Although concerns have historically been raised about the influence of external donors on health policy process in recipient countries, remarkably few studies have investigated perspectives and experiences of domestic policymakers and advisers. This study examines donor influence at different stages of the health policy process (priority setting, policy formulation, policy implementation and monitoring and evaluation) in two aid-dependent LMICs, Cambodia and Pakistan. It identifies mechanisms through which asymmetries in influence between donors and domestic policy actors emerge. We conducted 24 key informant interviews—14 in Pakistan and 10 in Cambodia—with high-level decision-makers who inform or authorize health priority setting, allocate resources and/or are responsible for policy implementation, identifying three routes of influence: financial resources, technical expertise and indirect financial and political incentives. We used both inductive and deductive approaches to analyse the data. Our findings indicate that different routes of influence emerged depending on the stage of the policy process. Control of financial resources was the most commonly identified route by which donors influenced priority setting and policy implementation. Greater (perceived) technical expertise played an important role in donor influence at the policy formulation stage. Donors’ power in influencing decisions, particularly during the final (monitoring and evaluation) stage of the policy process, was mediated by their ability to control indirect financial and political incentives as well as direct control of financial resources. This study thus helps unpack the nuances of donor influence over health policymaking in these settings, and can potentially indicate areas that require attention to increase the ownership of domestic actors of their countries’ health policy processes.

By 2050, the number of adults over 65 years of age will be double the under-5 population, and heavily concentrated in low- and middle-income countries. Population growth and increasing life expectancies call for effective healthy aging strategies inclusive of immunization to reduce the burden of vaccine-preventable diseases, improve quality of life, and mitigate antimicrobial resistance. Based on a review of available literature on the pneumococcal disease, influenza, and herpes zoster epidemiology and economic burden, and the health systems and policy barriers for adult immunization, we identified evidence gaps and considerations for prioritizing adult immunization. The body of evidence for adult immunization and the health and economic burden of adult disease is heavily concentrated in high-income countries. The few countries reporting adult immunization policies generally focus on high-risk groups. Despite robust child immunization programs in most countries, adult immunization programs and policies lag far behind and there is a general lack of appropriate delivery platforms. Global adult disease burden and economic costs are substantial but evidence from low- and middle-income countries is limited. There is a need for a strengthened evidence base and political commitment to drive a comprehensive, global technical consensus on adult immunization.

Background: Given the paradigmatic shift represented by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as compared to the Millennium Development Goals - in particular their broad and interconnected nature - a new set of health policy and systems research (HPSR) priorities are needed to inform strategies to address these interconnected goals. Objectives: To identify high priority HPSR questions linked to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. Methods: We focused on three themes that we considered to be central to achieving the health related SDGs: (i) Protecting and promoting access to health services through systems of social protection (ii) Strengthening multisectoral collaborations for health and (iii) Developing more participatory and accountable institutions. We conducted 54 semi-structured interviews and two focus group discussions to investigate policy-maker perspectives on evidence needs. We also conducted an overview of literature reviews in each theme. Information from these sub-studies was extracted into a matrix of possible research questions and developed into three domain-specific lists of 30–36 potential priority questions. Topic experts from the global research community then refined and ranked the proposed questions through an online platform. A final webinar on each theme sought feedback on findings. Results: Policy-makers continue to demand HPSR for many well-established issues such as health financing, human resources for health, and service delivery. In terms of service delivery, policy-makers wanted to know how best to strengthen primary health care and community-based systems. In the themes of social protection and multisectoral collaboration, prioritized questions had a strong emphasis on issues of practical implementation. For participatory and accountable institutions, the two priority questions focused on political factors affecting the adoption of accountability measures, as well as health worker reactions to such measures. Conclusions: To achieve the SDGs, there is a continuing need for research in some already well established areas of HPSR as well as key areas highlighted by decision-makers. Identifying appropriate conceptual frameworks as well as typologies of examples may be a prerequisite for answering some of the substantive policymaker questions. In addition, implementation research engaging non-traditional stakeholders outside of the health sector will be critical.

An effective health management information system (HMIS) that captures accurate, consistent, and relevant data in a timely fashion can enable better planning and monitoring of health programs and improved service delivery, in turn helping increase the impact of different interventions. In 2009, the Government of Uttar Pradesh (GOUP) implemented HMIS, India’s national-level health information platform. However, key challenges, including difficulties in accessing the data through a web-based portal and its limited relevance to decision making and managerial needs, reduced its usability at the district and state levels. In 2015, with the support of the Uttar Pradesh Technical Support Unit, the GOUP created its own data platform, the Uttar Pradesh HMIS (UP-HMIS), to capture data elements missing from HMIS but important to UP decision makers. The UP-HMIS was redesigned to capture these data elements to holistically measure and monitor the performance of health programs and inform decision making at the district and state levels. In addition, the GOUP implemented complementary initiatives to improve data quality and data use processes. To improve HMIS data quality, the GOUP established data validation committee meetings at the block, district, and state levels. To promote the use of these validated data, in 2017, the GOUP developed and implemented the UP Health Dashboard, which ranks each of UP’s 75 districts on a set of key HMIS priority health indicators. These policy guidelines have brought greater attention to UP-HMIS data quality and use; however, additional strengthening is required to improve the quality and use of HMIS data. There is a need to increase the overall capacity and understanding of HMIS data, not only for staff with specific data-related responsibilities but also for program managers and senior decision makers. Key Findings The Uttar Pradesh Health Management Information System (UP-HMIS) has allowed managers across all levels of the health system to access routinely collected data through an online portal. The UP-HMIS built on the national HMIS by capturing appropriate data elements; furthermore, it integrated the collection of inputs and processes indicators that had been collected via 80 paper-based forms that ran in parallel with the national HMIS. To strengthen UP-HMIS implementation and create a culture of high-quality data use, trainings on improving data quality (e.g., through the implementation of regular audits and supportive supervision) and data use (e.g., through monthly review meetings) were implemented across all levels of the health system. Key Implication Authorities should encourage continued data use and performance improvement by investing in training for local-level staff who analyze UP-HMIS data for decision making.

Background: Uganda faces a complex policy landscape as it simultaneously addresses infectious diseases and noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). The health system has been overwhelmed by the growing burden of NCDs across all socioeconomic strata. In this study, we sought to understand the policy context around NCDs in Uganda, the roles of actors both within and external to the government, and the factors shaping the development and implementation of NCD policies and programs in Uganda. Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with 30 policy actors from the Ugandan Ministry of Health (MOH), nongovernmental organizations, and academia to understand the roles of different actors in the Ugandan NCD space, the programs and policy measures in discussion, and how to bridge any identified gaps. A thematic data analysis was conducted. Results: All national actors viewed funding constraints as a critical barrier to developing and executing an NCD strategic plan and as a barrier to leading and coordinating NCD prevention and control efforts in Uganda. The crowding of nongovernment actors was found to fragment NCD efforts, particularly due to the weak implementation of a framework for action among NCD actors. Relatedly, limited recruitment of technical experts on NCDs within the MOH was viewed to further diminish the government9s role in leading policy and program formulation and implementation. Though recent MOH efforts have aimed at addressing these concerns, some skepticism remains about the government9s commitment to increase budgetary allocations for NCDs and to address the technical and human resources gaps needed to achieve NCD policy aims in Uganda. Conclusions: This study highlights the immediate need to mobilize more resources, reduce fragmented efforts in the NCD space, and prioritize investment in NCD prevention and management in Uganda. Key Findings Inadequate government funding for noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) has elevated the role of external partners in shaping the development and implementation of NCD policies and programs in Uganda. Limited recruitment of technical experts and managers for NCDs in the Ministry of Health (MOH) has been a barrier to the effective coordination and communication across multiple government and nongovernmental actors in the NCD space. Financial, technical, and managerial constraints have contributed to external actors spearheading several NCD program activities with the MOH playing a more supportive role. Key Implications Policy makers and public health practitioners should prioritize building the MOH9s financial, managerial, and technical capacity to oversee and lead the development and implementation of NCD programs and policies. Government leadership is critical in developing and executing a comprehensive strategic plan for NCDs that all actors can agree upon and adopt as the guiding framework for action.