Linking knowledge with action when engagement is out of reach: three contextual features of effective public health communication.

Scholars and practitioners often promote direct engagement between policymakers, health workers and researchers as a strategy for overcoming barriers to utilizing scientific knowledge in health policy. However, in many settings public health officials rarely have opportunities to interact with researchers, which is a problem further exacerbated by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. One prominent theory argues that policy actors will trust and utilize research findings when they perceive them to be salient, credible and legitimate. We draw on this theory to examine the conditions facilitating greater uptake of new knowledge among health officials when engagement is out of reach and they are instead exposed to new ideas through written mass communication. Using data from a survey experiment with about 260 health workers and administrators in Honduras, we find that messages from a technocratic sender based on statistical evidence improved perceptions of salience, credibility and legitimacy (SCL). Additionally, perceptions of SCL are three contextual features that operate as joint mediators between knowledge and action, and several individual characteristics also influence whether officials trust research findings enough to apply them when formulating and implementing health policies. This research can help inform the design of context-sensitive knowledge translation and exchange strategies to advance the goals of evidence-based public health, particularly in settings where direct engagement is difficult to achieve.

Organizations matter in local governance: evidence from health sector decentralization in Honduras.

Health systems strengthening is at the forefront of the global health agenda. Many health systems in low-resource settings face profound challenges, and robust causal evidence on the effects of health systems reforms is lacking. Decentralization has been one of the most prominent reforms, and after more than 50 years of implementation and hundreds of studies, we still know little about whether these policies improve, harm or are inconsequential for the performance of health systems in less-developed countries. A persistent problem in existing studies is the inability to isolate the effect of decentralization on health outcomes, struggling with heterogeneous meanings of decentralization and missing counterfactuals. We address these shortcomings with a quasi-experimental, longitudinal research design that takes advantage of a unique staggered reform process in Honduras. Using three waves of household survey data over 10 years for a matched sample of 65 municipalities in Honduras, we estimated difference-in-difference models comparing changes in outcomes over time between local health systems that were decentralized using one of three types of organizations [municipal governments, associations of mayors or non-governmental organization (NGOs)] and those that remained centrally administered. We find evidence of overall improvements between 2005 and 2016 in several service delivery-related outcomes, and additional improvements in decentralized municipalities governed by NGOs. NGO-led municipalities saw a 15% decrease in home delivery relative to centralized municipalities in 2016, a 12.5% increase in MCH facility delivery and a 7% increase in the use of a skilled birth attendant. There were no detectable positive treatment effects for vaccination, and a slight decline in the weight-for-length z-scores in NGO municipalities, but we find no systematic evidence of decentralization negatively impacting any maternal and child health outcomes. These findings highlight the importance of considering implementation context, namely organization type, when assessing the effects of decentralization reform.