Dear HIFA colleagues,
During this discussion we are looking particularly at the role of civil society organisations in national, subnational and local policymaking, and how civil society organisations generate, highlight and apply evidence. We have looked at the role of remarkable organisations such as Treatment Action Campaign (TAC, South Africa) and noted the role of cival society coalitions such as Action for Global Health in the UK (can anyone provide other examples?). We might also consider how national and local NGOs can synergise with, and mutually inspire, 'like-minded' NGOs in other countries. An NGO does not exist in a vacuum but within an intricate web of local, national and international influences, each of which are potential sources of evidence.
I wonder if there is value in creating a kind of social network analysis to look at the interactions and influences of NGOs on one another, and on other stakeholders.
As we saw with TAC, there are also multiple kinds of 'evidence' that we might refer to in this discussion. For example, we have looked at 'evidence' in terms of:
- treatment literacy - public awareness of their rights and about basic (and advanced) healthcare information
- data gathered locally or nationally through primary research (including surveys and interviews)
- routine health data and their interpretation
- what is known from previous research (internationally or nationally) about the effectiveness of different interventions, or of different methods of implementation.
- legal documentation and its interpretation (found to be especially important with TAC)...
The list goes on. For example, there are so-called hierarchies of evidence, typically placing systematic reviews and meta-analyses at the top, and surveys and case reports at the bottom. They, in turn, are by no means universally accepted, and the usefulness of any type of evidence is context-dependent.
As noted in a 2003 BMJ paper [https://jech.bmj.com/content/57/7/527] 'The promotion of typologies... may be more useful than hierarchies in conceptualising the strengths and weaknesses of different methodological approaches'.
What do you think? What types of evidence should we be considering? How might we develop a typology? Some types of evidence might be considered more relevant than others for the purpose of this research project?
Joint Coordinator, HIFA SUPPORT-SYSTEMS
https://www.hifa.org/projects/new-support-systems-how-can-decision-makin...
Neil Pakenham-Walsh, Global Coordinator HIFA, www.hifa.org neil@hifa.org
Global Healthcare Information Network: Working in official relations with WHO
