Doing Health Policy Analysis: The Enduring Relevance of Simple Models Comment on "Modelling the Health Policy Process: One Size Fits All or Horses for Courses".

The analysis of health policy processes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) emerged as a research area in the early 1990s. In their recent editorial Powell and Mannion argue that such research can be deepened by applying public policy theory. In response, we raise three questions to consider: are public policy models fit for purpose in today's world in LMICs (and what other theory can be used)? Is using theory the most important factor in deepening such research? Why do we, as researchers, do this work? Ultimately, we argue that the value of simple models, such as those already used in health policy analysis, lies in their enduring relevance and widespread use. They are supporting the development of the shared understandings that can, in turn, provide the basis for collective action addressing inequities in health and well-being.

Why do policies change? Institutions, interests, ideas and networks in three cases of policy reform.

Policy researchers have used various categories of variables to explain why policies change, including those related to institutions, interests and ideas. Recent research has paid growing attention to the role of policy networks-the actors involved in policy-making, their relationships with each other, and the structure formed by those relationships-in policy reform across settings and issues; however, this literature has largely ignored the theoretical integration of networks with other policy theories, including the '3Is' of institutions, interests and ideas. This article proposes a conceptual framework integrating these variables and tests it on three cases of policy change in Burkina Faso, addressing the need for theoretical integration with networks as well as the broader aim of theory-driven health policy analysis research in low- and middle-income countries. We use historical process tracing, a type of comparative case study, to interpret and compare documents and in-depth interview data within and between cases. We found that while network changes were indeed associated with policy reform, this relationship was mediated by one or more of institutions, interests and ideas. In a context of high donor dependency, new donor rules affected the composition and structure of actors in the networks, which enabled the entry and dissemination of new ideas and shifts in the overall balance of interest power ultimately leading to policy change. The case of strategic networking occurred in only one case, by civil society actors, suggesting that network change is rarely the spark that initiates the process towards policy change. This analysis highlights the important role of changes in institutions and ideas to drive policymaking, but hints that network change is a necessary intermediate step in these processes.

A framework on the emergence and effectiveness of global health networks.

Since 1990 mortality and morbidity decline has been more extensive for some conditions prevalent in low- and middle-income countries than for others. One reason may be differences in the effectiveness of global health networks, which have proliferated in recent years. Some may be more capable than others in attracting attention to a condition, in generating funding, in developing interventions and in convincing national governments to adopt policies. This article introduces a supplement on the emergence and effectiveness of global health networks. The supplement examines networks concerned with six global health problems: tuberculosis (TB), pneumonia, tobacco use, alcohol harm, maternal mortality and newborn deaths. This article presents a conceptual framework delineating factors that may shape why networks crystallize more easily surrounding some issues than others, and once formed, why some are better able than others to shape policy and public health outcomes. All supplement papers draw on this framework. The framework consists of 10 factors in three categories: (1) features of the networks and actors that comprise them, including leadership, governance arrangements, network composition and framing strategies; (2) conditions in the global policy environment, including potential allies and opponents, funding availability and global expectations concerning which issues should be prioritized; (3) and characteristics of the issue, including severity, tractability and affected groups. The article also explains the design of the project, which is grounded in comparison of networks surrounding three matched issues: TB and pneumonia, tobacco use and alcohol harm, and maternal and newborn survival. Despite similar burden and issue characteristics, there has been considerably greater policy traction for the first in each pair. The supplement articles aim to explain the role of networks in shaping these differences, and collectively represent the first comparative effort to understand the emergence and effectiveness of global health networks.

The challenge of sustaining effectiveness over time: the case of the global network to stop tuberculosis.

Where once global health decisions were largely the domain of national governments and the World Health Organization, today networks of international organizations, governments, private philanthropies and other entities are actively shaping public policy. However, there is still limited understanding of how global networks form, how they create institutions, how they promote and sustain collective action, and how they adapt to changes in the policy environment. Understanding these processes is crucial to understanding their effectiveness: whether and how global networks influence policy and public health outcomes. This study seeks to address these gaps through the examination of the global network to stop tuberculosis (TB) and the factors influencing its effectiveness over time. Drawing from ∼ 200 document sources and 16 interviews with key informants, we trace the development of the Global Partnership to Stop TB and its work over the past decade. We find that having a centralized core group and a strategic brand helped the network to coalesce around a primary intervention strategy, directly observed treatment short course. This strategy was created before the network was formalized, and helped bring in donors, ministries of health and other organizations committed to fighting TB-growing the network. Adaptations to this strategy, the creation of a consensus-based Global Plan, and the creation of a variety of participatory venues for discussion, helped to expand and sustain the network. Presently, however, tensions have become more apparent within the network as it struggles with changing internal political dynamics and the evolution of the disease. While centralization and stability helped to launch and grow the network, the institutionalization of governance and strategy may have constrained adaptation. Institutionalization and centralization may, therefore, facilitate short-term success for networks, but may end up complicating longer-term effectiveness.

Knowledge and networks - key sources of power in global health: Comment on "Knowledge, moral claims and the exercise of power in global health".

Shiffman rightly raises questions about who exercises power in global health, suggesting power is a complex concept, and the way it is exercised is often opaque. Power that is not based on financial strength but on knowledge or experience, is difficult to estimate, and yet it may provide the legitimacy to make moral claims on what is, or ought to be, on global health agendas. Twenty years ago power was exercised in a much less complex health environment. The World Health Organization (WHO) was able to exert its authority as world health leader. The landscape today is very different. Financial resources for global health are being competed for by diverse organisations, and power is diffused and somewhat hidden in such a climate, where each organization has to establish and make its own moral claims loudly and publicly. We observe two ways which allow actors to capture moral authority in global health. One, through power based on scientific knowledge and two, through procedures in the policy process, most commonly associated with the notion of broad consultation and participation. We discuss these drawing on one particular framework provided by Bourdieu, who analyses the source of actor power by focusing on different sorts of capital. Different approaches or theories to understanding power will go some way to answering the challenge Shiffman throws to health policy analysts. We need to explore much more fully where power lies in global health, and how it is exercised in order to understand underlying health agendas and claims to legitimacy made by global health actors today.

Can frameworks inform knowledge about health policy processes? Reviewing health policy papers on agenda setting and testing them against a specific priority-setting framework.

This article systematically reviews a set of health policy papers on agenda setting and tests them against a specific priority-setting framework. The article applies the Shiffman and Smith framework in extracting and synthesizing data from an existing set of papers, purposively identified for their relevance and systematically reviewed. Its primary aim is to assess how far the component parts of the framework help to identify the factors that influence the agenda setting stage of the policy process at global and national levels. It seeks to advance the field and inform the development of theory in health policy by examining the extent to which the framework offers a useful approach for organizing and analysing data. Applying the framework retrospectively to the selected set of papers, it aims to explore influences on priority setting and to assess how far the framework might gain from further refinement or adaptation, if used prospectively. In pursuing its primary aim, the article also demonstrates how the approach of framework synthesis can be used in health policy analysis research.

'Scaling-up is a craft not a science': Catalysing scale-up of health innovations in Ethiopia, India and Nigeria.

Donors and other development partners commonly introduce innovative practices and technologies to improve health in low and middle income countries. Yet many innovations that are effective in improving health and survival are slow to be translated into policy and implemented at scale. Understanding the factors influencing scale-up is important. We conducted a qualitative study involving 150 semi-structured interviews with government, development partners, civil society organisations and externally funded implementers, professional associations and academic institutions in 2012/13 to explore scale-up of innovative interventions targeting mothers and newborns in Ethiopia, the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh and the six states of northeast Nigeria, which are settings with high burdens of maternal and neonatal mortality. Interviews were analysed using a common analytic framework developed for cross-country comparison and themes were coded using Nvivo. We found that programme implementers across the three settings require multiple steps to catalyse scale-up. Advocating for government to adopt and finance health innovations requires: designing scalable innovations; embedding scale-up in programme design and allocating time and resources; building implementer capacity to catalyse scale-up; adopting effective approaches to advocacy; presenting strong evidence to support government decision making; involving government in programme design; invoking policy champions and networks; strengthening harmonisation among external programmes; aligning innovations with health systems and priorities. Other steps include: supporting government to develop policies and programmes and strengthening health systems and staff; promoting community uptake by involving media, community leaders, mobilisation teams and role models. We conclude that scale-up has no magic bullet solution - implementers must embrace multiple activities, and require substantial support from donors and governments in doing so.

Has global fund support for civil society advocacy in the former Soviet Union established meaningful engagement or 'a lot of jabber about nothing'?

Although civil society advocacy for health issues such as HIV transmission through injecting drug use is higher on the global health agenda than previously, its impact on national policy reform has been limited. In this paper we seek to understand why this is the case through an examination of civil society advocacy efforts to reform HIV/AIDS and drugs-related policies and their implementation in three former Soviet Union countries. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine by national researchers with representatives from a sample of 49 civil society organizations (CSOs) and 22 national key informants. We found that Global Fund support resulted in the professionalization of CSOs, which increased confidence from government and increased CSO influence on policies relating to HIV/AIDS and illicit drugs. Interviewees also reported that the amount of funding for advocacy from the Global Fund was insufficient, indirect and often interrupted. CSOs were often in competition for Global Fund support, which caused resentment and limited collective action, further weakening capacity for effective advocacy.

Brokering the boundary between science and advocacy: the case of intermittent preventive treatment among infants.

The process of translating research into policy has gained considerable attention in recent years and a number of studies have investigated the nexus between the two 'worlds' of research and policy. One issue that has been little addressed is about the boundaries between research and advocacy: how far scientists do, or should, promote particular findings to policy makers and others. This article analyses a particular intervention in malaria control and the Consortium set up to accelerate its potential implementation. Using a framework that emphasizes the interplay of interests, institutions and ideas, it provides an example of how a network of committed researchers and funders attempted to follow a rational policy process, but faced conflicts and fundamental questions about their roles in generating scientific evidence and influencing global health policy. In an era of ever more and larger researcher groups and consortia, the findings offer insights and lessons to those engaged in the process of knowledge translation.

Circus monkeys or change agents? Civil society advocacy for HIV/AIDS in adverse policy environments.

This paper explores the factors enabling and undermining civil society efforts to advocate for policy reforms relating to HIV/AIDS and illicit drugs in three countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia: Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine. It examines how political contexts and civil society actors' strengths and weaknesses inhibit or enable advocacy for policy change - issues that are not well understood in relation to specific policy areas such as HIV/AIDS, or particular regions of the world where national policies are believed to be major drivers of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The study is based on in-depth interviews with representatives of civil society organizations (CSOs) (n = 49) and national level informants including government and development partners (n = 22). Our policy analysis identified a culture of fear derived from concerns for personal safety but also risk of losing donor largesse. Relations between CSOs and government were often acrimonious rather than synergistic, and while we found some evidence of CSO collective action, competition for external funding - in particular for HIV/AIDS grants from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria was often divisive. Development partners and government tend to construct CSOs as service providers rather than advocates. While some advocacy was tolerated by governments, CSO participation in the policy process was, ultimately, perceived to be tokenistic. This was because there are financial interests in maintaining prohibitionist legislation: efforts to change punitive laws directed at the behaviors of minority groups such as injecting drug users have had limited impact.

What can global health institutions do to help strengthen health systems in low income countries?

Weaknesses in health systems contribute to a failure to improve health outcomes in developing countries, despite increased official development assistance. Changes in the demands on health systems, as well as their scope to respond, mean that the situation is likely to become more problematic in the future. Diverse global initiatives seek to strengthen health systems, but progress will require better coordination between them, use of strategies based on the best available evidence obtained especially from evaluation of large scale programs, and improved global aid architecture that supports these processes. This paper sets out the case for global leadership to support health systems investments and help ensure the synergies between vertical and horizontal programs that are essential for effective functioning of health systems. At national level, it is essential to increase capacity to manage and deliver services, situate interventions firmly within national strategies, ensure effective implementation, and co-ordinate external support with local resources. Health systems performance should be monitored, with clear lines of accountability, and reforms should build on evidence of what works in what circumstances.

National and subnational HIV/AIDS coordination: are global health initiatives closing the gap between intent and practice?

BACKGROUND: A coordinated response to HIV/AIDS remains one of the 'grand challenges' facing policymakers today. Global health initiatives (GHIs) have the potential both to facilitate and exacerbate coordination at the national and subnational level. Evidence of the effects of GHIs on coordination is beginning to emerge but has hitherto been limited to single-country studies and broad-brush reviews. To date, no study has provided a focused synthesis of the effects of GHIs on national and subnational health systems across multiple countries. To address this deficit, we review primary data from seven country studies on the effects of three GHIs on coordination of HIV/AIDS programmes: the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), and the World Bank's HIV/AIDS programmes including the Multi-country AIDS Programme (MAP). METHODS: In-depth interviews were conducted at national and subnational levels (179 and 218 respectively) in seven countries in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America, between 2006 and 2008. Studies explored the development and functioning of national and subnational HIV coordination structures, and the extent to which coordination efforts around HIV/AIDS are aligned with and strengthen country health systems. RESULTS: Positive effects of GHIs included the creation of opportunities for multisectoral participation, greater political commitment and increased transparency among most partners. However, the quality of participation was often limited, and some GHIs bypassed coordination mechanisms, especially at the subnational level, weakening their effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: The paper identifies residual national and subnational obstacles to effective coordination and optimal use of funds by focal GHIs, which these GHIs, other donors and country partners need to collectively address.

The effects of global health initiatives on country health systems: a review of the evidence from HIV/AIDS control.

This paper reviews country-level evidence about the impact of global health initiatives (GHIs), which have had profound effects on recipient country health systems in middle and low income countries. We have selected three initiatives that account for an estimated two-thirds of external funding earmarked for HIV/AIDS control in resource-poor countries: the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, the World Bank Multi-country AIDS Program (MAP) and the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). This paper draws on 31 original country-specific and cross-country articles and reports, based on country-level fieldwork conducted between 2002 and 2007. Positive effects have included a rapid scale-up in HIV/AIDS service delivery, greater stakeholder participation, and channelling of funds to non-governmental stakeholders, mainly NGOs and faith-based bodies. Negative effects include distortion of recipient countries' national policies, notably through distracting governments from coordinated efforts to strengthen health systems and re-verticalization of planning, management and monitoring and evaluation systems. Sub-national and district studies are needed to assess the degree to which GHIs are learning to align with and build the capacities of countries to respond to HIV/AIDS; whether marginalized populations access and benefit from GHI-funded programmes; and about the cost-effectiveness and long-term sustainability of the HIV and AIDS programmes funded by the GHIs. Three multi-country sets of evaluations, which will be reporting in 2009, will answer some of these questions.

'Doing' health policy analysis: methodological and conceptual reflections and challenges.

The case for undertaking policy analysis has been made by a number of scholars and practitioners. However, there has been much less attention given to how to do policy analysis, what research designs, theories or methods best inform policy analysis. This paper begins by looking at the health policy environment, and some of the challenges to researching this highly complex phenomenon. It focuses on research in middle and low income countries, drawing on some of the frameworks and theories, methodologies and designs that can be used in health policy analysis, giving examples from recent studies. The implications of case studies and of temporality in research design are explored. Attention is drawn to the roles of the policy researcher and the importance of reflexivity and researcher positionality in the research process. The final section explores ways of advancing the field of health policy analysis with recommendations on theory, methodology and researcher reflexivity.

The role of state and non-state actors in the policy process: the contribution of policy networks to the scale-up of antiretroviral therapy in Thailand.

Antiretroviral therapy (ART) is difficult in poor settings. In 2001, the Thai government adopted the policy to scale-up its treatment initiative to meet the needs of all its people. Employing qualitative approaches, including in-depth interviews, document review and direct observation, this study examines the processes by which the universal ART policy developed between 2001 and 2007, with the focus on the connections between actors who shared common interests--so-called policy networks. Research findings illustrate the crucial contributions of non-state networks in the policy process. The supportive roles of public-civic networks could be observed at every policy stage, and at different levels of the health sector. Although this particular health policy may be unique in case and setting, it does suggest clearly that while the state dominated the policy process initially, non-state actors played extremely important roles. Their contribution was not simply at agenda-setting stages--for example by lobbying government--but in the actual development and implementation of health policy. Further it illustrates that these processes were dynamic, took place over long periods and were not limited to national borders, but extended beyond, to include global actors and processes.

Describing the impact of health services and policy research.

OBJECTIVES: In an essentially applied area of research, there are particular pressures on health services and policy researchers to describe the impact of their work. However, specialized research impact assessments often require skills and resources beyond those available to individual researchers, and ad hoc accounts impose a considerable burden to generate. Further, these idiosyncratic accounts may not facilitate comparative analysis to inform research management, practice and assessment. This paper describes an initial attempt to develop a methodical approach to identify and describe research impact. METHODS: A Research Impact Framework was developed, drawing on the literature and interviews with researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and was used to structure impact narratives of selected research projects. These narratives were based on semi-structured interviews with principal investigators and documentary analysis of the projects. RESULTS: Using the framework as a guide, researchers were relatively easily and methodically able to identify and present impacts of their work. Researchers' narratives contained verifiable evidence and highlighted a wide range of areas in which health services and policy research has impact. The standardized structure of the narratives also facilitated analysis across projects. Factors thought to positively influence the impact of research included researchers' continued involvement in research and policy networks, established track records in the field, and the ability to identify and use key influencing events, such as 'policy windows'. CONCLUSIONS: The framework helped develop research impact narratives and facilitated comparisons across projects, highlighting issues for research management and assessment.