in developing countries, as an important process or mechanism for improving collaboration and harmonization in health and for developing comprehensive and evidence-based health sector strategies and plans. It is with this perspective in mind that Guinea, in 2013, started a policy dialogue process, engaging a plethora of actors to revise the country’s national health policy and develop a new national health development plan (2015–2024). This study examines the coordination of the policy dialogue process in developing these key strategic governance documents of the Guinean health sector from the actors’ perspective.

Methods

A qualitative case study approach was undertaken, comprising of interviews with key stakeholders who participated in the policy dialogue process. A review of the literature informed the development of a conceptual framework and the data collection survey questionnaire. The results were analysed both inductively and deductively.

Results

A total of 22 out of 32 individuals were interviewed. The results suggest both areas of strengths and weaknesses in the coordination of the policy dialogue process in Guinea. The aspects of good coordination observed were the iterative nature of the dialogue and the availability of neutral and well-experienced facilitators. Weak coordination was perceived through the unavailability of supporting documentation, time and financial constraints experienced during the dialogue process. The onset of the Ebola epidemic in Guinea impacted on coordination dynamics by causing a slowdown of its activities and then its virtual halt.

Conclusions

The findings herein highlight the need for policy dialogue coordination structures to have the necessary administrative and institutional support to facilitate their effective functioning. The findings also point to the need for further research on the practical and operational aspects of national dialogue coordination structures to determine how to best strengthen their capacities.

Perspectives on health policy dialogue: definition, perceived importance and coordination

BACKGROUND

Countries in the World Health Organization African Region have witnessed an increase in global health initiatives in the recent past. Although these have provided opportunities for expanding coverage of health interventions; their poor alignment with the countries' priorities and weak coordination, are among the challenges that have affected their impact. A well-coordinated health policy dialogue provides an opportunity to address these challenges, but calls for common understanding among stakeholders of what policy dialogue entails. This paper seeks to assess stakeholders' understanding and perceived importance of health policy dialogue and of policy dialogue coordination.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional descriptive study using qualitative methods. Interviews were conducted with 90 key informants from the national and sub-national levels in Lusophone Cabo Verde, Francophone Chad, Guinea and Togo, and Anglophone Liberia using an open-ended interview guide. The interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded and then put through inductive thematic content analysis using QRS software Version 10.

RESULTS

There were variations in the definition of policy dialogue that were not necessarily linked to the linguistic leaning of respondents' countries or whether the dialogue took place at the national or sub-national level. The definitions were grouped into five categories based on whether they had an outcome, operational, process, forum or platform, or interactive and evidence-sharing orientation. The stakeholders highlighted multiple benefits of policy dialogue including ensuring stakeholder participation, improving stakeholder harmonisation and alignment, supporting implementation of health policies, fostering continued institutional learning, providing a guiding framework and facilitating stakeholder analysis.

CONCLUSION

Policy dialogue offers the opportunity to improve stakeholder participation in policy development and promote aid effectiveness. However, conceptual clarity is needed to ensure pursuance of common objectives. While it is clear that stakeholder involvement is an important component of policy dialogue, numbers must be manageable for meaningful dialogue. Ownership and coordination of the policy dialogue are important aspects of the process, and building the institutional capacity of the ministry of health requires a comprehensive approach as opposed to strengthening selected departments within it. Likewise, capacity for policy dialogue needs to be built at the sub-national level, alongside improving the bottom-up approach in policy processes.