Rodríguez Daniela C, Shearer Jessica, Mariano Alda R E, Juma Pamela A, Dalglish Sarah L, Bennett Sara
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Dept. of International Health, 615 N Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA,
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Dept. of International Health, 615 N Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Health Policy Plan. 2015 Dec;30 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):ii36-ii45. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czv033.
Integrated Community Case Management of Childhood Illness (iCCM) is a policy for providing treatment for malaria, diarrhoea and pneumonia for children below 5 years at the community level, which is generating increasing evidence and support at the global level. As countries move to adopt iCCM, it becomes important to understand how this growing evidence base is viewed and used by national stakeholders. This article explores whether, how and why evidence influenced policy formulation for iCCM in Niger, Kenya and Mozambique, and uses Carol Weiss' models of research utilization to further explain the use of evidence in these contexts. A documentary review and in-depth stakeholder interviews were conducted as part of retrospective case studies in each study country. Findings indicate that all three countries used national monitoring data to identify the issue of children dying in the community prior to reaching health facilities, whereas international research evidence was used to identify policy options. Nevertheless, policymakers greatly valued local evidence and pilot projects proved critical in advancing iCCM. World Health Organization and United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) functioned as knowledge brokers, bringing research evidence and experiences from other countries to the attention of local policymakers as well as sponsoring site visits and meetings. In terms of country-specific findings, Niger demonstrated both Interactive and Political models of research utilization by using iCCM to capitalize on the existing health infrastructure. Both Mozambique and Kenya exhibit Problem-Solving research utilization with different outcomes. Furthermore, the persistent quest for additional evidence suggests a Tactical use of research in Kenya. Results presented here indicate that while evidence from research studies and other contexts can be critical to policy development, local evidence is often needed to answer key policymaker questions. In the end, evidence may not be enough to overcome resistance if the policy is viewed as incompatible with national goals.
儿童疾病综合社区管理(iCCM)是一项在社区层面为5岁以下儿童提供疟疾、腹泻和肺炎治疗的政策,该政策在全球层面获得了越来越多的证据支持。随着各国逐步采用iCCM,了解国家利益相关者如何看待和使用这一日益增长的证据基础变得至关重要。本文探讨了证据是否、如何以及为何影响了尼日尔、肯尼亚和莫桑比克iCCM政策的制定,并运用卡罗尔·韦斯的研究利用模型进一步解释这些背景下证据的使用情况。作为每个研究国家回顾性案例研究的一部分,进行了文献综述和利益相关者深入访谈。研究结果表明,所有三个国家都利用国家监测数据来确定儿童在到达医疗机构之前在社区死亡的问题,而国际研究证据则用于确定政策选项。尽管如此,政策制定者非常重视当地证据,试点项目在推进iCCM方面被证明至关重要。世界卫生组织和联合国儿童基金会(UNICEF)发挥了知识传播者的作用,将其他国家的研究证据和经验提请当地政策制定者注意,并赞助实地考察和会议。就各国的具体研究结果而言,尼日尔通过利用iCCM来利用现有的卫生基础设施,展示了研究利用的互动模型和政治模型。莫桑比克和肯尼亚都表现出解决问题的研究利用方式,但结果不同。此外,对更多证据的持续追求表明肯尼亚在战术上运用了研究。这里呈现的结果表明,虽然来自研究和其他背景的证据对政策制定可能至关重要,但往往需要当地证据来回答政策制定者的关键问题。最后,如果政策被视为与国家目标不兼容,证据可能不足以克服阻力。