Summaryobjective To analyse the outcomes of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in routine conditions in a rural hospital in the Far-North province of Cameroon. conclusion This study confirms the clinical benefit of ART programs in a remote and resourceconstrained setting operating in routine conditions. The challenge ahead is to secure earlier access to ART and to maintain its longer-term benefit.

Communities of Practice (CoPs) are groups of people that interact regularly to deepen their knowledge on a specific topic. Thanks to information and communication technologies, CoPs can involve experts distributed across countries and adopt a ‘transnational’ membership. This has allowed the strategy to be applied to domains of knowledge such as health policy with a global perspective. CoPs represent a potentially valuable tool for producing and sharing explicit knowledge, as well as tacit knowledge and implementation practices. They may also be effective in creating links among the different ‘knowledge holders’ contributing to health policy (e.g., researchers, policymakers, technical assistants, practitioners, etc.).CoPs in global health are growing in number and activities. As a result, there is an increasing need to document their progress and evaluate their effectiveness. This paper represents a first step towards such empirical research as it aims to provide a conceptual framework for the analysis and assessment of transnational CoPs in health policy.The framework is developed based on the findings of a literature review as well as on our experience, and reflects the specific features and challenges of transnational CoPs in health policy. It organizes the key elements of CoPs into a logical flow that links available resources and the capacity to mobilize them, with knowledge management activities and the expansion of knowledge, with changes in policy and practice and, ultimately, with an improvement in health outcomes. Additionally, the paper addresses the challenges in the operationalization and empirical application of the framework.

BackgroundGlobal health conceives the notion of partnership between North and South as central to the foundations of this academic field. Indeed, global health aspires to an equal positioning of Northern and Southern actors. While the notion of partnership may be used to position the field of global health morally, this politicization may mask persisting inequalities in global health. In this paper, we reflect on global health partnerships by revisiting the origins of global health and deconstructing the notion of partnership. We also review promising initiatives that may help to rebalance the relationship.Results and DiscussionHistorical accounts are helpful in unpacking the genesis of collaborative research between Northerners and Southerners – particularly those coming from the African continent. In the 1980s, the creation of a scientific hub of working relationships based on material differences created a context that was bound to create tensions between the alleged “partners”. Today, partnerships provide assistance to underfunded African research institutions, but this assistance is often tied with hypotheses about program priorities that Northern funders require from their Southern collaborators. African researchers are often unable to lead or contribute substantially to publications for lack of scientific writing skills, for instance. Conversely, academics from African countries report frustrations at not being consulted when the main conceptual issues of a research project are discussed. However, in the name of political correctness, these frustrations are not spoken aloud. Fortunately, initiatives that shift paternalistic programs to formally incorporate a mutually beneficial design at their inception with equal input from all stakeholders are becoming increasingly prominent, especially initiatives involving young researchers.ConclusionSeveral concrete steps can be undertaken to rethink partnerships. This goes hand in hand with reconceptualizing global health as an academic discipline, mainly through being explicit about past and present inequalities between Northern and Southern universities that this discipline has thus far eluded. Authentic and transformative partnerships are vital to overcome the one-sided nature of many partnerships that can provide a breeding-ground for inequality.

BackgroundMore than 30 countries in sub-Saharan Africa have introduced performance-based financing (PBF) in their healthcare systems. Yet, there has been little research on the process by which PBF was put on the national policy agenda in Africa. This study examines the policy process behind the introduction of PBF program in Cameroon.MethodsThe research is an explanatory case study using the Kingdon multiple streams framework. We conducted a document review and 25 interviews with various types of actors involved in the policy process. We conducted thematic analysis using a hybrid deductive-inductive approach for data analysis.ResultsBy 2004, several reports and events had provided evidence on the state of the poor health outcomes and health financing in the country, thereby raising awareness of the situation. As a result, decision-makers identified the lack of a suitable health financing policy as an important issue that needed to be addressed. The change in the political discourse toward more accountability made room to test new mechanisms. A group of policy entrepreneurs from the World Bank, through numerous forms of influence (financial, ideational, network and knowledge-based) and building on several ongoing reforms, collaborated with senior government officials to place the PBF program on the agenda. The policy changes occurred as the result of two open policy windows (i.e. national and international), and in both instances, policy entrepreneurs were able to couple the policy streams to effect change.ConclusionThe policy agenda of PBF in Cameroon underlined the importance of a perceived crisis in the policy reform process and the advantage of building a team to carry forward the policy process. It also highlighted the role of other sources of information alongside scientific evidence (eg.: workshop and study tour), as well as the role of previous policies and experiences, in shaping or influencing respectively the way issues are framed and reformers’ actions and choices.