Chigozie Jesse Uneke1, Abel Ebeh Ezeoha2, Henry Uro-Chukwu3, Chinonyelum Thecla Ezeonu4, Ogbonnaya Ogbu5, Friday Onwe6, Chima Edoga7. 1. Department of Medical Microbiology/Parasitology, Faculty of Clinical Medicine, Ebonyi State University Abakaliki Nigeria ; Health Policy & systems Research Project (Knowledge Translation Platform), Ebonyi State University Abakaliki Nigeria. 2. Health Policy & systems Research Project (Knowledge Translation Platform), Ebonyi State University Abakaliki Nigeria ; Department of Banking & Finance, Ebonyi State University Abakaliki, Nigeria. 3. Health Policy & systems Research Project (Knowledge Translation Platform), Ebonyi State University Abakaliki Nigeria ; National Obstetrics Fistula Centre, Abakaliki, Nigeria. 4. Health Policy & systems Research Project (Knowledge Translation Platform), Ebonyi State University Abakaliki Nigeria ; Department of Paediatrics, Ebonyi State University Abakaliki, Nigeria. 5. Health Policy & systems Research Project (Knowledge Translation Platform), Ebonyi State University Abakaliki Nigeria ; Department of Applied Microbiology, Ebonyi State University Abakaliki Nigeria. 6. Health Policy & systems Research Project (Knowledge Translation Platform), Ebonyi State University Abakaliki Nigeria ; Department of Sociology/Anthropology, Ebonyi State University Abakaliki, Nigeria. 7. Health Policy & systems Research Project (Knowledge Translation Platform), Ebonyi State University Abakaliki Nigeria ; Catholic Relief Services (Nigeria Program) Abakaliki, Nigeria.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Nigeria, malaria, schistosomiasis and lymphatic filariasis are among infectious diseases of poverty (IDP) with severe health burden and require effective policy strategies for their control. In this study, we investigated the value of policy brief and policy dialogue as excellent policymaking mechanisms that enable policymakers to adapt effective evidence informed policy for IDP control. METHODS: A policy brief was developed on the control of malaria, schistosomiasis and lymphatic filariasis and subjected to deliberations in a one-day multi-stakeholder policy dialogue held in Ebonyi State Nigeria. A modified cross sectional intervention study design was used in this investigation. Structured pre-tested questionnaires were used to evaluate the policy brief document and policy dialogue process at the end of the policy dialogue. RESULTS: Forty-seven policymakers participated in the dialogue. An analysis of the response on the policy brief regarding context, different features of the problem; policy options and key implementation considerations indicated the mean ratings (MNRs) mostly ranged from 6.40-6.85 on 7 point scale. The over-all assessment of the policy brief had MNR at 6.54. The analysis of the response on the policy dialogue regarding the level of priority of policy issue, opportunity to discuss different features of the problem and options for addressing the problem, and the MNRs mostly ranged from 6.50-6.82. The overall assessment of the policy dialogue had MNR at 6.72. CONCLUSION: Policy dialogues can allow research evidence to be considered together with views, experiences and tacit knowledge of policymakers and can enhance evidence-to-policy link.
BACKGROUND: In Nigeria, malaria, schistosomiasis and lymphatic filariasis are among infectious diseases of poverty (IDP) with severe health burden and require effective policy strategies for their control. In this study, we investigated the value of policy brief and policy dialogue as excellent policymaking mechanisms that enable policymakers to adapt effective evidence informed policy for IDP control. METHODS: A policy brief was developed on the control of malaria, schistosomiasis and lymphatic filariasis and subjected to deliberations in a one-day multi-stakeholder policy dialogue held in Ebonyi State Nigeria. A modified cross sectional intervention study design was used in this investigation. Structured pre-tested questionnaires were used to evaluate the policy brief document and policy dialogue process at the end of the policy dialogue. RESULTS: Forty-seven policymakers participated in the dialogue. An analysis of the response on the policy brief regarding context, different features of the problem; policy options and key implementation considerations indicated the mean ratings (MNRs) mostly ranged from 6.40-6.85 on 7 point scale. The over-all assessment of the policy brief had MNR at 6.54. The analysis of the response on the policy dialogue regarding the level of priority of policy issue, opportunity to discuss different features of the problem and options for addressing the problem, and the MNRs mostly ranged from 6.50-6.82. The overall assessment of the policy dialogue had MNR at 6.72. CONCLUSION: Policy dialogues can allow research evidence to be considered together with views, experiences and tacit knowledge of policymakers and can enhance evidence-to-policy link.
Authors: Zulfiqar A Bhutta; Johannes Sommerfeld; Zohra S Lassi; Rehana A Salam; Jai K Das Journal: Infect Dis Poverty Date: 2014-07-31 Impact factor: 4.520
Authors: Chigozie Jesse Uneke; Abel Ebeh Ezeoha; Henry Chukwuemeka Uro-Chukwu; Chinonyelum Thecla Ezeonu; Jonathan Igboji Journal: Int J Health Policy Manag Date: 2018-06-01
Authors: Arun C R Partridge; Cristián Mansilla; Harkanwal Randhawa; John N Lavis; Fadi El-Jardali; Nelson K Sewankambo Journal: Health Res Policy Syst Date: 2020-10-31