Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Health Policy Plan. 2012 May;27(3):194-203. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czr035. Epub 2011 May 10.
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.
近年来，中低收入国家独立的卫生政策分析机构数量有所增加，这是为了应对政府分析能力的限制和民主化带来的压力。本研究旨在：（i）调查中低收入国家的卫生政策分析机构对卫生政策议程制定、制定、实施和监测评估的贡献；（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的作用，以积极促进卫生政策。对孟加拉国、加纳、印度、南非、乌干达和越南的六家卫生政策分析机构进行了案例研究，其中包括两家非政府组织、两家大学和两家政府所有的政策分析机构。案例研究借鉴了文件审查、财务信息分析、对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案的反复反馈。一些机构为各自国家的政策制定做出了重大贡献。所有机构都积极参与提供政策建议，大多数机构都进行政策相关的研究。相对较少的机构参与政策对话、系统评价或委托研究。机构开展的大部分工作都是应政府或捐助者的要求进行的，大多数机构的主要产出是研究报告，通常与口头简报相结合。有几个因素对支持有效的政策参与至关重要。这些因素包括支持性的政策环境、在治理和融资方面有一定程度的独立性，以及与政策制定者的紧密联系，这有助于建立信任和影响力。虽然研究所与政府的正式关系并不是关键因素，但政府内部单位面临着相当大的困难。
