Browsing by Author "Mirzoev, Tolib"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    A new methodology for assessing health policy and systems research and analysis capacity in African universities
    (2014-10-08) Lê, Gillian; Mirzoev, Tolib; Orgill, Marsha; Erasmus, Ermin; Lehmann, Uta; Okeyo, Stephen; Goudge, Jane; Maluka, Stephen; Uzochukwu, Benjamin; Aikins, Moses; de Savigny, Don; Tomson, Goran; Gilson, Lucy
    Abstract Background The importance of health policy and systems research and analysis (HPSR + A) has been increasingly recognised, but it is still unclear how most effectively to strengthen the capacity of the different organisations involved in this field. Universities are particularly crucial but the expansive literature on capacity development has little to offer the unique needs of HPSR + A activity within universities, and often overlooks the pivotal contribution of capacity assessments to capacity strengthening. Methods The Consortium for Health Policy and Systems Analysis in Africa 2011–2015 designed and implemented a new framework for capacity assessment for HPSR + A within universities. The methodology is reported in detail. Results Our reflections on developing and conducting the assessment generated four lessons for colleagues in the field. Notably, there are currently no published capacity assessment methodologies for HPSR + A that focus solely on universities – we report a first for the field to initiate the dialogue and exchange of experiences with others. Second, in HPSR + A, the unit of assessment can be a challenge, because HPSR + A groups within universities tend to overlap between academic departments and are embedded in different networks. Third, capacity assessment experience can itself be capacity strengthening, even when taking into account that doing such assessments require capacity. Conclusions From our experience, we propose that future systematic assessments of HPSR + A capacity need to focus on both capacity assets and needs and assess capacity at individual, organisational, and systems levels, whilst taking into account the networked nature of HPSR + A activity. A genuine partnership process between evaluators and those participating in an assessment can improve the quality of assessment and uptake of results in capacity strengthening.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Mental health policy process: a comparative study of Ghana, South Africa, Uganda and Zambia
    (BioMed Central Ltd, 2010) Omar, Maye; Green, Andrew T; Bird, Philippa K; Mirzoev, Tolib; Flisher, Alan J; Kigozi, Fred; Lund, Crick; Mwanza, Jason; Ofori-Atta, Angela J; Mental Health and Poverty Research Programme Consortium (MHaPP)
    BACKGROUND: Mental illnesses are increasingly recognised as a leading cause of disability worldwide, yet many countries lack a mental health policy or have an outdated, inappropriate policy. This paper explores the development of appropriate mental health policies and their effective implementation. It reports comparative findings on the processes for developing and implementing mental health policies in Ghana, South Africa, Uganda and Zambia as part of the Mental Health and Poverty Project. METHODS: The study countries and respondents were purposively selected to represent different levels of mental health policy and system development to allow comparative analysis of the factors underlying the different forms of mental health policy development and implementation. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews and document analysis. Data analysis was guided by conceptual framework that was developed for this purpose. A framework approach to analysis was used, incorporating themes that emerged from the data and from the conceptual framework. RESULTS: Mental health policies in Ghana, South Africa, Uganda and Zambia are weak, in draft form or non-existent. Mental health remained low on the policy agenda due to stigma and a lack of information, as well as low prioritisation by donors, low political priority and grassroots demand. Progress with mental health policy development varied and respondents noted a lack of consultation and insufficient evidence to inform policy development. Furthermore, policies were poorly implemented, due to factors including insufficient dissemination and operationalisation of policies and a lack of resources. CONCLUSIONS: Mental health policy processes in all four countries were inadequate, leading to either weak or non-existent policies, with an impact on mental health services. Recommendations are provided to strengthen mental health policy processes in these and other African countries.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Research-policy partnerships - experiences of the Mental Health and Poverty Project in Ghana, South Africa, Uganda and Zambia
    (BioMed Central Ltd, 2012) Mirzoev, Tolib; Omar, Maye; Green, Andrew; Bird, Philippa; Lund, Crick; Ofori-Atta, Angela; Doku, Victor
    BACKGROUND: Partnerships are increasingly common in conducting research. However, there is little published evidence about processes in research-policy partnerships in different contexts. This paper contributes to filling this gap by analysing experiences of research-policy partnerships between Ministries of Health and research organisations for the implementation of the Mental Health and Poverty Project in Ghana, South Africa, Uganda and Zambia. METHODS: A conceptual framework for understanding and assessing research-policy partnerships was developed and guided this study. The data collection methods for this qualitative study included semi-structured interviews with Ministry of Health Partners (MOHPs) and Research Partners (RPs) in each country. RESULTS: The term partnership was perceived by the partners as a collaboration involving mutually-agreed goals and objectives. The principles of trust, openness, equality and mutual respect were identified as constituting the core of partnerships. The MOHPs and RPs had clearly defined roles, with the MOHPs largely providing political support and RPs leading the research agenda. Different influences affected partnerships. At the individual level, personal relationships and ability to compromise within partnerships were seen as important. At the organisational level, the main influences included the degree of formalisation of roles and responsibilities and the internal structures and procedures affecting decision-making. At the contextual level, political environment and the degree of health system decentralisation affected partnerships. CONCLUSIONS: Several lessons can be learned from these experiences. Taking account of influences on the partnership at individual, organisation and contextual/system levels can increase its effectiveness. A common understanding of mutually-agreed goals and objectives of the partnership is essential. It is important to give attention to the processes of initiating and maintaining partnerships, based on clear roles, responsibilities and commitment of parties at different levels. Although partnerships are often established for a specific purpose, such as carrying out a particular project, the effects of partnership go beyond a particular initiative.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Strengthening post-graduate educational capacity for health policy and systems research and analysis: the strategy of the Consortium for Health Policy and Systems Analysis in Africa
    (BioMed Central, 2016) Erasmus, Ermin; Lehmann, Uta; Agyepong, Irene A; Alwar, John; de Savigny, Don; Kamuzora, Peter; Mirzoev, Tolib; Nxumalo, Nonhlanhla; Tomson, Göran; Uzochukwu, Benjamin; Gilson, Lucy
    Background: The last 5–10 years have seen significant international momentum build around the field of health policy and systems research and analysis (HPSR + A). Strengthening post-graduate teaching is seen as central to the further development of this field in low- and middle-income countries. However, thus far, there has been little reflection on and documentation of what is taught in this field, how teaching is carried out, educators’ challenges and what future teaching might look like. Methods: Contributing to such reflection and documentation, this paper reports on a situation analysis and inventory of HPSR + A post-graduate teaching conducted among the 11 African and European partners of the Consortium for Health Policy and Systems Analysis in Africa (CHEPSAA), a capacity development collaboration. A first questionnaire completed by the partners collected information on organisational teaching contexts, while a second collected information on 104 individual courses (more in-depth information was subsequently collected on 17 of the courses). The questionnaires yielded a mix of qualitative and quantitative data, which were analysed through counts, cross-tabulations, and the inductive grouping of material into themes. In addition, this paper draws information from internal reports on CHEPSAA’s activities, as well as its external evaluation. Results: The analysis highlighted the fluid boundaries of HPSR + A and the range and variability of the courses addressing the field, the important, though not exclusive, role of schools of public health in teaching relevant material, large variations in the time investments required to complete courses, the diversity of student target audiences, the limited availability of distance and non-classroom learning activities, and the continued importance of old-fashioned teaching styles and activities. Conclusions: This paper argues that in order to improve post-graduate teaching and continue to build the field of HPSR + A, key questions need to be addressed around educational practice issues such as the time allocated for HPSR + A courses, teaching activities, and assessments, whether HPSR + A should be taught as a cross-cutting theme in post-graduate degrees or an area of specialisation, and the organisation of teaching given the multi-disciplinary nature of the field. It ends by describing some of CHEPSAA’s key post-graduate teaching development activities and how these activities have addressed the key questions.