Suchergebnisse

This field note presents what transpired in 18 months joint health research communication project at Makerere University School of Public Health. The project was the first of this nature at the university, in Uganda and probably in East Africa. Information on how the project was conceived, implemented and its results is given. It gives an overview of a communication framework that resulted from the process that informs anyone considering investing in research communication in a low resource institution or country. The note provides key themes of advocacy, community and user participation, influencing policy, fundraising and networking that arose from observations, interaction and activities and a situation review of the post project. It concludes that research communication in Uganda is still low and ill coordinated. Cette note de champ présente ce qui s'est passé dans le projet de communication recherche 18 mois mixte sur la santé à Makerere University School of Public Health. Le projet a été le premier de cette nature à l'Université, en Ouganda et probablement en Afrique de l'est. Informations sur la façon dont le projet a été conçu, mis en œuvre et de ses résultats est donné. Il donne un aperçu d'un cadre de communication qui résulte du processus qui informe toute personne tenant compte investir dans la communication de la recherche dans une institution de faibles ressources ou un pays. La note fournit les thèmes clés de la défense, la participation communautaire et l'utilisateur, peuvent influencer les politiques, la collecte de fonds et de réseautage qui découle des observations, interaction, des activités et une situation d'examen du projet post. Il conclut que la communication de la recherche en Ouganda est encore faible et mal coordonnée.

The COVID-19 pandemic is considerably the biggest global health challenge of this modern era. Spreading across all regions of the world, this corona virus disease has disrupted even some of the most advanced economies and healthcare systems. With an increasing global death toll and no near end in sight, questions on the efficacy of global response mechanisms, including the role and relevancy of global health institutions, have emerged. Using a reflexive content analytic approach, this study sheds light on some of these questions, underscoring the disconnect between science, policymaking, and society. Global health funding approaches; politicization of the pandemic, including political blame gaming; mistrust of government and other institutions; and a lack of robust accountability measures are some of the pandemic response obstacles. However, COVID-19 has also presented an opportunity for a collaboration that may potentially solidify global solidarity. A pandemic response built on strategic global health diplomacy, vaccine diplomacy, and science diplomacy can spur both political and economic benefits, advancing development, health security, and justice. The virus thrives and flourishes in face of political divisions and lack of cooperation. While the current global crisis has exacerbated the existing social injustices in societies, national unity and global solidarity is essential to winning the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic.

The quantity and complexity of scientific and technological information provided to policymakers have been on the rise for decades. Yet little is known about how to provide science advice to legislatures, even though scientific information is widely acknowledged as valuable for decision-making in many policy domains. We asked academics, science advisers, and policymakers from both developed and developing nations to identify, review and refine, and then rank the most pressing research questions on legislative science advice (LSA). Experts generally agree that the state of evidence is poor, especially regarding developing and lower-middle income countries. Many fundamental questions about science advice processes remain unanswered and are of great interest: whether legislative use of scientific evidence improves the implementation and outcome of social programs and policies; under what conditions legislators and staff seek out scientific information or use what is presented to them; and how different communication channels affect informational trust and use. Environment and health are the highest priority policy domains for the field. The context-specific nature of many of the submitted questions—whether to policy issues, institutions, or locations—suggests one of the significant challenges is aggregating generalizable evidence on LSA practices. Understanding these research needs represents a first step in advancing a global agenda for LSA research.