Influencing policy change: the experience of health think tanks in low- and middle-income countries
Influencing policy change: the experience of health think tanks in low- and middle-income countries
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/heapol/czr035
复制
发表时间：
2012-05-01
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Aikins, Ama de-Graft
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bennett, Sara;Corluka, Adrijana;Aikins, Ama de-Graft
近年来，由于政府分析能力有限和民主化带来的压力，中低收入国家的独立卫生政策分析机构数量有所增加。本研究旨在：（i）调查中低收入国家卫生政策分析机构对卫生政策议程的设定、制定、执行以及监测和评价所作的贡献;（ii）评估哪些因素，包括组织形式和结构，支持中低收入国家卫生政策分析机构在积极促进卫生政策方面发挥作用。对孟加拉国、加纳、印度、南非、乌干达和越南的6个卫生政策分析机构进行了案例研究，其中包括2个非政府组织、2所大学和2个政府拥有的政策分析机构。案例研究借鉴了文件审查、财务信息分析、与工作人员和其他利益攸关方的半结构化访谈以及对调查结果草稿的反复反馈。其中一些研究所为各自国家的政策制定作出了重大贡献。所有研究所都积极参与提供政策咨询，大多数研究所进行了与政策有关的研究。从事政策对话、系统审查或委托进行研究的国家相对较少。各研究所开展的大部分工作是由政府或捐助者的要求推动的，大多数研究所的主要产出是研究报告，经常与口头简报相结合。有几个因素对于支持有效的政策参与至关重要。这些条件包括有利的政策环境、在治理和筹资方面的某种程度的独立性以及与决策者的密切联系，以促进信任和影响力。虽然研究所与政府的正式关系并不重要，但政府内部的单位面临相当大的困难。
In recent years there has been a growth in the number of independent health policy analysis institutes in low- and middle-income countries which has occurred in response to the limitation of government analytical capacity and pressures associated with democratization. This study aimed to: (i) investigate the contribution made by health policy analysis institutes in low- and middle-income countries to health policy agenda setting, formulation, implementation and monitoring and evaluation; and (ii) assess which factors, including organizational form and structure, support the role of health policy analysis institutes in low- and middle-income countries in terms of positively contributing to health policy. Six case studies of health policy analysis institutes in Bangladesh, Ghana, India, South Africa, Uganda and Vietnam were conducted including two NGOs, two university and two government-owned policy analysis institutes. Case studies drew on document review, analysis of financial information, semi-structured interviews with staff and other stakeholders, and iterative feedback of draft findings. Some of the institutes had made major contributions to policy development in their respective countries. All of the institutes were actively engaged in providing policy advice and most undertook policy-relevant research. Relatively few were engaged in conducting policy dialogues, or systematic reviews, or commissioning research. Much of the work undertaken by institutes was driven by requests from government or donors, and the primary outputs for most institutes were research reports, frequently combined with verbal briefings. Several factors were critical in supporting effective policy engagement. These included a supportive policy environment, some degree of independence in governance and financing, and strong links to policy makers that facilitate trust and influence. While the formal relationship of the institute to government was not found to be critical, units within government faced considerable difficulties.