Evidence uptake is only part of the process: Stakeholders’ insights on WHO treatment guideline recommendation processes for radical cure of P. vivax malaria
Issued Date
2024-03-01
Resource Type
eISSN
27673375
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85195384755
Journal Title
PLOS Global Public Health
Volume
4
Issue
3
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
PLOS Global Public Health Vol.4 No.3 (2024)
Suggested Citation
Ruwanpura V.S.H., Grietens K.P., Price R.N., Thriemer K. Evidence uptake is only part of the process: Stakeholders’ insights on WHO treatment guideline recommendation processes for radical cure of P. vivax malaria. PLOS Global Public Health Vol.4 No.3 (2024). doi:10.1371/journal.pgph.0002990 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/98762
Title
Evidence uptake is only part of the process: Stakeholders’ insights on WHO treatment guideline recommendation processes for radical cure of P. vivax malaria
Author(s)
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Health policy processes should be evidence-informed, transparent and timely, but these processes are often unclear to stakeholders outside the immediate policymaking environment. We spoke to 36 international malaria stakeholders to gain insights on the processes involved in the World Health Organization’s Global Malaria Programme’s recommendations for their treatment guidelines of P. vivax malaria. Four key themes which drew on the 3i policy framework and Shiffman’s four factors that influence global and national policymaking were identified to understand these processes. Triggers for policy change and change prioritisation, evidence types that inform policy, effects of funding on decision-making processes, and transparency and communication of these processes to external stakeholders. Results indicate that more clarity is needed on what triggers global malaria policy change processes, a clearer justification of evidence types used to inform policymaking, better understanding of the impact of the WHO’s funding model on policymaking and further transparency and improved communication of these processes to external stakeholders is also needed. We suggest that global malaria policymaking could be improved by using the following strategies: ensuring that identified triggers actually initiate the policy change process, expediting decision-making timelines by developing a priority framework for assessing new evidence, adopting suitable frameworks to assess contextual evidence, and increasing the transparency of the role of non-state funders in policy decision-making processes and when publishing new recommendations.