Dataset Information

Bridging global health actors and agendas: the role of national public health institutes.

ABSTRACT: Global health crises require coordination and collaboration among actors and global health agendas including health security, health promotion, and universal health coverage. This study investigated whether national public health institutes (NPHIs) unify agendas and actors, how this can be achieved, and what factors contribute to success. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 public health leaders from 18 countries in six WHO regions between 2019 and 2020. Respondents described how NPHIs bridge agendas reporting five strategies that institutes employ: serving as a trusted scientific advisor; convening actors across and within sectors; prioritizing transdisciplinary approaches; integrating public health infrastructures, and training that builds public health capacity. Findings also revealed five enabling factors critical to success: a strong legal foundation; scientific independence; public trust and legitimacy; networks and partnerships at global, national, and local levels; and stable funding. The Covid-19 pandemic underscores the urgency of securing scientific independence and promoting national institutes' responsiveness to public health challenges.

SUBMITTER: Myhre S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9002032 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Bridging global health actors and agendas: the role of national public health institutes.

Myhre Sonja S Habtemariam Mahlet Kifle MK Heymann David L DL Ottersen Trygve T Stoltenberg Camilla C Ventura Deisy de Freitas Lima DFL Vikum Eirik F EF Bergh Anne A

Journal of public health policy 20220412 2

Global health crises require coordination and collaboration among actors and global health agendas including health security, health promotion, and universal health coverage. This study investigated whether national public health institutes (NPHIs) unify agendas and actors, how this can be achieved, and what factors contribute to success. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 public health leaders from 18 countries in six WHO regions between 2019 and 2020. Respondents described how NPH ...[more]

PMID: 35414694

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionStrong and efficient institutions are vital to the development of well-functioning governments and strong societies. The term "institution building" encompasses the creation, support, development, and strengthening of organizations and institutions. Still, there is little aggregated evidence on "institution building" considering a wider system-thinking approach, best practices, or development cooperation specifically in the field of public health. In 2007, the International Association of National Public Health Institutes (IANPHI) created a guiding Framework that countries may use for developing National Public Health Institutes (NPHIs). This Framework is currently being revised.MethodsIn this context, we conducted a systematic review to facilitate this revision with recent evidence on institution building and its potential contribution to NPHI. We followed the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews, searching for relevant publications in seven scientific databases (Pubmed, VHL/LILACS, EconLit, Google Scholar, Web of Science, World Affairs Online, ECONBIZ) and four libraries (World Bank; European Health for All database of the World Health Organization European Region, WHO; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD; and the African Union Common Repository). The search was carried out in October 2021. We used the "framework analysis" tool for systematically processing documents according to key themes.ResultsAs a result, we identified 3,015 records, of which we included 62 documents in the final review. This systematic review fills a major gap of aggregated information on institution building in the field of public health and National Public Health Institutes. It is to our knowledge the first systematic review of this kind. The overriding result is the identification and definition of six domains of institution building in the health sector: "governance," "knowledge and innovation," "inter-institutional cooperation," "monitoring and control," "participation," and "sustainability and context-specific adaptability."DiscussionOur results show that the described domains are highly relevant to the public health sector, and that managers and the scientific community recognize their importance. Still, they are often not applied consistently when creating or developing NPHIs. We conclude that organizations engaged in institution building of NPHIs, including IANPHI, may greatly benefit from state-of-the-art research on institution building as presented in this study.

Project description:ImportanceEarly-stage and established investigators compete for a limited supply of funds from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Regardless of their previous funding success, many principal investigators (PIs) encounter a funding gap in which they no longer receive ongoing funding from the NIH.ObjectiveTo determine incidence rates of PI-level funding gaps, the mean funding gap length, and whether these 2 metrics are associated with previous funding success.Design, setting, and participantsThis study was conducted using data from NIH RePORTER. Historical datafiles for fiscal year (FY) 2011 to FY 2021 were aggregated to generate 2 master datafiles for this period: all NIH awards and only R01 awards. PIs with no funding in FY 2011 or FY 2021 were removed. PIs were sorted by FY 2011 total funding amounts and grouped by quarter of amount.ResultsA total of 39 944 unique researchers were awarded 220 131 NIH awards, of which 103 753 were R01 awards. For all NIH awards, there was an overall linear increase from top quarter to bottom quarter in the percentage of PIs who had at least 1 year without funding (from 27% to 75%), percentage of these gap PIs who had at least 2 consecutive years without funding (from 56% to 68%), and mean maximum consecutive years without funding for gap PIs (2.2 years to 3.1 years). For only R01 awards, there was an overall linear increase from top quarter to bottom quarter in the percentage of PIs who had at least 1 year without funding (50% to 74%), percentage of gap PIs who had at least 2 consecutive years without funding (59% to 71%), and mean maximum consecutive years without funding for gap PIs (2.4 years to 3.1 years).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of NIH-funded investigators, PIs with higher NIH funding were less likely to experience a funding gap. Additionally, when these PIs encountered a funding gap, this period without funding was shorter; however, among all PIs, funding gaps typically lasted 2 to 3 years. These associations were found inclusive of all NIH awards and when analysis was limited to only R01 awards. These findings may be useful to PIs and academic institutions as they prepare, structure, and project research resource allocations.

Dataset Information

Bridging global health actors and agendas: the role of national public health institutes.

Publications

Bridging global health actors and agendas: the role of national public health institutes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets