Assessing the interactions of people and policy-makers in social participation for health: an inventory of participatory governance measures from a rapid systematic literature review.

Social participation, also termed stakeholder voice, is an important component of health system governance. Increased interactions between the community and policy makers could facilitate a more responsive health system that targets the needs of the community better. Recently, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a handbook on social participation that identified five key themes for ministries of health to consider when engaging the input of the community. In this rapid systematic literature review, we aimed to identify quantitative and qualitative measures that have been used to assess aspects of social participation involving people and policy makers. We identified 172 measures from 48 studies from countries in all six WHO regions. These measures were categorized by all five themes from the handbook on social participation and these measures are linked to 27 concepts. This rapid review found that the focus of measures is largely on the existence of participation-be it by the general population or specific vulnerable groups-rather than on the quality of their participation. The measures in this inventory may be useful for ministries of health and other key stakeholders to use when developing methods to assess and encourage social participation in their context.

The Tunisian experience of participatory health governance: the Societal Dialogue for Health (a qualitative study).

BACKGROUND: Tunisia has been engaged in the Societal Dialogue (SD) for Health process since 2012, a participatory health governance process aimed at bringing in people's voice into health policy-making. Its first success was the recently released National Health Policy 2030. This paper aims to document the SD process and to bring out the lessons learned to inspire other countries. METHODS: This study was based essentially on a qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with citizen jury members and health experts that took place from May to September 2018. The qualitative analysis adopted an inductive-deductive approach according to a cross-matrix between the themes of the interview of the two groups of interviewees. RESULTS: The qualitative analysis of the data highlighted that the Societal Dialogue created a health democracy dynamic with inclusive dialogue spaces for the population, communities, and civil society to participate in health system design. It constituted a multi-actor and multidisciplinary coordination platform to increase consensus building among actors. Initial government support and high levels of volunteer commitment allowed the process to achieve a certain level of sustainability. However, this process faced and still faces many challenges such as overreliance on volunteers; a crisis of trust; political instability and the lack of an effective communication strategy. These challenges negatively influence the policy uptake of recommendations made by the Societal Dialogue for Health. CONCLUSION: The Tunisian societal dialogue experience highlights both the successes and challenges of a structured participatory platform, as well as the effort and perseverance it takes to keep such a process functional and relevant. A key lesson from this study is that this model of participatory health governance eventually reaches a stage where population, community, and civil society participation needs to be more institutionalized within the government routine so that it can credibly feed into health policy review processes and inform decision-makers on a regular basis.

Does global health governance walk the talk? Gender representation in World Health Assemblies, 1948-2021.

BACKGROUND: While an estimated 70%-75% of the health workforce are women, this is not reflected in the leadership roles of most health organisations-including global decision-making bodies such as the World Health Assembly (WHA). METHODS: We analysed gender representation in WHA delegations of Member States, Associate Members and Observers (country/territory), using data from 10 944 WHA delegations and 75 815 delegation members over 1948-2021. Delegates' information was extracted from WHO documentation. Likely gender was inferred based on prefixes, pronouns and other gendered language. A gender-to-name algorithm was used as a last resort (4.6%). Time series of 5-year rolling averages of the percentage of women across WHO region, income group and delegate roles are presented. We estimated (%) change ±SE of inferred women delegation members at the WHA per year, and estimated years±SE until gender parity from 2010 to 2019 across regions, income groups, delegate roles and countries. Correlations with these measures were assessed with countries' gender inequality index and two Worldwide Governance indicators. RESULTS: While upwards trends could be observed in the percentage of women delegates over the past 74 years, men remained over-represented in most WHA delegations. Over 1948-2021, 82.9% of delegations were composed of a majority of men, and no WHA had more than 30% of women Chief Delegates (ranging from 0% to 30%). Wide variation in trends over time could be observed across different geographical regions, income groups and countries. Some countries may take over 100 years to reach gender parity in their WHA delegations, if current estimated trends continue. CONCLUSION: Despite commitments to gender equality in leadership, women remain gravely under-represented in global health governance. An intersectional approach to representation in global health governance, which prioritises equity in participation beyond gender, can enable transformative policymaking that fosters transparent, accountable and just health systems.

Contributing to collaborative health governance in Africa: a realist evaluation of the Universal Health Coverage Partnership.

BACKGROUND: Policy dialogue, a collaborative governance mechanism, has raised interest among international stakeholders. They see it as a means to strengthen health systems governance and to participate in the development of health policies that support universal health coverage. In this context, WHO has set up the Universal Health Coverage Partnership. This Partnership aims to support health ministries in establishing inclusive, participatory, and evidence-informed policy dialogue. The general purpose of our study is to understand how and in what contexts the Partnership may support policy dialogue and with what outcomes. More specifically, our study aims to answer two questions: 1) How and in what contexts may the Partnership initiate and nurture policy dialogue? 2) How do collaboration dynamics unfold within policy dialogue supported by the Partnership?  METHODS: We conducted a multiple-case study realist evaluation based on Emerson's integrative framework for collaborative governance to investigate the role of the Partnership in policy dialogue on three policy issues in six sub-Saharan African countries: health financing (Burkina Faso and Democratic Republic of Congo), health planning (Cabo Verde, Niger, and Togo), and aid coordination for health (Liberia). We interviewed 121 key informants, analyzed policy documents, and observed policy dialogue events. RESULTS: The Partnership may facilitate the initiation of policy dialogue when: 1) stakeholders feel uncertain about health sector issues and acknowledge their interdependence in responding to such issues, and 2) policy dialogue coincides with their needs and interests. In this context, policy dialogue enables stakeholders to build a shared understanding of issues and of the need for action and encourages collective leadership. However, ministries' weak ownership of policy dialogue and stakeholders' lack of confidence in their capacity for joint action hinder their engagement and curb the institutionalization of policy dialogue. CONCLUSIONS: Development aid actors wishing to support policy dialogue must do so over the long term so that collaborative governance becomes routine and a culture of collaboration has time to grow. Public administrations should develop collaborative governance mechanisms that are transparent and intelligible in order to facilitate stakeholder engagement.

Normalizing the political economy of improving health.

Problem: Political economy factors are important in determining the adoption and implementation of health policies. Yet these factors are often overlooked in the development of policies that have the potential to influence health. Approach: Political economy analysis provides a way to take into consideration political and social realities, whether at the community, subnational, national, regional or global levels. We aim to demonstrate the value of political economy analysis and to promote its wider use in technical programmes of work. Local setting: We provide examples from across a range of World Health Organization areas of work, including participatory governance, health financing, health taxes, malaria prevention and control, capacity-building and direct country support. Relevant changes: Existing examples of how political economy analysis can be incorporated into technical support demonstrate the variability of this analytical approach, as well as its potential to support policy progress. Applying political economy analysis within the specified programmes of work has enabled more contextually relevant technical support to enhance the likelihood of advancing countries' health-related objectives. Lessons learnt: Embedding political economy into technical work has many benefits, including: enhancing voice and participation in health policies; supporting the adoption and implementation feasibility of technically sound policies; and building capacity to incorporate and understand political factors that influence health-related priorities.

People's Voice and Civil Society Participation as a Core Element of Universal Health Coverage Reforms: Review of Experiences in Iran.

Health governance challenges can make or break universal health coverage (UHC) reforms. One of the biggest health governance challenges is ensuring meaningful participation and adequately reflecting people's voice in health policies and implementation. Recognizing this, Iran's Health Transformation Plan (HTP) lays out the country's blueprint for UHC with an explicit emphasis on the 'socialization of health.' 'Socialization' is seen as a key means to contribute to HTP objectives, meaning the systematic and targeted engagement of the population, communities, and civil society in health sector activities. Given its specific cultural and historical context, we sought to discern what notions such as 'civil society,' 'non-governmental organization,' etc mean in practice in Iran, with the aim of offering policy options for strengthening and institutionalizing public participation in health within the context of the HTP. For this, we reviewed the literature and analysed primary qualitative data. We found that it may be more useful to understand Iranian civil society through its actions, ie, defined by its motivation and activities rather than the prevailing international development understanding of civil society as a structure which is completely independent of the state. We highlight the blurry boundaries between the different types of civil society organizations (CSOs) and government institutions and initiatives, as well as high levels of overlaps and fragmentation. Reducing fragmentation as a policy goal could help channel resources more efficiently towards common HTP objectives. The National Health Assembly (NHA) model which was first launched in 2017 offers a unique platform for this coordination role, and could be leveraged accordingly.

Health system performance assessment: a primer for policy-makers

This policy brief is one of a new series to meet the needs of policy-makers and health system managers. The aim is to develop key messages to support evidence-informed policy-making and the editors will continue to strengthen the series by working with authors to improve the consideration given to policy options and implementation.

Health system resilience during the pandemic: it’s mostly about governance

Governance is the most important enabler of health system functioning. It provides a foundation and lever for resource generation, financing, and service delivery and ensures they operate well and in coordination with the rest of the system. It also extends beyond the health system through interactions between levels and actors. While there is no unanimously accepted framework for assessing governance, country examples can be used to illustrate how governance has contributed to health systems resilience during the crisis. Good governance prior to the pandemic, underpinned by strong state capacity, political leadership and community engagement, is keyto responding resiliently during a novel infectious disease outbreak, such as COVID-19.

‘Build forward better’ must include heavy investment in government capacities to engage with communities and civil society

Civil society and community groups are active players in the COVID-19 response, providing support, advice and information where government reach is poor. Yet most governments have not managed to bring civil society’s perspectives, insights, and experiences into the COVID-19 response in a systematic way. If the world is to ‘build forward better’, more regular and systematised government-civil society engagement will need to underpin a shifttowards more inclusive health governance. Doing so successfully will require heavy investments in capacity-building for government actors to value and feel comfortable managing and sustaining participatory spaces and in skills to bring forward the kind of governance needed to build resilience against the next pandemic.