Understanding how and why health is integrated into foreign policy - a case study of health is global, a UK Government Strategy 2008-2013.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, global health issues have become more prominent in foreign policies at the national level. The process to develop state level global health strategies is arguably a form of global health diplomacy (GHD). Despite an increase in the volume of secondary research and analysis in this area, little primary research, particularly that which draws directly on the perspectives of those involved in these processes, has been conducted. This study seeks to fill this knowledge gap through an empirical case study of Health is Global: A UK Government Strategy 2008-2013. It aims to build understanding about how and why health is integrated into foreign policy and derive lessons of potential relevance to other nations interested in developing whole-of-government global health strategies. METHODS: The major element of the study consisted of an in-depth investigation and analysis of the UK global health strategy. Document analysis and twenty interviews were conducted. Data was organized and described using an adapted version of Walt and Gilson's policy analysis triangle. A general inductive approach was used to identify themes in the data, which were then analysed and interpreted using Fidler's health and foreign policy conceptualizations and Kingdon's multiples streams model of the policymaking process. RESULTS: The primary reason that the UK decided to focus more on global health is self-interest - to protect national and international security and economic interests. Investing in global health was also seen as a way to enhance the UK's international reputation. A focus on global health to primarily benefit other nations and improve global health per se was a prevalent through weaker theme. A well organized, credible policy community played a critical role in the process and a policy entrepreneur with expertise in both international relations and health helped catalyze attention and action on global health when the time was right. Support from the Prime Minister and from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was essential. The process to arrive at a government-wide strategy was complex and time-consuming, but also broke down silos. Significant negotiation and compromise were required from actors with widely varying perspectives on global health and conflicting priorities. CONCLUSIONS: As primarily an exploratory study, this research sheds significant light on the global health policymaking process at the level of the state. It provides a useful and important starting point for further hypothesis driven empirical research that focuses on the integration of health in foreign policy, how and why this happens and whether or not it makes an impact on improving global health.

Moving knowledge to action through dissemination and exchange.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to discuss the knowledge dissemination and exchange components of the knowledge translation process that includes synthesis, dissemination, exchange, and ethically sound application of knowledge. This article presents and discusses approaches to knowledge dissemination and exchange and provides a summary of factors that appear to influence the effectiveness of these processes. It aims to provide practical information for researchers and knowledge users as they consider what to include in dissemination and exchange plans developed as part of grant applications. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Not relevant. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Dissemination is targeting research findings to specific audiences. Dissemination activities should be carefully and appropriately considered and outlined in a dissemination plan focused on the needs of the audience who will use the knowledge. Researchers should engage knowledge users to craft messages and help disseminate research findings. Knowledge brokers, networks, and communities of practice hold promise as innovative ways to disseminate and facilitate the application of knowledge. Knowledge exchange or integrated knowledge translation involves active collaboration and exchange between researchers and knowledge users throughout the research process.

Framing health and foreign policy: lessons for global health diplomacy.

Global health financing has increased dramatically in recent years, indicative of a rise in health as a foreign policy issue. Several governments have issued specific foreign policy statements on global health and a new term, global health diplomacy, has been coined to describe the processes by which state and non-state actors engage to position health issues more prominently in foreign policy decision-making. Their ability to do so is important to advancing international cooperation in health. In this paper we review the arguments for health in foreign policy that inform global health diplomacy. These are organized into six policy frames: security, development, global public goods, trade, human rights and ethical/moral reasoning. Each of these frames has implications for how global health as a foreign policy issue is conceptualized. Differing arguments within and between these policy frames, while overlapping, can also be contradictory. This raises an important question about which arguments prevail in actual state decision-making. This question is addressed through an analysis of policy or policy-related documents and academic literature pertinent to each policy framing with some assessment of policy practice. The reference point for this analysis is the explicit goal of improving global health equity. This goal has increasing national traction within national public health discourse and decision-making and, through the Millennium Development Goals and other multilateral reports and declarations, is entering global health policy discussion. Initial findings support conventional international relations theory that most states, even when committed to health as a foreign policy goal, still make decisions primarily on the basis of the 'high politics' of national security and economic material interests. Development, human rights and ethical/moral arguments for global health assistance, the traditional 'low politics' of foreign policy, are present in discourse but do not appear to dominate practice. While political momentum for health as a foreign policy goal persists, the framing of this goal remains a contested issue. The analysis offered in this article may prove helpful to those engaged in global health diplomacy or in efforts to have global governance across a range of sectoral interests pay more attention to health equity impacts.

Wait time benchmarks, research evidence and the knowledge translation process.

The first set of evidence-based benchmarks for medically acceptable wait times, announced in December 2005, were developed, in part, through a novel partnership between the Provincial and Territorial Ministries of Health, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and Canada's health services research community. Responding to a direct request for assistance and demanding timelines from the Provincial and Territorial Ministries of Health, CIHR mounted a rapid-response funding process and supported eight Canadian teams to synthesize evidence to inform the development of the first set of benchmarks. This experience demonstrated that both the research funding process and research syntheses themselves can rapidly inform policy making in even the most heated of environments.