Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 4/2016

Open Access 01-07-2016 | Research

Assessing policy dialogues and the role of context: Liberian case study before and during the Ebola outbreak

Authors: Juliet Nabyonga-Orem, Mesfin Gebrikidane, Aziza Mwisongo

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Special Issue 4/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

In the last decade participatory approaches have gained prominence in policy-making, becoming the focus of good policy-making processes. Policy dialogue is recognised as an important aspect of policy-making among several interactive and innovative policy-making models applied in different contexts and sectors. Recently there has been emphasis on the quality of policy dialogue in terms of how it should be conducted to attain participation and inclusiveness. However, there is paucity of evidence on how the context influences policy dialogue, particularly participation of stakeholders. Liberia’s context, which is characterised as post-war, highly donor dependent and in recovery from the recent catastrophic Ebola outbreak, provides an opportunity to understand the influence of context on policy dialogue.

Methods

This was an exploratory study using qualitative methods. Key informant interviews were conducted using an interview guide. A total of 16 interviews were conducted, 12 at the national level and 4 at the sub national level. Data were analysed using inductive thematic content analysis.

Results

The respondents felt that the dialogues were a success and involved important stakeholders; however, there were concerns about the improper methodology and facilitation used to conduct them. Opinions among the respondents about the process of generating and selecting the themes for the dialogues were extremely divergent. Both before and during the Ebola outbreak, the context was instrumental in shaping the dialogues according to the issue of focus, requirements for participation and the decisions to be made. Policy dialogues have become a platform for policy discussions and decisions in Liberia. It is a process that is well recognised and appreciated and is highly attributed to the success of the negotiations during the Ebola outbreak.

Conclusions

To sustain and strengthen policy dialogues in future, there needs to be proper information sharing through diverse forums and avenues, stakeholders’ empowerment and competent facilitation. These will ensure that the process is credible and legitimate.
Literature
1.
2.
Lavis JN, Jennifer A, Boyko J, Oxman AD, Lewin S, Fretheim A. Support Tools for Evidence-Informed Health Policymaking (STP) 14: Organizing and Using Policy Dialogues to Support Evidence Informed Policymaking. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2009;7:S14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Rajan D, Adam T, El Husseiny D, Porignon D, Ghaffar A, Schmets G. Briefing Note: Policy dialogue: What it is and how it can contribute to evidence-informed decision-making. Geneva: WHO; 2015.
4.
Jones N, Jones H, Walsh C. Political science? Strengthening science-policy dialogue in developing countries. London: Overseas Development Institute; 2008.
5.
Erasmus E, Gilson L. How to start thinking about investigating power in the organizational settings of policy implementation. Health Policy Plan. 2008;23(5):361–8.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Grindle MS, Thomas JW. Policy makers, policy choices, and policy outcomes: The political economy of reform in developing countries. Policy Sci. 1989;22(3-4):213–48.CrossRef
7.
Walt G, Gilson L. Reforming the health sector in developing countries: the central role of policy analysis. Health Policy Plan. 1994;9(4):353–70.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Ashraf S, Moore C, Gupta V, Chowdhury A, Azad AK, Singh N, Hagan D, Labrique AB. Overview of a multi-stakeholder dialogue around Shared Services for Health: the Digital Health Opportunity in Bangladesh. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2015;13(1):74.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Moat KA, Lavis JN, Abelson J. How contexts and issues influence the use of policy-relevant research syntheses: a critical interpretive synthesis. Milbank Q. 2013;91(3):604–48.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Moat KA, Abelson J. Analyzing the influence of institutions on health policy development in Uganda: a case study of the decision to abolish user fees. Afr Health Sci. 2011;11(4):578–86.PubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Hinchcliff R, Greenfield D, Braithwaite J. Is it worth engaging in multi-stakeholder health services research collaborations? Reflections on key benefits, challenges and enabling mechanisms. Int J Qual Health Care. 2014;26(2):124–8.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Gyapong JO, Selby RA, Anakwah KA. Challenges in linking health research to policy: a commentary on developing a multi-stakeholder response to orphans and vulnerable children in Ghana. Health Res Policy Syst. 2011;9 Suppl 1:S14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
14.
15.
Fearon JD, Humphreys M, Weinstein JM. Can development aid contribute to social cohesion after civil war? Evidence from a field experiment in post-conflict Liberia. Am Econ Rev. 2009;99(2):287–291.CrossRef
16.
World Bank. World Development Index (WDI) Database. Washington DC: World Bank; 2010.
17.
Chan M. Ebola virus disease in West Africa—no early end to the outbreak. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(13):1183–5.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Hennink M, Hutter I, Bail A. Qualitative Research Methods, vol. 88. New Delhi: Sage; 2011.
19.
Health policy project. Capacity Development Resources Guide: Policy Dialogue. Washington DC: Futures Group-Health policy project; 2014.
20.
Joint Accord Table of the Voluntary Sector Initiative. A code of Good Practice on Policy dialogue. Ottawa: Government of Canada; 2002
21.
Thomas JW, Grindle MS. After the decision: Implementing policy reforms in developing countries. World Dev. 1990;18(8):1163–81.CrossRef
22.
Lipsky M. Street level bureaucracy, vol. 198. New York: Russell Sage; 1979.
23.
24.
Kamuzora P, Gilson L. Factors influencing implementation of the Community Health Fund in Tanzania. Health Policy Plan. 2007;22(2):95–102.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Burris H, Parkhurst J, Adu-Sarkodie Y, Mayaud P. Getting research into policy - herpes simplex virus type-2 (HSV-2) treatment and HIV infection: international guidelines formulation and the case of Ghana. Health Res Policy Syst. 2011;9 Suppl 1:S5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Schunemann HJ, Fretheim A, Oxman AD. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 10. Integrating values and consumer involvement. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006;4:22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
28.
Nabyonga Orem J, Bataringaya Wavamunno J, Bakeera SK, Criel B. Do guidelines influence the implementation of health programs?--Uganda’s experience. Implement Sci. 2012;7:98.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Sanderson I. Evaluation, policy learning and evidence‐based policy making. Public Adm. 2002;80(1):1–22.CrossRef
30.
Edquist C. Innovation policy–a systemic approach. Oxford: The Globalizing Learning Economy Oxford University Press; 2001. p. 219–37.
31.
32.
The SURE collaboration. SURE Guidelines for Preparing and Using Evidence-Based Policy Briefs: 7. Organising and running policy dialogues. Version 2.1 [updated November 2011]. The SURE Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.​evipnet.​org/​sure
33.
Stanback J, Griffey S, Lynam P, Ruto C, Cummings S. Improving adherence to family planning guidelines in Kenya: an experiment. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(2):68–73.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Grimshaw JM, Shirran L, Thomas R, Mowatt G, Fraser C, Bero L, Grilli R, Harvey E, Oxman A, O’Brien MA. Changing provider behavior: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions. Med Care. 2001;39(8 Suppl 2):II2–II45.PubMed
35.
Nyenswah T, Fahnbulleh M, Massaquoi M, Nagbe T, Bawo L, Falla JD, H Kohar, Gasasira A, Nabeth P, Yett S, et al. Ebola epidemic—Liberia, March–October 2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly. 2014;63(46):1082–6.
36.
Bazeley P, Brown T, Rudland E. Thinking and working politically - an evaluation of policy dialogoue in AusAID. (AusAID) AAfID. Canberra, Australia: Office of Development effectiveness; 2013.
37.
Boyd EA, Bero LA. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 4. Managing conflicts of interests. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006;4:16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Daniels K, Lewin S. Translating research into maternal health care policy: a qualitative case study of the use of evidence in policies for the treatment of eclampsia and pre-eclampsia in South Africa. Health Res Policy Syst. 2008;6:12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
Contandriopoulos D, Lemire M, Denis JL, Tremblay E. Knowledge exchange processes in organizations and policy arenas: a narrative systematic review of the literature. Milbank Q. 2010;88(4):444–83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Syed SB, Hyder AA, Bloom G, Sundaram S, Bhuiya A, Zhenzhong Z, Kanjilal B, Oladepo O, Pariyo G, Peters DH. Exploring evidence-policy linkages in health research plans: a case study from six countries. Health Res Policy Syst. 2008;6:4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
42.
Nabyonga-Orem J. Diffusion of evidence into public health policies and practice: investigating teh black box. Thesis for Doctoral Degree in Public Health. UCL: Brussels; 2015.
43.
Boyko JA, Lavin JN, Abelson J, Dobbins MCN. Deliberative dialogues as a mechanism for knowledge translation and exchange in health systems decision-making. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75:1938–45.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Dalglish SL, Surkan PJ, Diarra A, Harouna A, Bennett S. Power and pro-poor policies: the case of iCCM in Niger. Health Policy Plan. 2015;30 suppl 2:ii84–94.CrossRefPubMed
45.
McCullough A, Tsui JGT, Bazeley P. Review of Literature and International Practice in Policy Dialogue. Australia: Effectiveness AGAOoD; 2011.
Metadata
Title
Assessing policy dialogues and the role of context: Liberian case study before and during the Ebola outbreak
Authors
Juliet Nabyonga-Orem
Mesfin Gebrikidane
Aziza Mwisongo
Publication date
01-07-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue Special Issue 4/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1454-y

Other articles of this Special Issue 4/2016

BMC Health Services Research 4/2016 Go to the issue

Research

The role of power in health policy dialogues: lessons from African countries

Research

Coordination of the health policy dialogue process in Guinea: pre- and post-Ebola

Research

Perspectives on health policy dialogue: definition, perceived importance and coordination

Research

Improved harmonisation from policy dialogue? Realist perspectives from Guinea and Chad

Research

Policy dialogues – the “bolts and joints” of policy-making: experiences from Cabo Verde, Chad and Mali

Research

An analytical perspective of Global health initiatives in Tanzania and Zambia