For Sake of Youth and for Sake of Policies and Programmes. Why Youth Participation is a Right, a Requirement and a Value Comment on "Between Rhetoric and Reality: Learnings From Youth Participation in the Adolescent and Youth Health Policy in South Africa".

This commentary discusses an article by Jacobs and George which investigated how youth participation can be an important component of health policy-making by conducting a case study based on qualitative interviews. We appreciate the methodology and the main findings of the study, which contribute to advancing our understanding of the challenges and opportunities of youth participation in health policy-making. We note that this article raises several questions and issues that we must address to advance research and practice: (i) is there is a substantial gap between rhetoric and reality in terms of youth participation? (ii) do youth policies have a direct impact on youth participation? (iii) can we define and operationalise meaningful engagement? (iv) who is included and who is excluded in youth participation projects? and (v) is youth participation a right, a requirement and a value?

Supporting the routine use of evidence during the policy-making process: a WHO Checklist

This WHO checklist is for any organization or person supporting the routine use of evidence in the process of policy-making. Evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM) is essential for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and universal health coverage (UHC). Its importance is emphasized in WHO's Thirteenth General Programme of Work 2019­2023 (GPW13). This checklist was developed by the WHO Secretariat of Evidence-Informed Policy Network (EVIPNet) to assist its Member countries in institutionalizing EIPM. Government agencies (i.e. the staff of the Ministry of Health), knowledge intermediaries and researchers focused on strengthening EIPM will find in this checklist some key steps and tools to help their work. While the health sector is a key target group for EVIPNet, this tool can be applied by stakeholders from different social sectors. The focus of this tool is to present the domains and processes through which government bodies can institutionalize the use of evidence. It can be used by people and organizations supporting governments, from the inside or the outside, to reflect on its path towards evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM). Given the general paucity of texts that offer guidance in understanding the institutionalization of EIPM, this tool is largely based on two recent systematic reviews/critical interpretive syntheses, one of which was developed specifically for the Checklist. These summarize the available evidence on this subject.

Political alignment, centralisation, and the sense of government unpreparedness during the COVID-19 pandemic.

We rely on a periodic public opinion poll indicator of the performance of mayors collected for 103 large cities in Italy and in three waves (2015, 2017, and 2020) to examine whether and to what extent the exogenous shift in policy-making decisions induced by the COVID-19 pandemic has affected citizens' perceptions regarding attributions of responsibility. We leverage the variation in political alignment between central and local governments and implement a difference-in-differences research design, finding that when decisions are fully centralised (during the lockdown), voter approval for the mayor of an aligned city decreases by around 7%. Further analyses suggest that our results are more marked (i) during pre-electoral years and (ii) in cities with a lower level of social capital. Lastly, we document that the decrease in the approval ratings of aligned mayors is entirely guided by cities not severely hit by the pandemic, thereby reflecting a sense of 'discontent' in these areas for the policy decisions adopted by the central government to tackle the pandemic.

Assessing the governance of the health policy-making process using a new governance tool: the case of Lebanon.

BACKGROUND: In the international agenda, it has become common to assert that the assessment of health system governance using a practical tool is crucial. This approach can help us better understand how health systems are being steered as well as to identify gaps in the decision-making process and their causes. The authors developed a new assessment tool, the Health Policymaking Governance Guidance Tool (HP-GGT), that was designed to be conceptually sound and practical. This tool enables policy-makers and stakeholders to systematically review and assess health system governance at policy-making level. This article presents first use of the HP-GGT in Lebanon, together with generated results, recommendations, and discusses how these results improve governance practices when initiating new health policy formulation processes. METHODS: The HP-GGT, which is a multidimensional structured tool, was used retrospectively to assess and review the process used to develop a new mental health strategy; this process was compared against consensus-based good governance principles, focusing on participation, transparency, accountability, information and responsiveness. The assessment was conducted through face-to-face interviews with 11 key informants who were involved in the development of the strategy. RESULTS: The HP-GGT enabled policy-makers to reflect on their governance practices when developing a mental health strategy and was able to identify key areas of strengths and weaknesses using good governance practice checklists given by the questions. The insights generated from the assessment equipped the national policy-makers with a better understanding of the practice and meaning of policy-making governance. Identifying weaknesses to be addressed in future attempts to develop other national health policies helped in this regard. Using the tool also increased awareness of alternative good practices among policy-makers and stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: Assessing a health policy formulation process from a governance perspective is essential for improved policy-making. The HP-GGT was able to provide a general overview and an in-depth assessment of a policy formulation process related to governance issues according to international good practices that should be applied while formulating health policies in any field. The HP-GGT was found to be a practical tool that was useful for policy-makers when used in Lebanon and awaits applications in other low- and middle-income countries to further show its validity and utility.

How Cancer Supportive and Palliative Care is Developed: Comparing the Policy-Making Process in Three Countries from Three Continents.

BACKGROUND: Supportive and palliative care worldwide is recognized as one of the six main cancer control bases and plays an important role in managing the complications of cancer. Limited studies have been published in the field of this policy analysis in the world. AIM: This study aimed to analysis the policy-making process of supportive and palliative cancer care in three countries. METHODOLOGY: This qualitative study is a part of a comparative study. The data were collected through reviewing scientific and administrative documents, the World Health Organization website and reports, government websites, and other authoritative websites. Searches were done through texts in English and valid databases, in the period between 2000 and 2018. To investigate the policy process, heuristic stages model is implemented consisting of the four stages: agenda setting, policy formulation, policy implementation, and policy evaluation. RESULTS: The findings of the study were categorized based on the conceptual model used in four areas related to the policy process, including agenda setting, policy formulation, policy implementation, and evaluation of cancer palliative care policies. CONCLUSION: Several factors are involved in how cancer palliative care policy is included in policy-makers' agenda, understanding a necessity, raising public awareness, and acceptance as a result of sensing the physical and nonphysical care outcomes. The stages of development, implementation, and evaluation of palliative care in countries regardless of existing differences are a function of the health system and context of each country.

Factors affecting evidence-use in food policy-making processes in health and agriculture in Fiji.

BACKGROUND: There is limited research on the use of evidence to inform policy-making in the Pacific. This study aims to identify and describe factors that facilitate or limit the use of evidence in food-related policy-making in the Health and Agriculture Ministries in Fiji. METHODS: Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with selected policy-makers in two government ministries that were instrumental in the development of food-related policies in Fiji designed to prevent Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs). Snowball sampling was used to recruit, as key informants, senior policy-makers in management positions such as national advisors and directors who were based at either the national headquarters or equivalent. Interviewees were asked about their experiences in developing food-related or other policies, barriers or facilitators encountered in the policy development and implementation process and the use of evidence. Each interview lasted approximately 45-60 minutes, and was conducted in English. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed, thematically coded and analyzed using N-Vivo 8.0 software. RESULTS: Thirty-one policy-makers from the Ministry of Health and Medical Services (MoHMS n = 18) and the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA n = 13) in Fiji participated in the study. Whilst evidence is sometimes used in food-related policy-making in both the Health and Agriculture Ministries (including formal evidence such as published research and informal evidence such as personal experiences and opinions), it is not yet embedded as an essential part of the process. Participants indicated that a lack of resources, poor technical support in terms of training, the absence of clear strategies for improving competent use of evidence, procedures regarding engagement with other stakeholders across sectors, varying support from senior managers and limited consultation across sectors were barriers to evidence use. The willingness of organizations to create a culture of using evidence was reported as a facilitator. CONCLUSION: The use of evidence in policy-making will only become a reality in Fiji if it is a formalized part of the government's policy-making systems. A systems approach to food-related policy-making and implementation may achieve this by helping Ministries manage the complex and dynamic nature of food-related policy-making in Fiji.

Factors Affecting the Insured Organizations Participation in Decision Making Process in Health Insurance Policy Committee / 보건행정학회지

BACKGROUND: Due to the asymmetry of information and knowledge and the power of bureaucrats and medical professionals, it is not easy for citizens to participate in health care policy making. This study analyzes the case of the insured organization participating in the Health Insurance Policy Committee (HIPC) and provides a basis for discussing methods and conditions for better public participation. METHODS: Qualitative analysis was conducted using the in-depth interviews with the participants and document data such as materials for HIPC meetings. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with purposively sampled six participants from organizations representing the insured in HIPC. The meanings related to the factors affecting participation were found and categorized into major categories. RESULTS: The main factors affecting participating in the decision making process were trust and cooperation among the participants, structure and procedure of governance, representation and expertise of participants, and contents of issues. Due to limited cooperation, participants lacked influence in important decisions. There was an imbalance in power due to unreasonable procedures and criteria for governance. As the materials for meetings were provided inappropriate manner, it was difficult for participants to understand the contents and comments on the meeting. Due to weak accountability structure, opinions from external stakeholders have not been well received. The participation was made depending on the expertise of individual members. The degree of influence was different depending on the contents of the issues. CONCLUSION: In order to meet the values of democracy and realize the participation that the insured can demonstrate influence, it is necessary to have a fair and reasonable procedure and a sufficient learning environment. More deliberative structure which reflects citizen's public perspective is required, rather than current negotiating structure of HIPC.

An Analysis on the Nurse Expansion Policies through Policy Network / 보건행정학회지

BACKGROUND: Policy network theory was proved to be an appropriate analytic tool for the current social welfare policy making process. This study aimed to analyze policy making process related to the nurse expansion and policy output while focusing on the interactions and activities among various policy actors. METHODS: In this study, we used reports related to the need for expansion of nursing personnel journals, dissertations, newspaper articles, for hearings and debate policies for securing nurse data, and interviews. We examined three components of policy network, that is, policy actors, interactions, linkage of interest. RESULTS: For that to expand the nurse before the 2000s in expanding the supply of medical supplies have been conducted without much disagreement among policy actors under the government's initiative. However, there was lacked a close relationship between the expanding supply of nurses and inaccurate analysis of supply and demand. As the policy is applied between the various policy actors' needs and claims, conflict was intensified and many policy options had been developed. Government only took a role as a coordinator among policy actors in the 2000's. Also, it was difficult to find sufficient and clear evidence that policy-making process based on fair judgment. CONCLUSION: Therefore, it is urgently required to determine the policy through a social consensus to address the appropriate policy means and the process by correct analysis of the policy issues.

Network analysis of Korean health insurance policy-making process

This study examines how the decision-making process evolved in Korea during the initial phases of introduction and implementation of National Health Insurance. This study analyses the official documents and interviews views made with government officials and related personnel. We used the method of network analysis and multidimensional scaling in order to demonstrate how the major participants in the decision-making process developed and changed under the contemporary political situations. In the pre-implementation stage around 1976, major concerns were concentrated around the issues of financial support for social insurance, the fee schedule and who ought to be covered first. The total number of participants of the health or health-related organization was 61, which included the President, the Minister of Health and Social Affairs, representatives of special interest groups, etc. In the actual implementation period of 1982, different issues were brought up by the major participants. The number of participants in this period declined to 44 with the deletion of 19 and with the addition of two newly formed health insurance organizations. By 1988, as the implementation reached its final decision period, disagreements were centered on progressive premium rating and the administration of National Health Insurance. The number of participants increased to 60 after the addition of 16 participants. The analysis of this paper may provide some insight for other countries which wish to establish National Health Insurance; as reference to the policy-making process, it may provide some suggestions for when to initiate and how to formulate National Health Insurance policies.