Local ownership of health policy and systems research in low-income and middle-income countries: a missing element in the uptake debate.

Health policy and systems researchers (HPSRs) in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) aim to influence health systems planning, costing, policy and implementation. Yet, there is still much that we do not know about the types of health systems evidence that are most compelling and impactful to policymakers and community groups, the factors that facilitate the research to decision-making process and the real-world challenges faced when translating research findings into practice in different contexts. Drawing on an analysis of HPSR from LMICs presented at the Fifth Global Symposium on Health Systems Research (HSR 2018), we argue that while there is a recognition in policy studies more broadly about the role of co-production, collective ownership and the value of localised HPSR in the evidence-to-policy discussion, 'ownership' of research at country level is a research uptake catalyst that needs to be further emphasised, particularly in the HPSR context. We consider embedded research, participatory or community-initiated research and emergent/responsive research processes, all of which are 'owned' by policymakers, healthcare practitioners/managers or community members. We embrace the view that ownership of HPSR by people directly affected by health problems connects research and decision-making in a tangible way, creating pathways to impact.

Time for full inclusion of community actions in the response to AIDS.

INTRODUCTION: Community action, including activism, advocacy and service delivery, has been crucially important in the global response to AIDS from the beginning of the epidemic and remains one of its defining features. This indispensable contribution has been increasingly acknowledged in strategic planning documents from UNAIDS, the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the World Bank, the World Health Organization and other organizations. A growing body of literature demonstrates that community-based services can have measurable impact, serve populations that are not accessing public health services and reach people at scale. DISCUSSION: Recognition of the powerful potential role of community has not translated into full incorporation of community responses in programme planning or financing, and communities are still not fully understood as true assets within overall systems for health. The diverse community contributions remain seriously underappreciated and under-resourced in national responses. CONCLUSIONS: It is time for a paradigm shift in how we think about, plan and finance community-based responses to HIV in order to achieve improved impact and move toward ending the epidemic. We must utilize the unique strengths of communities in creating resilient and sustainable systems for health. There are several priorities for immediate attention, including agreement on the need to nurture truly comprehensive systems for health that include public, private and community activities; re-examination of donor and national funding processes to ensure community is strategically included; improvement of data systems to capture the full spectrum of health services; and improved accountability frameworks for overall health systems. Health planning and financing approaches run by governments and donors should institutionalize consideration of how public, community and private health services can strategically contribute to meeting service needs and accomplishing public health targets.