Ending the evidence gap for pregnancy, HIV and co-infections: ethics guidance from the PHASES project.

INTRODUCTION: While pregnant people have been an important focus for HIV research, critical evidence gaps remain regarding prevention, co-infection, and safety and efficacy of new antiretroviral therapies in pregnancy. Such gaps can result in harm: without safety data, drugs used may carry unacceptable risks to the foetus or pregnant person; without pregnancy-specific dosing data, pregnant people face risks of both toxicity and undertreatment; and delays in gathering evidence can limit access to beneficial next-generation drugs. Despite recognition of the need, numerous barriers and ethical complexities have limited progress. We describe the process, ethical foundations, recommendations and applications of guidance for advancing responsible inclusion of pregnant people in HIV/co-infections research. DISCUSSION: The 26-member international and interdisciplinary Pregnancy and HIV/AIDS: Seeking Equitable Study (PHASES) Working Group was convened to develop ethics-centred guidance for advancing timely, responsible HIV/co-infections research with pregnant people. Deliberations over 3 years drew on extensive qualitative research, stakeholder engagement, expert consultation and a series of workshops. The guidance, initially issued in July 2020, highlights conceptual shifts needed in framing research with pregnant people, and articulates three ethical foundations to ground recommendations: equitable protection from drug-related risks, timely access to biomedical advances and equitable respect for pregnant people's health interests. The guidance advances 12 specific recommendations, actionable within the current regulatory environment, addressing multiple stakeholders across drug development and post-approval research, and organized around four themes: building capacity, supporting inclusion, achieving priority research and ensuring respect. The recommendations describe strategies towards ethically redressing the evidence gap for pregnant people around HIV and co-infections. The guidance has informed key efforts of leading organizations working to advance needed research, and identifies further opportunities for impact by a range of stakeholder groups. CONCLUSIONS: There are clear pathways towards ethical inclusion of pregnant people in the biomedical research agenda, and strong agreement across the HIV research community about the need for - and the promise of - advancing them. Those who fund, conduct, oversee and advocate for research can use the PHASES guidance to facilitate more, better and earlier evidence to optimize the health and wellbeing of pregnant people and their children.

Measuring for Success: Evaluating Leadership Training Programs for Sustainable Impact.

Background: In an era of global health security challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic, there is greater need for strong leadership. Over the past decades, significant investments have been made in global health leadership development programs by governments and philanthropic organizations to address this need. Evaluating the societal impact of these programs remains challenging, despite consensus on the importance of public health leadership. Objective: This article identifies the gaps and highlights the critical role of monitoring and evaluation approaches in assessing the impact of global health leadership programs. Importantly, we also propose the theory of change (TOC) as a common framework and identify a set of tools and indicators that leadership programs can adapt and use. Methods: We carried out an informal review of major global health leadership programs, including a literature review on leadership program evaluation approaches. Current practices in assessing the short- to long-term outcomes of leadership training programs were explored and synthesized. We also examined use of program theory frameworks, such as theory of change to guide the evaluation strategy. We find the TOC approach can be enhanced by integrating evaluation-specific frameworks and establishing broad stakeholder buy-in. We highlight measurement challenges, proposed outcome indicators and evaluation methodologies, and outline the future direction for such efforts. Findings: Most evaluation of current leadership programs is focused on short-term individual-level outcomes, while reports on long-term societal impact were limited. Reciprocal impacts on and benefits for the "host" organizations were not included in evaluation metrics. Most programs had program logic or result chains, but with no well-articulated program theories. Conclusion: Key stakeholders involved in leadership training programs benefit from the evidence of rigorous program evaluations to inform decisions that address barriers in fostering global health leadership and improving population health outcomes. Insight into reciprocal change in host organizations is important. Evaluation of global health leadership training must go beyond the individual trainee and encompass organizational and community-level impacts. Documentation of long-lasting organizational and societal impacts is essential for donors to appreciate the return on their investment. Key Takeaways: Evaluation plays an important role in understanding how leadership development takes place and how it contributes to improving public health outcomes.Making the case for investments in leadership development programs requires robust evidence from monitoring and evaluation strategies that link investments beyond the individual-level to longer-term societal impacts.The first critical step towards a strategy for success is for leadership programs to clearly build, articulate, share, and use their program theories or theories of change.Theories of change help identify the pathways (and potential tensions) through which leadership development programs effect change at the individual, organizational and community levels.Evaluation methods that examine outcomes of leadership programs should be multi-method, multi-level, and where possible include counterfactual outcomes.Allocation of funds to evaluate on-going and long-lasting societal impact of leadership programs should be a routine practice.