Project description:UnlabelledPOLICY POINTS: Many barriers hamper advocacy for health equity, including the contemporary economic zeitgeist, the biomedical health perspective, and difficulties cooperating across policy sectors on the issue. Effective advocacy should include persistent efforts to raise awareness and understanding of the social determinants of health. Education on the social determinants as part of medical training should be encouraged, including professional training within disadvantaged communities. Advocacy organizations have a central role in advocating for health equity given the challenges bridging the worlds of civil society, research, and policy.ContextHealth inequalities are systematic differences in health among social groups that are caused by unequal exposure to-and distributions of-the social determinants of health (SDH). They are persistent between and within countries despite action to reduce them. Advocacy is a means of promoting policies that improve health equity, but the literature on how to do so effectively is dispersed. The aim of this review is to synthesize the evidence in the academic and gray literature and to provide a body of knowledge for advocates to draw on to inform their efforts.MethodsThis article is a systematic review of the academic literature and a fixed-length systematic search of the gray literature. After applying our inclusion criteria, we analyzed our findings according to our predefined dimensions of advocacy for health equity. Last, we synthesized our findings and made a critical appraisal of the literature.FindingsThe policy world is complex, and scientific evidence is unlikely to be conclusive in making decisions. Timely qualitative, interdisciplinary, and mixed-methods research may be valuable in advocacy efforts. The potential impact of evidence can be increased by "packaging" it as part of knowledge transfer and translation. Increased contact between researchers and policymakers could improve the uptake of research in policy processes. Researchers can play a role in advocacy efforts, although health professionals and disadvantaged people, who have direct contact with or experience of hardship, can be particularly persuasive in advocacy efforts. Different types of advocacy messages can accompany evidence, but messages should be tailored to advocacy target. Several barriers hamper advocacy efforts. The most frequently cited in the academic literature are the current political and economic zeitgeist and related public opinion, which tend to blame disadvantaged people for their ill health, even though biomedical approaches to health and political short-termism also act as barriers. These barriers could be tackled through long-term actions to raise public awareness and understanding of the SDH and through training of health professionals in advocacy. Advocates need to take advantage of "windows of opportunity," which open and close quickly, and demonstrate expertise and credibility.ConclusionsThis article brings together for the first time evidence from the academic and the gray literature and provides a building block for efforts to advocate for health equity. Evidence regarding many of the dimensions is scant, and additional research is merited, particularly concerning the applicability of findings outside the English-speaking world. Advocacy organizations have a central role in advocating for health equity, given the challenges bridging the worlds of civil society, research, and policy.

Project description:BackgroundGlobal health partnerships (GHPs) are situated in complex political and economic relationships and involve partners with different needs and interests (e.g., government agencies, non-governmental organizations, corporations, universities, professional associations, philanthropic organizations and communities). As part of a mixed methods study designed to develop an equity-sensitive tool to support more equity-centred North-South GHPs, this critical interpretive synthesis examined reported assessments of GHPs.ResultsWe examined 30 peer-reviewed articles for power dynamics, equity and inequities, and contradictions or challenges encountered in North-South partnerships. Among articles reviewed, authors most often situated GHPs around a topical focus on research, capacity-building, clinical, or health services issues, with the 'work' of the partnership aiming to foster skills or respond to community needs. The specific features of GHPs that were assessed varied widely, with consistently-reported elements including the early phases of partnering; governance issues; the day-to-day work of partnerships; the performance, impacts and benefits of GHPs; and issues of inclusion. Articles shared a general interest in partnering processes and often touched briefly on issues of equity; but they rarely accounted for the complexity of sociopolitical and historical contexts shaping issues of equity in GHPs. Further, assessments of GHPs were often reported without inclusion of voices from all partners or named beneficiaries. GHPs were frequently portrayed as inherently beneficial for Southern partners, without attention to power dynamics and inequities (North-South, South-South). Though historical and political dynamics of the Global North and South were inconsistently examined as influential forces in GHPs, such dynamics were frequently portrayed as complex and characterized by asymmetries in power and resources. Generally, assessments of GHPs paid little attention to the macroeconomic forces in the power and resource dynamics of GHPs highlights the importance of considering the broader political. Our findings suggest that GHPs can serve to entrench both inequitable relationships and unfair distributions of power, resources, and wealth within and between countries (and partners) if inequitable power relationships are left unmitigated.ConclusionsWe argue that specific practices could enhance GHPs' contributions to equity, both in their processes and outcomes. Enhancing partnering practices to focus on inclusion, responsiveness to North-South and South-South inequities, and recognition of GHPs as situated in a broader (and inequitable) political economy. A relational and equity-centred approach to assessing GHPs would place social justice, humility and mutual benefits as central practices-that is, regular, routine things that partners involved in partnering do intentionally to make GHPs function well. Practicing equity in GHPs requires continuous efforts to explicitly acknowledge and examine the equity implications of all aspects of partnering.

Project description:The emergence of global health partnerships (GHPs) towards the end of the twentieth century reflected concerns about slow progress in access to essential medicines, including vaccines. These partnerships bring together governments, private philanthropic foundations, NGOs, and international agencies. Those in the vaccine field seek to incentivise the development and manufacture of new vaccines, raise funds to pay for them and develop and support systems to deliver them to those in need. These activities became more critical during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the COVAX Facility Initiative promoting global vaccine equity. This review identifies lessons from previous experiences with GHPs. Findings contribute to understanding the emergence of GHPs, the mechanisms they leverage to support global access to vaccines, and the inherent challenges associated with their implementation. Using Arksey and O'Malley's method, we conducted a scoping review to identify and synthesise relevant articles. We analysed data thematically to identify barriers and opportunities for success. We included 68 eligible articles of 3,215 screened. Most (65 [95%]) were discussion or review articles describing partnerships or programmes they supported, and three (5%) were commentaries. Emerging themes included policy responses (e.g., immunisation mandates), different forms of partnerships arising in vaccine innovation (e.g., product development partnerships, public-private partnerships for access), and influence on global governance decision-making processes (e.g., the rising influence of foundations, diminishing authority of WHO, lack of accountability and transparency, creation of disease silos). If global health partnerships are to maximise their contributions, they should: (1) increase transparency, especially regarding their impacts; (2) address the need for health systems strengthening; and (3) address disincentives for cooperative vaccine research and development partnerships and encourage expansion of manufacturing capacity in low and middle-income countries.

Project description:BackgroundA twinning partnership is a formal and substantive collaboration between two districts to improve their performance in providing primary healthcare services. The 'win-win' twinning partnership pairs are categorized under relatively high and low-performing districts. The purpose of this formative evaluation is to use the empirically derived systems model as an analytical framework to systematically document the inputs, throughputs and outputs of the twinning partnership strategy.MethodsThis explanatory sequential mixed method study design was conducted from October 2018 to September 2019, in Amhara, Oromia, Southern, Nations, Nationalities and Peoples' (SNNP) and Tigray regions. The quantitative research approach used an observational design which consists of three measurements: at baseline (October 2018), midterm (March 2019) and end-line (September 2019), and the qualitative approach employed a case study. Qualitative data was collected using interviewer-guided semi-structured interview tools. The data were transcribed verbatim, translated from Amharic and Afan Oromo into English and analyzed through a theoretical framework named the Bergen Model of Collaborative Functioning (BMCF). Quantitative data were extracted from routine health management information system. The results are presented as averages, percentages and graphs. To claim statistical significance, non-parametric tests: Friedman test at (p < 0.05) and Wilcoxon signed ranks test (p < 0.017) were analyzed.ResultsThe District Health System Performance (DHSP) was determined using data collected from eight districts. At baseline, the mean DHSP score was 50.97, at midterm, it was 60.3 and at end-line, it was 72.07. There was a strong degree and statistically significant relationship between baseline, midterm and end-line DHSP scores (r > 0.978**), using the Friedman test χ2(2) = 16.000, p = 0.001. Post hoc analysis using Wilcoxon signed-rank test was conducted with a Bonferroni correction and the results elicit higher DHSP values from baseline to midterm and from midterm to end-line with significance level set at p < 0.017. The qualitative results of the case study revealed that scanning the mission of the twinning partnership and focusing on a shared vision coupled with mobilizing internal and external resources were the fundamental input elements for successful twinning partnerships at the district level. In addition, the context of pursuing Universal Health Coverage (UHC) through achieving transformed districts can be enhanced through deploying skilled and knowledgeable leadership, defining clear roles and responsibilities for all stakeholders, forming agreed detailed action plans, and effective communication that leads to additive results and synergy. The twinning partnership implementing districts benefit from the formal relationship and accelerate their performances towards meeting the criteria of transformed districts in Ethiopia.ConclusionsTwinning partnerships help to accelerate the health system's performance in achieving the district transformation criteria. Therefore, scaling up the implementation of the twinning partnership strategy is recommended.

Dataset Information

Achieving global equity for COVID-19 vaccines: Stronger international partnerships and greater advocacy and solidarity are needed.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets