Small vulnerable newborns-big potential for impact.

Despite major achievements in child survival, the burden of neonatal mortality has remained high and even increased in some countries since 1990. Currently, most neonatal deaths are attributable to being born preterm, small for gestational age (SGA), or with low birthweight (LBW). Besides neonatal mortality, these conditions are associated with stillbirth and multiple morbidities, with short-term and long-term adverse consequences for the newborn, their families, and society, resulting in a major loss of human capital. Prevention of preterm birth, SGA, and LBW is thus critical for global child health and broader societal development. Progress has, however, been slow, largely because of the global community's failure to agree on the definition and magnitude of newborn vulnerability and best ways to address it, to frame the problem attractively, and to build a broad coalition of actors and a suitable governance structure to implement a change. We propose a new definition and a conceptual framework, bringing preterm birth, SGA, and LBW together under a broader umbrella term of the small vulnerable newborn (SVN). Adoption of the framework and the unified definition can facilitate improved problem definition and improved programming for SVN prevention. Interventions aiming at SVN prevention would result in a healthier start for live-born infants, while also reducing the number of stillbirths, improving maternal health, and contributing to a positive economic and social development in the society.

Framing and the formation of global health priorities.

Health issues vary in the amount of attention and resources they receive from global health organisations and national governments. How issues are framed could shape differences in levels of priority. We reviewed scholarship on global health policy making to examine the role of framing in shaping global health priorities. The review provides evidence of the influence of three framing processes-securitisation, moralisation, and technification. Securitisation refers to an issue's framing as an existential threat, moralisation as an ethical imperative, and technification as a wise investment that science can solve. These framing processes concern more than how issues are portrayed publicly. They are socio-political processes, characterised by contestation among actors in civil society, government, international organisations, foundations, and research institutions. These actors deploy various forms of power to advance particular frames as a means of securing attention and resources for the issues that concern them. The ascription of an issue as a security concern, an ethical imperative, or a wise investment is historically contingent: it is not inevitable that any given issue will be framed in one or more of these ways. A health issue's inherent characteristics-such as the lethality of a pathogen that causes it-also shape these ascriptions, but do not fully determine them. Although commonly facing resistance, global health elites often determine which frames prevail, raising questions about the legitimacy of priority-setting processes. We draw on the review to offer ideas on how to make these processes fairer than they are at present, including a call for democratic representation even as necessary space is preserved for elite expertise.

Global priority for the care of orphans and other vulnerable children: transcending problem definition challenges.

BACKGROUND: Tens of millions of children lack adequate care, many having been separated from or lost one or both parents. Despite the problem's severity and its impact on a child's lifelong health and wellbeing, the care of vulnerable children-which includes strengthening the care of children within families, preventing unnecessary family separation, and ensuring quality care alternatives when reunification with the biological parents is not possible or appropriate-is a low global priority. This analysis investigates factors shaping the inadequate global prioritization of the care of vulnerable children. Specifically, the analysis focuses on factors internal to the global policy community addressing children's care, including how they understand, govern, and communicate the problem. METHODS: Drawing on agenda setting scholarship, we triangulated among several sources of data, including 32 interviews with experts, as well as documents including peer-reviewed literature and organizational reports. We undertook a thematic analysis of the data, using these to create a historical narrative on efforts to address children's care, and specifically childcare reform. RESULTS: Divisive disagreements on the definition and legitimacy of deinstitutionalization-a care reform strategy that replaces institution-based care with family-based care-may be hindering priority for children's care. Multiple factors have shaped these disagreements: a contradictory evidence base on the scope of the problem and solutions, divergent experiences between former Soviet bloc and other countries, socio-cultural and legal challenges in introducing formal alternative care arrangements, commercial interests that perpetuate support for residential facilities, as well as the sometimes conflicting views of impacted children, families, and the disability community. These disagreements have led to considerable governance and positioning difficulties, which have complicated efforts to coordinate initiatives, precluded the emergence of leadership that proponents universally trust, hampered the engagement of potential allies, and challenged efforts to secure funding and convince policymakers to act. CONCLUSION: In order to potentially become a more potent force for advancing global priority, children's care proponents within international organizations, donor agencies, and non-governmental agencies working across countries will need to better manage their disagreements around deinstitutionalization as a care reform strategy.

A global priority: addressing violence against children.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the reasons for the lack of priority given to addressing violence against children, and to identify the challenges that proponents must address to improve prioritization of this issue. METHODS: We reviewed relevant literature to identify experts to interview. We carried out a thematic analysis of the literature and interview transcripts. We iteratively developed data coding on the many characteristics of violence against children, on the framing of the issue by proponents, and on the problem of governance - that is, how proponents organize themselves for collective action. FINDINGS: The analysis of our data sources reveals many obstacles for global prioritization of addressing violence against children, including the forms of violence considered, inadequate data to describe prevalence and a lack of evidence of the effectiveness of proposed solutions. There exists fundamental disagreement among proponents on the recently introduced frame of violence against children, including differences in the types of violence that should be prioritized and in the proposed solutions (e.g. prevention or remediation). On governance, competition between networks focused on specific forms of violence is hampering efforts to create strong governing institutions. CONCLUSION: Despite the complex challenges identified, proponents have made some progress in global prioritization of addressing violence against children. To improve this prioritization further, proponents must resolve framing tensions and strengthen governance mechanisms to promote shared goals, while ensuring that networks focused on particular forms of violence are able to maintain their distinct identities.

The rise and fall of global health issues: an arenas model applied to the COVID-19 pandemic shock.

BACKGROUND: The global health agenda is ill-defined as an analytical construct, complicating attempts by scholars and proponents to make claims about the agenda status of issues. We draw on Kingdon's definition of the agenda and Hilgartner and Bosk's public arenas model to conceptualize the global health agenda as those subjects or problems to which collectivities of actors operating nationally and globally are paying serious attention at any given time. We propose an arenas model for global health agenda setting and illustrate its potential utility by assessing priority indicators in five arenas, including international aid, pharmaceutical industry, scientific research, news media and civil society. We then apply the model to illustrate how the status of established (HIV/AIDS), emergent (diabetes) and rising (Alzheimer's disease) issues might be measured, compared and change in light of a pandemic shock (COVID-19). RESULTS: Coronavirus priority indicators rose precipitously in all five arenas in 2020, reflecting the kind of punctuation often caused by focusing events. The magnitude of change varied somewhat by arena, with the most pronounced shift in the global news media arena. Priority indicators for the other issues showed decreases of up to 21% and increases of up to 41% between 2019 and 2020, with increases suggesting that the agenda for global health issues expanded in some arenas in 2020- COVID-19 did not consistently displace priority for HIV/AIDS, diabetes or Alzheimer's disease, though it might have for other issues. CONCLUSIONS: We advance an arenas model as a novel means of addressing conceptual and measurement challenges that often undermine the validity of claims concerning the global health agenda status of problems and contributing causal factors. Our presentation of the model and illustrative analysis lays the groundwork for more systematic investigation of trends in global health agenda setting. Further specification of the model is needed to ensure accurate representation of vital national and transnational arenas and their interactions, applicability to a range of disease-specific, health systems, governance and policy issues, and sensitivity to subtler influences on global health agenda setting than pandemic shocks.

Gender equality and gender norms: framing the opportunities for health.

The Sustainable Development Goals offer the global health community a strategic opportunity to promote human rights, advance gender equality, and achieve health for all. The inability of the health sector to accelerate progress on a range of health outcomes brings into sharp focus the substantial impact of gender inequalities and restrictive gender norms on health risks and behaviours. In this paper, the fifth in a Series on gender equality, norms, and health, we draw on evidence to dispel three myths on gender and health and describe persistent barriers to progress. We propose an agenda for action to reduce gender inequality and shift gender norms for improved health outcomes, calling on leaders in national governments, global health institutions, civil society organisations, academic settings, and the corporate sector to focus on health outcomes and engage actors across sectors to achieve them; reform the workplace and workforce to be more gender-equitable; fill gaps in data and eliminate gender bias in research; fund civil-society actors and social movements; and strengthen accountability mechanisms.

Generation of global political priority for early childhood development: the challenges of framing and governance.

Despite progress, early childhood development (ECD) remains a neglected issue, particularly in resource-poor countries. We analyse the challenges and opportunities that ECD proponents face in advancing global priority for the issue. We triangulated among several data sources, including 19 semi-structured interviews with individuals involved in global ECD leadership, practice, and advocacy, as well as peer-reviewed research, organisation reports, and grey literature. We undertook a thematic analysis of the collected data, drawing on social science scholarship on collective action and a policy framework that elucidates why some global initiatives are more successful in generating political priority than others. The analysis indicates that the ECD community faces two primary challenges in advancing global political priority. The first pertains to framing: generation of internal consensus on the definition of the problem and solutions, agreement that could facilitate the discovery of a public positioning of the issue that could generate political support. The second concerns governance: building of effective institutions to achieve collective goals. However, there are multiple opportunities to advance political priority for ECD, including an increasingly favourable political environment, advances in ECD metrics, and the existence of compelling arguments for investment in ECD. To advance global priority for ECD, proponents will need to surmount the framing and governance challenges and leverage these opportunities.

Early childhood development coming of age: science through the life course.

Early childhood development programmes vary in coordination and quality, with inadequate and inequitable access, especially for children younger than 3 years. New estimates, based on proxy measures of stunting and poverty, indicate that 250 million children (43%) younger than 5 years in low-income and middle-income countries are at risk of not reaching their developmental potential. There is therefore an urgent need to increase multisectoral coverage of quality programming that incorporates health, nutrition, security and safety, responsive caregiving, and early learning. Equitable early childhood policies and programmes are crucial for meeting Sustainable Development Goals, and for children to develop the intellectual skills, creativity, and wellbeing required to become healthy and productive adults. In this paper, the first in a three part Series on early childhood development, we examine recent scientific progress and global commitments to early childhood development. Research, programmes, and policies have advanced substantially since 2000, with new neuroscientific evidence linking early adversity and nurturing care with brain development and function throughout the life course.

International norms and the politics of sexuality education in Nigeria.

BACKGROUND: Proponents have promoted sexuality education as a means of empowering adolescents, yet it has been thwarted in many low and middle-income countries. Nigeria represents an exception. Despite social opposition, the government in 1999 unexpectedly approved sexuality education policy. Since then, implementation has advanced, although efficacy has differed across states. We draw on theory concerning international norm diffusion to understand Nigerian policy development. RESULTS: We find that a confluence of international and national norms and interests shaped policy outcomes, including concern over HIV/AIDS. A central dynamic was an alliance of domestic NGOs and international donors pressing the Nigerian government to act. CONCLUSIONS: We argue that theory on international norms can be applied to understand policy dynamics across a variety of health and population areas, finding value in approaches that integrate rather than juxtapose consideration of (1) international and national influences; (2) long and short-term perspectives on policy change; and (3) norms and interests.

Variable Implementation of Sexuality Education in Three Nigerian States.

In 2003, Nigeria adopted the Family Life and HIV Education (FLHE) sexuality education curriculum. Our analysis interrogates variation in sub-national implementation. We conducted 52 interviews with persons knowledgeable about the curriculum in three states-Kano, Lagos, and Niger-and reviewed publications on FLHE. In Kano, the socio-cultural context impeded implementation, but the persistence of innovative local champions resulted in some success. In Lagos, the cosmopolitan context, effective champions, funding by international donors, and a receptive government bureaucracy led to successful implementation. In Niger, despite a relatively conservative socio-cultural context, state bureaucratic bottlenecks overwhelmed proponents' efforts. In summary, the interaction of socio-cultural context, domestic champions, adaptive capacity of state bureaucracies, and international funders explains variable implementation of FLHE. The Nigerian experience highlights the need for sexuality education proponents to anticipate and prepare for local opposition and bureaucratic barriers.

Comparing priority received by global health issues: a measurement framework applied to tuberculosis, malaria, diarrhoeal diseases and dengue fever.

INTRODUCTION: The relative priority received by issues in global health agendas is subjected to impressionistic claims in the absence of objective methods of assessment of priority. To build an approach for conducting structured assessments of comparative priority health issues receive, we expand the public arenas model (2021) and offer a framework for future assessments of health issue priority in global and national health agendas. METHODS: We aimed to develop a more comprehensive set of measures for conducting multiyear priority comparisons of health issues in six agenda-setting arenas by identifying possible measures and data sources, selecting indicators based on feasibility and comparability of measures and gathering the data on selected indicators. We applied these measures to four communicable diseases-tuberculosis (TB), malaria, diarrhoeal diseases and dengue fever-given their differing impressionistic claims of priority. Where possible, we analysed the annual and/or 5-year trends from 2000 through 2022. RESULTS: We observed that TB and malaria received the highest priority for most periods in the past two decades in most arenas. However, a stagnation in development funding for these two conditions over the last 8-10 years may have fuelled the neglect claims. Despite having a higher disease burden, diarrhoea has been slipping in global priority with reduced spending, fewer clinical trials and stagnating publications. Dengue remains a low-priority condition but has witnessed a sharp rise in attention from the pharmaceutical industry. DISCUSSIONS: We expanded the arenas model by including a transnational arena (international representation) and additional measurements for various arenas. This analysis presents an approach to enable comparative trend analysis of the markers of agenda status over a multiyear period. More such analyses can bring much-desired objectivity in understanding how attention to global or national health issues changes over time in different arenas, potentiating a more equitable allocation of resources.

Shifting patterns and competing explanations for infectious disease priority in global health agenda setting arenas.

The highly decentralized nature of global health governance presents significant challenges to conceptualizing and systematically measuring the agenda status of diseases, injuries, risks and other conditions contributing to the collective disease burden. An arenas model for global health agenda setting was recently proposed to help address these challenges. Further developing the model, this study aims to advance more robust inquiry into how and why priority levels may vary among the array of stakeholder arenas in which global health agenda setting occurs. We analyze order and the magnitude of changes in priority for eight infectious diseases in four arenas (international aid, scientific research, pharmaceutical industry and news media) over a period of more than two decades in relation to five propositions from scholarship. The diseases vary on burden and prominence in United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 3 for health and well-being, including four with specific indicators for monitoring and evaluation (HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, hepatitis) and four without (dengue, diarrheal diseases, measles, meningitis). The order of priority did not consistently align with the disease burden or international development goals in any arena. Additionally, using new methods to measure the scale of annual change in resource allocations that are indicative of priority reveals volatility at the disease level in all arenas amidst broader patterns of stability. Insights around long-term patterns of priority within and among arenas are integral to strengthening analyses that aim to identify pivotal causal mechanisms, to clarify how arenas interact, and to measure the effects they produce.

Factors shaping network emergence: A cross-country comparison of quality of care networks in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Malawi, and Uganda.

The Quality-of-Care Network (QCN) was conceptualized by the World Health Organization (WHO) and other global partners to facilitate learning on and improve quality of care for maternal and newborn health within and across low and middle-income countries. However, there was significant variance in the speed and extent to which QCN formed in the involved countries. This paper investigates the factors that shaped QCN's differential emergence in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Malawi, and Uganda. Drawing on network scholarship, we conducted a replicated case study of the four country cases and triangulated several sources of data, including a document review, observations of national-level and district level meetings, and key informant interviews in each country and at the global level. Thematic coding was performed in NVivo 12. We find that QCN emerged most quickly and robustly in Bangladesh, followed by Ethiopia, then Uganda, and slowest and with least institutionalization in Malawi. Factors connected to the policy environment and network features explained variance in network emergence. With respect to the policy environment, pre-existing resources and initiatives dedicated to maternal and newborn health and quality improvement, strong data and health system capacity, and national commitment to advancing on synergistic goals were crucial drivers to QCN's emergence. With respect to the features of the network itself, the embedding of QCN leadership in powerful agencies with pre-existing coordination structures and trusting relationships with key stakeholders, inclusive network membership, and effective individual national and local leadership were also crucial in explaining QCN's speed and quality of emergence across countries. Studying QCN emergence provides critical insights as to why well-intentioned top-down global health networks may not materialize in some country contexts and have relatively quick uptake in others, and has implications for a network's perceived legitimacy and ultimate effectiveness in producing stated objectives.

Effectiveness of a multi-country implementation-focused network on quality of care: Delivery of interventions and processes for improved maternal, newborn and child health outcomes.

The Network for Improving Quality of Care for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (QCN) aims to work through learning, action, leadership and accountability. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of QCN in these four areas at the global level and in four QCN countries: Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Malawi and Uganda. This mixed method evaluation comprised 2-4 iterative rounds of data collection between 2019-2022, involving stakeholder interviews, hospital observations, QCN members survey, and document review. Qualitative data was analysed using a coding framework developed from underlying theories on network effectiveness, behaviour change, and QCN proposed theory of change. Survey data capturing respondents' perception of QCN was analysed with descriptive statistics. The QCN global level, led by the WHO secretariat, was effective in bringing together network countries' governments and global actors via providing online and in-person platforms for communication and learning. In-country, various interventions were delivered in 'learning districts', however often separately by different partners in different locations, and pandemic-disrupted. Governance structures for quality of care were set-up, some preceding QCN, and were found to be stronger and better (though often externally) resourced at national than local levels. Awareness of operational plans and network activities differed between countries, was lower at local than national levels, but increased from 2019 to 2022. Engagement with, and value of, QCN was perceived to be higher in Uganda and Bangladesh than in Malawi or Ethiopia. Capacity building efforts were implemented in all countries-yet often dependent on implementing partners and donors. QCN stakeholders agreed 15 core monitoring indicators though data collection was challenging, especially for indicators requiring new or parallel systems. Accountability initiatives remained nascent in 2022. Global and national leadership elements of QCN have been most effective to date, with action, learning and accountability more challenging, partner or donor dependent, remaining to be scaled-up, and pandemic-disrupted.