Evidence attack in public health: Diverse actors' experiences with translating controversial or misrepresented evidence in health policy and systems research.

Bringing evidence into policy and practice discussions is political; more so when evidence from health studies or programme data are deemed controversial or unexpected, or when results are manipulated and misrepresented. Furthermore, opinion and misinformation in recent years has challenged our notions about how to achieve evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM). Health policy and systems (HPS) researchers and practitioners are battling misrepresentation that only serves to detract from important health issues or, worse, benefit powerful interests. This paper describes cases of politically and socially controversial evidence presented by researchers, practitioners and journalists during the Health Systems Research Symposium 2020. These cases cut across global contexts and range from public debates on vaccination, comprehensive sexual education, and tobacco to more inward debates around performance-based financing and EIDM in refugee policy. The consequences of engaging in controversial research include threats to commercial profit, perceived assaults on moral beliefs, censorship, fear of reprisal, and infodemics. Consequences for public health include research(er) hesitancy, contribution to corruption and leakage, researcher reflexivity, and ethical concerns within the HPS research and EIDM fields. Recommendations for supporting researchers, practitioners and advocates include better training and support structures for responding to controversy, safe spaces for sharing experiences, and modifying incentive structures.

A Reporting System to Protect the Human Rights of People Living with HIV and Key Populations.

People living with HIV and key populations face human rights violations that affect their access to health services, relationships in their communities, housing options, and employment. To address these violations, government and civil society organizations in Ghana developed a discrimination reporting system managed by the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice that links people living with HIV and key populations to legal services. This article presents findings on how Ghanaian stakeholders built this reporting system and discusses preliminary data on its impact. To organize our analysis, we used a conceptual framework that outlines the legal frameworks that protect human rights, the institutions that promote access to justice, and the mechanisms that link people living with HIV and key populations to legal services. Using in-depth interviews, we show that targeted technical assistance increased stakeholders' knowledge of issues that affect people living with HIV and key populations, strengthened these stakeholders' commitment to address discrimination, streamlined case management systems, and improved relationships between civil society and the government. Through case review, we find that most discrimination happens when accessing government services, inside communities and families, and in the workplace. Finally, we describe implications for other human rights commissions that are considering using a reporting system to protect human rights, including using legal frameworks, developing case management systems, and working with civil society.

Civil society advocacy in Nigeria: promoting democratic norms or donor demands?

BACKGROUND: Civil society organizations (CSOs) are often assumed to be institutions that facilitate communication between citizens and policymakers. However, CSO advocacy is only as effective as the space allowed by government, the resources available from funders, and their own internal capacity. This article presents findings from a study in Nigeria that explores the advocacy and service delivery roles of CSOs working in Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) prevention and mitigation. We will argue that donor and government treatment of civil society as service delivery organizations, rather than as organizations that participate in democratic norms, have shaped how civil society organizations work to mitigate and prevent HIV. METHODS: From February to April 2012, a team of Health Systems 20/20 staff and one consultant conducted 48 in-depth interviews with civil society organizations, State AIDS Control Agencies (SACAs), donors, international organizations, and networks of people living with HIV to examine a wide range of advocacy efforts by CSOs. For quantitative data collection, sampling frames were assembled from lists of HIV-oriented or involved CSOs. This sampling frame consisted of 2548 CSOs from all 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory. A random sample was then taken from the sampling frame, and we contacted 665 CSOs to arrange interviews. With a response rate of 80.2 %, the project conducted 533 surveys in February 2012. RESULTS: These surveys showed that CSOs advocacy efforts focused on community mobilization related to behavior change, such as peer education (54.9 % of CSOs) and rallies (58.2 % of CSOs), and not on changing government policies. In-depth interviews highlighted the role of donors and government in shaping a purely apolitical role for most CSOs through funding constraints, regulations, and capacity development choices. CONCLUSIONS: In light of these findings, we present key points for considering the influence of donors and government on civil society advocacy for HIV services and rights. We present evidence that donors, and international organizations, conceive of civil society as apolitical, and not as independent actors that compete for political space. More democratic and rights-based views of civil society's role, such as holding government accountable for providing services or promoting policy change, are not emphasized.

Using a reporting system to protect the human rights of people living with HIV and key populations: a conceptual framework.

Human rights of people living with HIV (PLHIV) and key populations most affected by HIV are often violated, with negative implications for health outcomes. To facilitate access to justice in Ghana, a consortium of partners developed a web-based discrimination reporting system. The reporting system links the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) to civil society organizations through case reporting, follow-up, and aggregated reported data use. A reporting system can form a critical part of a country's human rights protection network. In Ghana, the combination of a supportive legal framework, an institutional home, and engaged stakeholders have created a favorable environment for developing such a system. Other institutions may learn from Ghana's experience by adapting these lessons.