Civil Society's Evidence-Generating Role for Health Policy Decisions: A Thematic Analysis of a Healthcare Information for All (HIFA) Community Online Discussion.

IF 5.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Unni Gopinathan, Tarry Asoka, María Eugenia Aponte-Rueda, Genevieve Cecilia Aryeteey, Esha Ray Chaudhuri, Meena Cherian, Praveen Devarsetty, Claire Glenton, Augustina Koduah, Tripti Gupta, Simon Lewin, Jacinta Nzinga, Velisha Ann Perumal-Pillay, Ravi Ram, Fatima Suleman, Goran Abdulla Zangana, Neil Martin Pakenham-Walsh
{"title":"Civil Society's Evidence-Generating Role for Health Policy Decisions: A Thematic Analysis of a Healthcare Information for All (HIFA) Community Online Discussion.","authors":"Unni Gopinathan, Tarry Asoka, María Eugenia Aponte-Rueda, Genevieve Cecilia Aryeteey, Esha Ray Chaudhuri, Meena Cherian, Praveen Devarsetty, Claire Glenton, Augustina Koduah, Tripti Gupta, Simon Lewin, Jacinta Nzinga, Velisha Ann Perumal-Pillay, Ravi Ram, Fatima Suleman, Goran Abdulla Zangana, Neil Martin Pakenham-Walsh","doi":"10.34172/ijhpm.8701","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Civil society actors are widely recognized for advocating the public interest in health policy. However, their role in contributing different types of evidence to inform policy is less explored. To explore this topic, members of the Healthcare Information for All (HIFA) online forum and the <i>Supporting Inclusive and Accountable Health Systems Decisions for Universal Health Coverage</i> (SUPPORT-SYSTEMS) research project conducted a four-week online discussion. The discussion focused on defining civil society, its role in health policy, the types of evidence it provides, and how this evidence is used and valued. Weekly focal questions encouraged HIFA members to share experiences of civil society engagement and the use of evidence in health policy-making. The thematic analysis identified four key messages. First, defining civil society requires critical reflection, as actors differ significantly in their interests, political ties, and influence. These distinctions affect how representative their evidence is and whether it reflects vested interests. Second, policy-making structures can support meaningful civil society participation, thereby strengthening the use of evidence and the legitimacy of policy decisions. Third, civil society provides valuable local and tacit knowledge that complements scientific evidence, though safeguards are needed to prevent bias or misrepresentation. Fourth, political economy factors-such as power imbalances, gatekeeping, and funding constraints-shape the influence of civil society evidence on policy. Overall, the discussion highlighted the diverse roles civil society can play in health policy and the importance of institutional mechanisms to support responsible evidence use. Thematic discussions in communities of practice (CoPs) like HIFA offer a dynamic and inclusive approach to engaging stakeholder knowledge in research projects.</p>","PeriodicalId":14135,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Health Policy and Management","volume":"14 ","pages":"8701"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12414145/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Health Policy and Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.8701","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Civil society actors are widely recognized for advocating the public interest in health policy. However, their role in contributing different types of evidence to inform policy is less explored. To explore this topic, members of the Healthcare Information for All (HIFA) online forum and the Supporting Inclusive and Accountable Health Systems Decisions for Universal Health Coverage (SUPPORT-SYSTEMS) research project conducted a four-week online discussion. The discussion focused on defining civil society, its role in health policy, the types of evidence it provides, and how this evidence is used and valued. Weekly focal questions encouraged HIFA members to share experiences of civil society engagement and the use of evidence in health policy-making. The thematic analysis identified four key messages. First, defining civil society requires critical reflection, as actors differ significantly in their interests, political ties, and influence. These distinctions affect how representative their evidence is and whether it reflects vested interests. Second, policy-making structures can support meaningful civil society participation, thereby strengthening the use of evidence and the legitimacy of policy decisions. Third, civil society provides valuable local and tacit knowledge that complements scientific evidence, though safeguards are needed to prevent bias or misrepresentation. Fourth, political economy factors-such as power imbalances, gatekeeping, and funding constraints-shape the influence of civil society evidence on policy. Overall, the discussion highlighted the diverse roles civil society can play in health policy and the importance of institutional mechanisms to support responsible evidence use. Thematic discussions in communities of practice (CoPs) like HIFA offer a dynamic and inclusive approach to engaging stakeholder knowledge in research projects.

公民社会在卫生政策决策中的证据生成作用:对全民医疗保健信息(HIFA)社区在线讨论的专题分析。
民间社会行为者因倡导卫生政策中的公共利益而得到广泛认可。然而,它们在为政策提供不同类型证据方面的作用却很少得到探索。为了探讨这一主题,全民医疗保健信息(HIFA)在线论坛和支持包容和负责任的卫生系统决策以实现全民健康覆盖(SUPPORT-SYSTEMS)研究项目的成员进行了为期四周的在线讨论。讨论的重点是界定民间社会、民间社会在卫生政策中的作用、民间社会提供的证据类型以及如何使用和评价这些证据。每周重点问题鼓励卫生政策论坛成员分享民间社会参与和在卫生政策制定中使用证据的经验。专题分析确定了四个关键信息。首先,定义公民社会需要批判性反思,因为参与者在利益、政治关系和影响力方面存在显著差异。这些区别影响了他们的证据的代表性,以及它是否反映了既得利益。其次,政策制定结构可以支持有意义的公民社会参与,从而加强证据的使用和政策决定的合法性。第三,公民社会提供了宝贵的地方和隐性知识,补充了科学证据,尽管需要采取保障措施来防止偏见或歪曲。第四,政治经济因素——如权力失衡、把关和资金限制——决定了公民社会证据对政策的影响。总体而言,讨论强调了民间社会在卫生政策中可发挥的多种作用,以及支持负责任证据使用的体制机制的重要性。像HIFA这样的实践社区(cop)的专题讨论提供了一种动态和包容的方法,使利益相关者的知识参与研究项目。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of Health Policy and Management
International Journal of Health Policy and Management Health Professions-Health Information Management
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
14.30%
发文量
142
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Health Policy and Management (IJHPM) is a monthly open access, peer-reviewed journal which serves as an international and interdisciplinary setting for the dissemination of health policy and management research. It brings together individual specialties from different fields, notably health management/policy/economics, epidemiology, social/public policy, and philosophy into a dynamic academic mix.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信