BackgroundThe ‘Sponsoring National Processes for Evidence-Informed Policy Making in the Health Sector of Developing Countries’ program was launched by the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, WHO, in July 2008. The program aimed to catalyse the use of evidence generated through health policy and systems research in policymaking processes through (1) promoting researchers and policy advocates to present their evidence in a manner that is easy for policymakers to understand and use, (2) creating mechanisms to spur the demand for and application of research evidence in policymaking, and (3) increased interaction between researchers, policy advocates, and policymakers. Grants ran for three years and five projects were supported in Argentina, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Nigeria and Zambia. This paper seeks to understand why projects in some settings were perceived by the key stakeholders involved to have made progress towards their goals, whereas others were perceived to have not done so well. Additionally, by comparing experiences across five countries, we seek to illustrate general learnings to inform future evidence-to-policy efforts in low- and middle-income countries.MethodsWe adopted the theory of knowledge translation developed by Jacobson et al. (J Health Serv Res Policy 8(2):94–9, 2003) as a framing device to reflect on project experiences across the five cases. Using data from the projects’ external evaluation reports, which included information from semi-structured interviews and quantitative evaluation surveys of those involved in projects, and supplemented by information from the projects’ individual technical reports, we applied the theoretical framework with a partially grounded approach to analyse each of the cases and make comparisons.Results and conclusionThere was wide variation across projects in the type of activities carried out as well as their intensity. Based on our findings, we can conclude that projects perceived as having made progress towards their goals were characterized by the coming together of a number of domains identified by the theory. The domains of Jacobson’s theoretical framework, initially developed for high-income settings, are of relevance to the low- and middle-income country context, but may need modification to be fully applicable to these settings. Specifically, the relative fragility of institutions and the concomitantly more significant role of individual leaders point to the need to look at leadership as an additional domain influencing the evidence-to-policy process.

This article presents the enablers and barriers to the scaling-up of results-based financing (RBF) programs. It draws on the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research's multicountry program of research Taking Results Based Financing From Scheme to System, which compared the scale-up of RBF interventions over four phases-generation, adoption, institutionalization, and expansion-across ten countries. Comparing country experiences reveals broad lessons on scale up of RBF for each of the scale-up phases. Though the coming together of global, national, and regional contextual factors was key to the development of pilot projects, national factors were important to scale up these pilots to national programs, including a political context favoring results and transparency, the presence of enabling policies and institutions, and the presence of policy entrepreneurs at the national level. The third transition, from program to policy, was enabled by the availability of domestic financial resources, legislative and financing arrangements to enhance health facility autonomy, and technical and political leadership within and beyond the Ministry of Health. The article provides lessons learned on RBF policy evolution, emphasizing the importance of phase-specific groups of actors, the need to tailor advocacy messages to enable scale-up, the influence of political feasibility on policy content, and policy processes to build national ownership and enable health system strengthening.

IntroductionNon-communicable diseases (NCDs) have become a major public health challenge worldwide; they account for 28 million deaths per year in low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs). Like many other LMICs, India is struggling to organise quality care for a large NCD-affected population especially at the primary healthcare level. The aim of this study was to assess local health system preparedness in a south Indian primary healthcare setting for addressing diabetes and hypertension.MethodsThis paper draws on a mixed-methods research study on access to medicines conducted in Tumkur, Karnataka, India. We used quantitative data from household and health facility surveys, and qualitative data from focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with health workers and patients. We identified systemic drivers that influence utilisation of services at government primary health centres (PHCs) using thematic analysis of qualitative data and a systems framework on access to medicines to assess supply and demand side factors.ResultsMajority of households depend on private facilities for diabetes and hypertension care because of the lack of laboratory facilities and frequent medicine stockouts at PHCs. Financial and managerial resource allocation for NCDs and prioritisation of care and processes related to NCDs was suboptimal compared to the prominence of this agenda at global and national levels. Primary healthcare has a limited role even in the activities under the national programme that addresses diabetes and hypertension.DiscussionThe study finds critical gaps in the preparedness of PHCs and district health systems in organising and managing care for diabetes and hypertension. Due to the lack of continuous care organised through PHCs, patients depend on expensive and often episodic care in the private sector. There is a need to improve managerial and financial resource allocation towards diabetes and hypertension (and other NCDs) at the district level.Trial registration number CTRI/2015/03/005640; Pre-results.