Gill Walt

Doing health policy analysis: methodological and conceptual reflections and challenges

The case for undertaking policy analysis has been made by a number of scholars and practitioners. However, there has been much less attention given to how to do policy analysis, what research designs, theories or methods best inform policy analysis. This paper begins by looking at the health policy environment, and some of the challenges to researching this highly complex phenomenon. It focuses on research in middle and low income countries, drawing on some of the frameworks and theories, methodologies and designs that can be used in health policy analysis, giving examples from recent studies. The implications of case studies and of temporality in research design are explored. Attention is drawn to the roles of the policy researcher and the importance of reflexivity and researcher positionality in the research process. The final section explores ways of advancing the field of health policy analysis with recommendations on theory, methodology and researcher reflexivity.

Describing the impact of health research: a Research Impact Framework

AbstractBackgroundResearchers are increasingly required to describe the impact of their work, e.g. in grant proposals, project reports, press releases and research assessment exercises. Specialised impact assessment studies can be difficult to replicate and may require resources and skills not available to individual researchers. Researchers are often hard-pressed to identify and describe research impacts and ad hoc accounts do not facilitate comparison across time or projects.MethodsThe Research Impact Framework was developed by identifying potential areas of health research impact from the research impact assessment literature and based on research assessment criteria, for example, as set out by the UK Research Assessment Exercise panels. A prototype of the framework was used to guide an analysis of the impact of selected research projects at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Additional areas of impact were identified in the process and researchers also provided feedback on which descriptive categories they thought were useful and valid vis-à-vis the nature and impact of their work.ResultsWe identified four broad areas of impact:I. Research-related impacts;II. Policy impacts;III. Service impacts: health and intersectoral andIV. Societal impacts.Within each of these areas, further descriptive categories were identified. For example, the nature of research impact on policy can be described using the following categorisation, put forward by Weiss: Instrumental use where research findings drive policy-making; Mobilisation of support where research provides support for policy proposals; Conceptual use where research influences the concepts and language of policy deliberations and Redefining/wider influence where research leads to rethinking and changing established practices and beliefs.ConclusionResearchers, while initially sceptical, found that the Research Impact Framework provided prompts and descriptive categories that helped them systematically identify a range of specific and verifiable impacts related to their work (compared to ad hoc approaches they had previously used). The framework could also help researchers think through implementation strategies and identify unintended or harmful effects. The standardised structure of the framework facilitates comparison of research impacts across projects and time, which is useful from analytical, management and assessment perspectives.

An unruly mélange? Coordinating external resources to the health sector: A review

The past two decades have witnessed an upsurge in the number of external agencies involved in the health sectors of developing countries. Concomitantly, there has been an increase in the volume of resources transferred through multilateral, bilateral and non-governmental organizations to these health systems. Notwithstanding the beneficial impact of increased resources, recipients and donors are increasingly concerned about the effects of this trend. This is particularly pertinent where the effort lacks adequate coordination. Recipients despair of an unruly mélange of external ideas and initiatives, that too often results in project proliferation and duplication, unrealistic demands, and ultimately a loss of control over the health development process. Donors on the contrary, are concerned about aid efficiency and effectiveness, two areas it is assumed will gain from increased attention to coordination. Both recipients and donors are looking for ways of better managing the aid relationship. Although there has been considerable experience with coordination strategies, most writing has considered external assistance in general, rather than the health sector in particular. The literature is striking in its bias towards the needs and perspectives of the donor community. There has been little analysis of the manner in which recipient ministries of health manage donors and the influx of resources. This review begins to fill this gap. Its focus is country-level, where most direct gains from coordination are to be reaped. The paper begins with an enumeration of the many and diverse trends which have raised the salience of aid coordination. A definition of coordination, a term used ambiguously in the existing literature, is then developed and the principles of aid coordination outlined. Finally, attention is directed to the initiatives of recipients and donors to improve the coordination of health sector aid.

The Global Fund: managing great expectations.

The Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria was created to increase funds to combat these three devastating diseases. We report interim findings, based on interviews with 137 national-level respondents that track early implementation processes in four African countries. Country coordinating mechanisms (CCMs) are country-level partnerships, which were formed quickly to develop and submit grant proposals to the Global Fund. CCM members were often ineffective at representing their constituencies and encountered obstacles in participating in CCM processes. Delay in dissemination of guidelines from the Global Fund led to uncertainty among members about the function of these new partnerships. Respondents expressed most concern about the limited capacity of fund recipients--government and non-government--to meet Global Fund conditions for performance-based disbursement. Delays in payment of funds to implementing agencies have frustrated rapid financing of disease control interventions. The Global Fund is one of several new global initiatives superimposed on existing country systems to finance the control of HIV/AIDS. New and existing donors need to coordinate assistance to developing countries by bringing together funding, planning, management, and reporting systems if global goals for disease control are to be achieved.

GAVI, the first steps: lessons for the Global Fund.

The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) is seen as a model for the new Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, to be launched early in 2002. We did an assessment in four African countries to report the experiences of ministries of health and their partners in applying to GAVI for funds to strengthen health systems and for new vaccines. Countries welcomed the introduction of hepatitis B vaccine, safe injection equipment, and the financial support to strengthen immunisation programmes. All reported that the pace of the application process was too rapid. District visits revealed low staffing levels, insufficient transport and fuel, poorly functioning cold chains, and infrequent supervision. Information systems were unreliable, which will be an obstacle to GAVI when monitoring and rewarding improvements in immunisation coverage. Also, the high cost of expensive new vaccines will be difficult to sustain if GAVI funding stops at the end of its 5 year commitment. Our study suggests that applications for support and planning for AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria control under the new Global Fund, will be more complex and demanding on already over-stretched ministries of health. Further, the rapid onset of activities, coupled with uncertainty about the time-scale of donor commitment, could be problematic. A limited and carefully assessed set of initial activities, focusing on where and how to strengthen existing country systems, is more likely to be successful and could provide useful models for scaling-up to larger programmes in different contexts.

Are large scale volunteer community health worker programmes feasible? The case of Sri Lanka.

National community health worker (CHW) programmes supported by Ministries of Health have been introduced in a number of countries as part of their primary health care policy. Although in many of these programmes the CHWs are salaried or receive an honorarium, there are a number of large-scale programmes in which CHWs work as unpaid volunteers. This paper looks at one such programme in Sri Lanka, in order to understand the motivation of such volunteers and to consider the feasibility of relying on volunteers to support primary health care policies. The lessons from the Sri Lanka case are generalized to other studies. The conclusion is that large-scale community level volunteer programmes will be characterized by high attrition and low activity rates and will only be sustainable under particular enabling conditions.

Globalisation of international health

40 years ago, activities in international health were the domain of WHO, governments (based on bilateral agreements), and non-governmental organisations. This has changed. Today, new players (such as the World Bank and, increasingly, the World Trade Organisation) have an influence on international health. As globalisation of trade and markets takes hold, new coalitions and alliances are forming to examine and deal with the direct and indirect consequences on health. This paper examines the changing context of cooperation in international health, and voices concerns about rising potential inequalities in health, both within and between countries. The question of how such changes will affect the actions of organisations working in international health is also addressed.

International perspectives on health inequalities and policy

Inequalities and inequities in health have long been central to the concerns of public health. Governments in several countries, including the United Kingdom, have recently shown renewed interest in tackling these issues.1 Concerted attempts have also been made to push them up the global health policy agenda,2–4 and at the same time international agencies and donors are giving priority to efforts to reduce poverty. In this article we provide an overview of the current debates around inequity, inequalities, poverty, and health, drawing together current international understandings of the problem.

What can global health institutions do to help strengthen health systems in low income countries

Weaknesses in health systems contribute to a failure to improve health outcomes in developing countries, despite increased official development assistance. Changes in the demands on health systems, as well as their scope to respond, mean that the situation is likely to become more problematic in the future. Diverse global initiatives seek to strengthen health systems, but progress will require better coordination between them, use of strategies based on the best available evidence obtained especially from evaluation of large scale programs, and improved global aid architecture that supports these processes. This paper sets out the case for global leadership to support health systems investments and help ensure the synergies between vertical and horizontal programs that are essential for effective functioning of health systems. At national level, it is essential to increase capacity to manage and deliver services, situate interventions firmly within national strategies, ensure effective implementation, and co-ordinate external support with local resources. Health systems performance should be monitored, with clear lines of accountability, and reforms should build on evidence of what works in what circumstances.

The role of state and non-state actors in the policy process: the contribution of policy networks to the scale-up of antiretroviral therapy in Thailand

Antiretroviral therapy (ART) is difficult in poor settings. In 2001, the Thai government adopted the policy to scale-up its treatment initiative to meet the needs of all its people. Employing qualitative approaches, including in-depth interviews, document review and direct observation, this study examines the processes by which the universal ART policy developed between 2001 and 2007, with the focus on the connections between actors who shared common interests--so-called policy networks. Research findings illustrate the crucial contributions of non-state networks in the policy process. The supportive roles of public-civic networks could be observed at every policy stage, and at different levels of the health sector. Although this particular health policy may be unique in case and setting, it does suggest clearly that while the state dominated the policy process initially, non-state actors played extremely important roles. Their contribution was not simply at agenda-setting stages--for example by lobbying government--but in the actual development and implementation of health policy. Further it illustrates that these processes were dynamic, took place over long periods and were not limited to national borders, but extended beyond, to include global actors and processes.