Implementation of a health policy advisory committee as a knowledge translation platform: the Nigeria experience

Uneke, Chigozie Jesse; Ndukwe, Chinwendu Daniel; Ezeoha, Abel Abeh; Uro-Chukwu, Henry Chukwuemeka; Ezeonu, Chinonyelum Thecla

doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2015.21

Cited by 39 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A well-conducted health policy dialogue can facilitate consensus building through promoting stakeholders’ appreciation of one another’s perspectives and increasing participation of stakeholders, including marginalised voices, in the policy process [1]. Health policy dialogue can also facilitate priority setting through developing an understanding of the impact that policies and programmes can have on various groups, as well as serving as an avenue for getting evidence into policy and practice [16]. In addition, policy dialogue facilitates ownership of policies – since they are more responsive to the needs of the stakeholders – and coherence in implementation and monitoring of health plans [1].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Highlighted also are the factors that may be favourable to low income countries, among which are the recognition of KT as a systematic process that starts at the point of setting the research agenda, progresses through the generation of evidence and culminates in the application of the evidence; the ministry of health’s leadership of the KT process; partnerships for KT; and establishment of systematic and institutionalised platforms for engagement [48], a role that policy dialogue platforms may play. Uneke et al [16] document the use of a health policy advisory committee as a KT platform in Nigeria.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Nabyonga‐Orem

Dovlo

Kwamie

et al. 2016

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThis paper has three objectives: to review the health development landscape in the World Health Organization African Region, to discuss the role of health policy dialogue in improving harmonisation and alignment to national health policies and strategic plans, and to provide an analytical view of the critical factors in realising a good outcome from a health policy dialogue process.DiscussionStrengthening policy dialogue to support the development and implementation of robust and comprehensive national health policies and plans, as well as to improve aid effectiveness, is seen as a strategic entry point to improving health sector results. However, unbalanced power relations, the lack of contextualised and relevant evidence, the diverse interests of the actors involved, and the lack of conceptual clarity on what policy dialogue entails impact the outcomes of a policy dialogue process. The critical factors for a successful policy dialogue have been identified as adequate preparation; secured time and resources to facilitate an open, inclusive and informed discussion among the stakeholders; and stakeholders’ monitoring and assessment of the dialogue’s activities for continued learning. Peculiarities of low income countries pose a challenge to their policy dialogue processes, including the chaotic-policy making processes, the varied capacity of the actors and donor dependence.ConclusionPolicy dialogue needs to be appreciated as a complex and iterative process that spans the whole process of policy-making, implementation, review and monitoring, and subsequent policy revisions. The existence of the critical factors for a successful policy dialogue process needs to be ensured whilst paying special attention to the peculiarities of low income countries and potential power relations, and mitigating the possible negative consequences. There is need to be cognisant of the varied capacities and interests of stakeholders and the need for capacity building, and to put in place mechanisms to manage conflict of interest. The likelihood of a favourable outcome from a policy dialogue process will depend on the characteristics of the issue under consideration and whether it is contested or not, and the policy dialogue process needs to be tailored accordingly.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Nabyonga‐Orem

Dovlo

Kwamie

et al. 2016

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Users of evidence for policy and practice are rarely trained specifically to handle plain evidence presented passively (Connell & Klem, 2000). As envisaged when discussing barriers (above), it is clear that policy‐makers at all levels from elected representatives to civil servants, when asked, report that training in the use of evidence helps them to make sense of it or prepare their own evidence briefs (Pappaioanou et al , 2003; Uneke et al , 2012; Uneke et al , 2015a; Uneke et al , 2015b). However, training may not be enough.…”

Section: How Effective Is Active Engagement In Deliverymentioning

confidence: 99%

What is the evidence on the best way to get evidence into use in education?

Gorard

See

Siddiqui

2020

Review of Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For decades there have been calls by concerned stakeholders to improve the quality of education research, and some progress has been made towards creating a more secure evidence base in some areas. More programmes and approaches that have a reasonable evidence base are now also being used in schools (but not in policy, and not necessarily because they have a reasonable evidence base). However, there has been no equivalent improvement in secure knowledge about how best to get that evidence into use, or even what difference it makes when such evidence is used. This paper looks at what little is already known about the different ways to get research evidence into use in education by summarising the results of a large-scale review of the literature. A total of 323 of the most relevant studies were looked at across all areas of public policy, and judged for quality and contribution. Very few (33) were of the appropriate design and quality needed to make robust causal claims about evidence-intouse, and even fewer of these concerned education. This means that despite over 20 years of modest improvement in research on what works in education policy and practice, the evidence on how best to deploy these findings is still very weak. We consider studies in terms of several issues, including whether they look at changes in user knowledge and behaviour, or student outcomes, and how evidence is best modified before use. Providing access to raw research evidence or even slightly simplified evidence is not generally an effective way of getting it used, even if that evidence is presented to users by knowledge-brokers, in short courses or similar. What is more likely to work for both policy and practice is the engineering of high quality evidence into a more usable format and presenting it actively or iteratively via a respected and trusted conduit, or through population measures such as legislation. Having the users actually do the research is another promising approach. Expecting each individual study they fund to have an impact is not the way forward, as this may encourage widespread use of ineffective or even harmful interventions. Publicly-funded users, including policy-makers, should be required to use evidence-led programmes from those libraries providing them and which are appropriate and relevant to their aims. Research funders should support these approaches, and help to build up libraries of successfully tested programmes. Researchers need to be scrupulous, looking at their new evidence in the context of what is already known and not looking to obtain 'impact' from single studies. More and better research is needed on the best routes for evidence-into-use. However, the improvements required of all parties are as much ethical in nature as they are technical or scientific.Keywords use of evidence, engineering of evidence, translation of evidence, research impact, knowledge transfer, robust evidence.

show abstract

“…Other groups were mandated by global health initiatives, like Gavi Inter-agency Coordinating Committees and Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM) Country Coordinating Mechanisms [41,42]. Some of the research-to-policy initiatives mentioned in the introduction also sought to create new networks and groups, like Health Policy Committees in Nigeria [43].…”

Section: Overarching Trends Shaping National Health Policy Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Questions for future evidence-informed policy initiatives: insights from the evolution and aspirations of National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups

Buffardi

Njambi-Szlapka

2020

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Attention to evidence-informed policy has grown; however, efforts to strengthen the quality and use of evidence are not starting from a blank slate. Changes in health architectures and financing pose different considerations for investments in evidence-informed policy than in the past. We identify major trends that have shifted the environment in which health policies are made, and use the evolution and future aspirations of National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) in low-and middle-income countries to identify questions the sector must confront when determining how best to structure and strengthen evidence-informed health policy.Discussion: Trends over the last two decades have resulted in a dense arena with many issue-specific groups, discrete initiatives to strengthen evidence-informed policy and increasing responsibility for subnational institutions. Many countries face a shifting resource base, which for some reduces the amount of resources for health. There is global momentum around universal health coverage, reflecting a broader systems approach, but few examples of how the vast array of stakeholders relate within it are available. NITAG aspirations reflect four interconnected themes related to their scope, their integration in national policy processes, health financing and relationships with ministries of finance, and NITAG positioning relative to other domestic and international entities, raising questions such as, What are the bounds of issue-specific groups and their relationship to allocation decision-making processes across health areas? How do technical advisory groups interface with what are inherently political processes? When are finances considered, by whom and how? What is the future of existing groups whose creation was intended to enhance national ownership but who need continued external support to function? When should new entities be created, in what form and with what mandate?Conclusions: Countries must determine who makes decisions about resources, when, using what criteria, and how to do so in a robust yet efficient way given the existing and future landscape. While answers to these questions are necessarily country specific, they are collective matters that cannot be addressed by specialised groups alone and have implications for new investments in evidence-informed policy.

show abstract

Implementation of a health policy advisory committee as a knowledge translation platform: the Nigeria experience

Cited by 39 publications

References 20 publications

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

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

What is the evidence on the best way to get evidence into use in education?

Questions for future evidence-informed policy initiatives: insights from the evolution and aspirations of National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About